homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: goodroi

Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues Forum

WSJ: Google Wants Its Data Fast-Tracked Across The Net

 2:24 pm on Dec 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

WSJ: Google Wants Its Data Fastracked Across The Net [online.wsj.com]
Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.

"If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.

Google responds [googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com]
Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

P.S.: The Journal story also quoted me as characterizing President-elect Obama's net neutrality policies as "much less specific than they were before." For what it's worth, I don't recall making such a comment, and it seems especially odd given that President-elect Obama's supportive stance on network neutrality hasn't changed at all.



 2:37 pm on Dec 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

to create a fast lane for its own content,

Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality

Net neutrality <> we all get the same speed for our content.....except you.


 3:40 pm on Dec 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

If Google was working WITH policy makers they would go to them for feedback before it reaches the stage of going to the cable companies to press for more coverage.

Net Neutrality + full control of the internet = a rip in time and space (or corruption).

edit: funny typo.

[edited by: JS_Harris at 3:41 pm (utc) on Dec. 15, 2008]


 4:05 pm on Dec 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

Edge caching/localized content delivery (a la Akamai) is much different than traffic prioritization based on destionation or type.

No matter which side of the net neutrality debate you're on, the WSJ article is quite misinformed. Sad, considering they tend to be better than most at objective technical analysis.


 4:59 pm on Dec 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

In fact, caching represents one type of innovative network practice encouraged by the open Internet.

Google has offered to "colocate" caching servers within broadband providers' own facilities; this reduces the provider's bandwidth costs since the same video wouldn't have to be transmitted multiple times......

All of Google's colocation agreements with ISPs...are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements.

Sounds like the WSJ is misinformed about their story. Removing tinfoil hat now...


 7:45 pm on Dec 15, 2008 (gmt 0)

Many large internet presences already do peering where you put a point of presence closer to the customer in various regions to reduce the number of IP hops to the content therefore it's delivered much faster.

Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

The idea is great because caching a large bulk of common content closer to the customer would actually take a major load off the backbone itself and improve the so-called 'net neutrality' since there would actually be more bandwidth left for everyone else!


 1:10 am on Dec 16, 2008 (gmt 0)

You know considering the dramatic and reactionary mood of the stock market in recent months, it makes perfect sense for the WSJ to become a gossip rag. :-)


 12:49 pm on Dec 16, 2008 (gmt 0)

Peer sharing? that's what they're talking about? That's not creating a fast lane, it's creating a shorter path between two ends and makes sense.


 5:58 pm on Dec 16, 2008 (gmt 0)

Another take on the WSJ article: "Google builds a CDN. Does the WSJ know what a CDN is?"

It's absurd to call Google's plan a "fast lane". It's carpooling, using the same lanes as everyone else does, but paying Google's own money to use the lanes LESS. Or, perhaps, abandoning the lanes altogether and commuting by helicopter. Either way, the net result is:

(1) Google pays money.
(2) The result is LESS Google-originated traffic on the internet backbones.

Which is good for everyone, except apparently Luddite Conspiracy-Quack Journalists.

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  

Home / Forums Index / Google / Google Finance, Govt, Policy and Business Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved