Network neutrality, the definition problem, and content delivery networks

The WSJ has an article today about declining interest in network neutrality legislation. In reading the article, one will quickly notice the strange bedfellows and the continuing problem of defining "neutrality".

The article states that Google itself, the loudest and largest advocate for net neutrality, is considering creating its own fast lane in conjunction with network providers like AT&T:

Google's proposed arrangement with network providers, internally called OpenEdge, would place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The setup would accelerate Google's service for users. Google has asked the providers it has approached not to talk about the idea, according to people familiar with the plans.

Asked about OpenEdge, Google said only that other companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft could strike similar deals if they desired. But Google's move, if successful, would give it an advantage available to very few.

On a "definitional" level, this would be a non-neutral arrangement, in the sense that Google is paying to get its bits to consumers more quickly.

However, no one is harmed by it -- Google's competitors still flow at the same speed as they did previous. But because Google has paid to be closer to you, they serve you that much faster.

This is a common arrangement on the Internet: it's called a content delivery network (CDN). Many others already exist, such as Akamai (which delivers your iTunes songs and the pictures on CNN).

I pointed out that CDN's are decidedly non-neutral, while also being good for consumers. It's true that companies with more $$ are more likely to afford such advantages. They helps many, and hurts none. I consider them a good example of why non-neutral arrangements are more likely to help consumers than hurt them.

I was surprised back in the day by those who were advocating such legislation, including Google, Microsoft and Amazon. Why? These companies would be the most likely to be customers of a fast lane on the Internet, as a competitive advantage -- and yet they wanted it to be illegal.

Well, their positions have evolved:

In the two years since Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other Internet companies lined up in favor of network neutrality, the landscape has changed. The Internet companies have formed partnerships with phone and cable companies, making them more dependent on one another.

Microsoft, which appealed to Congress to save network neutrality just two years ago, has changed its position completely. "Network neutrality is a policy avenue the company is no longer pursuing," Microsoft said in a statement. The Redmond, Wash., software giant now favors legislation to allow network operators to offer different tiers of service to content companies.

Microsoft has a deal to provide software for AT&T's Internet television service. A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment whether this arrangement affected the company's position on network neutrality.

[...]

Amazon had withdrawn from the coalition of companies supporting net neutrality, but it recently was listed once again on the group's Web site. It declined to comment on whether carriers should be allowed to prioritize traffic.

Yahoo now has a digital subscriber-line partnership with AT&T. Some have speculated that the deal has caused Yahoo to go silent on the network-neutrality issue.

Comments

[Manish]

I still think that google has every right to get what info the can about us...After all they've made our lives soo much easier!! Even though adsense compensates for this I still think they have every right to go ahead with it