Is Google Breaking Its Net Neutrality Promises? Yahoo

[Compassion]

Is Google Breaking Its Net Neutrality Promises?


" It started when the Journal reported that Google is quietly talking to major cable and phone companies about a deal that would create a fast lane for its own content. This flies in the face of the Valley's -- and Google’s -- avowed commitment to Net neutrality, or the idea that everybody gets an equal shot, and the best, not the richest, win.

The journal quoted one executive who was skittish of the idea, saying, "If we did this, Washington would be on fire." "

 

[npcomplete]

I suppose I am going to get jumped on for this, but my cut on this is that "net neutrality" will happen, and is natural in a free market. Let me explain:

First of all, I work in a research group where this is a hot topic, so I am not a disinterested party in the matter. One of the topics that people/companies/organizations are always whining about is "performance" and "Quality of Service" (QOS). This can be defined and measured in a number of ways (response time, capacity, throughput, etc.) but for now let's talk about a topic of interest to users: response time.

Like it or not, society views some pieces of information as "more valuable" than other, particular wrt response time. Emergency services is the most obvious example, but there are others. Other issues involve corporate transmission of information - and the cost thereof.

When a router receives packets, it opens the packets, reads the "headers", and based on the info in the header and its current view of the network, forwards these packets along an appropriate route. Since zillions of packets are being processed, they are frequently dumped into queues and processed in some order. Obviously this order does not have to be "first come first serve", but can be processed according to some priority. Also, in principle, the routes can be chosen so that some traffic goes along a preferential route... etc. In a large complex network there are lots of routers and links of varying capacity/processing power, so there are lots of options for choosing the way packets go through the network, and the wait times for processing of these packets.

Given the ability to treat traffic with varying priorities, then the question becomes that of ethics and economics. As a "free market" kind of guy, I happen to believe that those that use more of a product or service, should *pay* more for that privilege. Now some people think that everything should be free, and that everybody should have a beautiful oceanfront home in Malibu. Not possible. So given that we are dealing with a limited resource (bandwidth, router processing capability), then my approach would be to let the market decide, within certain limits dictated by the laws of trust/monopoly. So we are talking about classic market economics in the various network proposals that do not "honor net neutrality", and building in protections so we have neither "mob rule" nor "robber baron rule" in traffic management.

I *know* I am in the minority on this, but I would like to hear peoples arguments on why "pay for performance" should not be part of the internet architecture at the most fundamental level - given that we build in safeguards...

and like I said, I am hardly a disinterested party....

Edit:
FYI: When you send a message like email, or view a website, the email/page is broken down into small bundles of information called "packets", and sent to the end-user. These packets are then reassembled at the receiving end where you view your email/page. So the big debate is whether each packet should receive some form of preferential treatment based on priority, like emergency or $ cost, within constraints. Looking forward to hearing both sides.

 

[BitcoinDK]

One reason I am against this is: that it can be abused by "the powers that be".

Second reason I am against this is: for free market issue (funny you say you are one, but ironicly accept an unequal access to information), f.ex. lets say Google pay for perfomance an get higher/faster bandwidth, priority numero uno, then they will get monopoly for search engine market (more then they are now) how will a lesse/newer search engine get in the market when they dont have the equal access to the market?

One of Free markets most imprtant thing is: the equal access to information.

What you and I see different at this thing is, that you see the access to internet as a market where Adam Smith "invisble hand" is at work, while I see the access to internet (in our century) as a right for every people.

Sorry for my bad english.

 

[Jasonn]

I suppose I am going to get jumped on for this, but my cut on this is that "net neutrality" will happen, and is natural in a free market. Let me explain:

First of all, I work in a research group where this is a hot topic, so I am not a disinterested party in the matter. One of the topics that people/companies/organizations are always whining about is "performance" and "Quality of Service" (QOS). This can be defined and measured in a number of ways (response time, capacity, throughput, etc.) but for now let's talk about a topic of interest to users: response time.

Like it or not, society views some pieces of information as "more valuable" than other, particular wrt response time. Emergency services is the most obvious example, but there are others. Other issues involve corporate transmission of information - and the cost thereof.

When a router receives packets, it opens the packets, reads the "headers", and based on the info in the header and its current view of the network, forwards these packets along an appropriate route. Since zillions of packets are being processed, they are frequently dumped into queues and processed in some order. Obviously this order does not have to be "first come first serve", but can be processed according to some priority. Also, in principle, the routes can be chosen so that some traffic goes along a preferential route... etc. In a large complex network there are lots of routers and links of varying capacity/processing power, so there are lots of options for choosing the way packets go through the network, and the wait times for processing of these packets.

Given the ability to treat traffic with varying priorities, then the question becomes that of ethics and economics. As a "free market" kind of guy, I happen to believe that those that use more of a product or service, should *pay* more for that privilege. Now some people think that everything should be free, and that everybody should have a beautiful oceanfront home in Malibu. Not possible. So given that we are dealing with a limited resource (bandwidth, router processing capability), then my approach would be to let the market decide, within certain limits dictated by the laws of trust/monopoly. So we are talking about classic market economics in the various network proposals that do not "honor net neutrality", and building in protections so we have neither "mob rule" nor "robber baron rule" in traffic management.

I *know* I am in the minority on this, but I would like to hear peoples arguments on why "pay for performance" should not be part of the internet architecture at the most fundamental level - given that we build in safeguards...

and like I said, I am hardly a disinterested party....

Edit:
FYI: When you send a message like email, or view a website, the email/page is broken down into small bundles of information called "packets", and sent to the end-user. These packets are then reassembled at the receiving end where you view your email/page. So the big debate is whether each packet should receive some form of preferential treatment based on priority, like emergency or $ cost, within constraints. Looking forward to hearing both sides.

No matter how slow or fast certain sites are they would use the same amount of bandwidth. They would just load slower/faster. There is no reason for one site to be faster than the other. Depending upon your own internet access, all sites have the capability to load fast. Why would you want some to be slow? It just doesn't make sense from the consumer point of view. The cable companies just want to make more money by inventing an inconvienience and hindering growth. When i pay for cable tv, I don't pay for certain channels to come in better than the others. They all have the same reception.

 

[mdamin76]

When competition get tough, only the tough will get into competition. Am I right?