graeme_p - 3:11 am on Aug 7, 2010 (gmt 0)
@ppc_newbie, that is not a redefinition of network neutrality: it is a reasonable one, and certainly not a new definition. It is sufficient to ensure a level playing field in the market - so that small websites do not get locked out, or consumers are steered towards certain services.
It is also how Google have always defined network neutrality. From three years ago:
We also stated that it may be a reasonable business practice to prioritize all packets of a certain application type. Our rationale for that position is that there may well be tangible end user benefits from giving preferential treatment to certain Internet packets, such as those in a streaming video transmission, in order to enhance the end user experience.
Discriminating between types of traffic is traffic shaping. It is a good idea: email does not need the same QoS as VOIP, a video download does not require the same bandwidth that streaming video does.
The linked articles suggest that traffic shaping is something new. The technology has existed for a long time - telcos have been giving VOIP priority, at least in the case of carrying PSTN voice internally on an IP network, on their networks for at least a decade. It would be very surprising if the technology was not applied elsewhere at all at the time.
I think a lot of people, in the press and here, are being fooled by a telco organised PR campaign to undermine the campaign for network neutrality by pretending that Google has turned against it.