Google tossing their stance on Net Neutrality aside? Not so, says Google
According to a widely circulating report by the Wall Street Journal, Google has apparently changed its stance on net neutrality and has asked internet service providers for a fast track for its content. The proposed plan, internally called OpenEdge, would place Google servers within each provider’s network allowing near immediate access to Google content. Such a request is contrary to Google’s previous net neutrality stance and opens the door for an internet where influential companies get fast access and everyone else gets slower access. The article at WSJ continues to elaborate upon this threat to net neutrality by citing how other companies, in particular Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon and prominent Internet scholars have also softened their stance on net neutrality. Though other companies and individuals may be wavering on net neutrality, Google has responded to the WSJ article and strongly reaffirmed its firm stance on net neutrality.
Google explained in a blog post that its OpenEdge project is a form of edge caching where Google’s caching servers are located within the broadband provider’s own facilities and that this arrangement does not violate the tenets of net neutrality. Google further defends edge caching by citing Akami, Limelight and Amazon Cloudfront which all use the same edge caching technology to ensure fast and smooth delivery of content. Google is not buying a faster pipe, it is just putting its content closer to the users. There is much debate over whether edge caching is against net neutrality. Technically, the ISP does not speed up Google and slow down other smaller web content providers but the placement of caching servers so close to the end user does enhance the user experience of content server up from those co-located servers. Regardless of where your opinion falls on edge caching, Google is indeed using its financial clout to pay ISPs in order to get preferential treatment, a supposition implied by the original WSJ article. For the time being however, it looks like our Internet is still free and open.
Read (Google’s response)
Read (Original Wall Street Journal article)
Of course no. Google wants Net Neutrality, but for other companies. Especially Yahoo, Microsoft, AOL and Ask.
Net Nutrality is dead, it’s all about money and thats all that matters to Americans and American Business, Net Nutrality would be great if it worked but big money will win out, all that has to be done is buy a few of the right people in washington and volia, no more net nutrality.
@Ben-
What does America have to do with this? This is an issue of money. Companies are in business to make it, regardless of what country they are from.
I agree that big money will win out, and that is a shame, but it have nothing to do with what country people are from.
i am ok with this. We want government out of business in a free market right? Well the internet is a business and the ones with the most to offer and make more money have every right to make their product even better.
Proxies? Behind a service provider’s firewall? Serving cached content?
FREE Infinite On-Demand TV Shows, Movies, Music(millions and millions of digital quality tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, and FREE College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) @ InternetSurfShack.com
fence: No, not everyone wants a totally governmet-regulation-free market as it is usually a disaster. The internet is more than just business. It was created by military, educational, business, and personal interests and it can benefit more than just business. When all that matters is who has the biggest wallet, the argument goes that it will have a chilling effect on one of the greatest communications tools in human history. Why should it end up like television or radio where only the very richest can be heard and have access? Net Neutrality assures that speedy and secure access is available to all sites and resources, not just the ones who pay off the ISP.