|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.
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]
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.
|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...
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!
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. :-)
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.
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.