tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post2093034910468159871..comments2024-03-28T03:26:33.219-04:00Comments on Google Public Policy Blog: Net neutrality and the benefits of cachingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-74586663874897328312009-09-27T14:47:00.276-04:002009-09-27T14:47:00.276-04:00What is truly ironic about this posting is that wh...What is truly ironic about this posting is that while Google claims to favor caching, it has not -- despite the pleas of many ISPs -- made its content, such as YouTube videos, cacheable. Thus, the only ISPs which can cache Google's content are certain "favored" ISPs which Google has deigned to supply with Google edge caching equipment.<br /><br />This allows Google to pick winners and losers among ISPs, endowing some of them with a huge cost and speed advantage over others. This is absolutely <i>not</i> "neutral" by anyone's yardstick. Apparently, Google is all for "neutrality" requirements -- when they are imposed on everyone else. But it doesn't feel any need, or want any mandate, to be "neutral" itself.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07814152985923903407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-61528283562678141042009-02-12T17:16:00.000-05:002009-02-12T17:16:00.000-05:00I agree with the point that you are arguing but fi...I agree with the point that you are arguing but find your argument is targeted at a symptom and not the source disease. <BR/>You are complaining about the symptom of Net Neutrality and the disease is a public policy issue of how infrastructure is funded and managed. <BR/>Net Neutrality is one very small symptom in the Public Policy infrastructure debate. <BR/>Infrastructure is a shared community resources and its purpose is to deliver value to the community in the form of service level and global competitiveness. It generally requires some form of public franchise to operate; said franchise being derived from the authority of the community.<BR/>Private ownership is about the appropriation of value. It is the consumer’s responsibility to make value decisions. Value appropriation/delivery is managed by community government authority in the case of infrastructure.<BR/>Infrastructure should be funded by taxes because if you fund it with private capital then you have the fundamental conflict between the delivery or appropriation of value. <BR/>The root cause of the problem that spawns the complaint labeled Net Neutrality is that government cut a deal with private ownership to own and operate digital communications. They did not make the legal concept of “once removed” part of the deal (probably due to successful lobbying by the private firms). That is they allowed the firms to participate in both the broadband connectivity and the applications enabled by the connectivity. <BR/>In the absence of any service rules preventing it, the broadband companies started using operational control to disadvantage applications and content that they did not add to their value appropriation (profit).<BR/>The government regulators were influenced by industry. They cut a deal that enhanced value appropriation and used their operational control to disadvantage their competition. Now you use words like “should not be allowed”. Well the government signed a deal with these people and now others are complain about the deal.<BR/>The root disease that you are complaining about is present in all aspects of American infrastructure regulation.bshannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01102629424520569848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-10352085983252824002008-12-28T11:18:00.000-05:002008-12-28T11:18:00.000-05:00If it appears to be a "restraint of trade" busines...If it appears to be a "restraint of trade" business practice, and if it has the same impact as a legacy practice that a Big Media company might use to control access, then perhaps we should worry *less* about the description and worry *more* about the enforcement of a fundamental law this is already established -- but often ignored.David H. Deanshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05497702989231830479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-84997052294262765952008-12-24T23:46:00.000-05:002008-12-24T23:46:00.000-05:00vaporland - in response to manish, you said bigger...vaporland - in response to manish, you said bigger guys will afford edge caching. Then what is this debate on net neutrality about?!!<BR/><BR/>the laws against monopoly, anti-trust, etc. are well-founded. If you don't have them, you will have sudden shocks, even if not surprises, like we had in October on the wall street.<BR/><BR/>Google sounds honest and well-meaning, but it is time we see and analyse their intents more carefully.<BR/><BR/>Just business isn't good enough! We need well being and continuity as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-45487107624284785292008-12-24T14:25:00.000-05:002008-12-24T14:25:00.000-05:00I've used Akamai, Limelight, AWS and other edge se...I've used Akamai, Limelight, AWS and other edge services. To equate those services with your proposal is a bit confusing to me. <BR/><BR/>Specifically: does Google propose to provide said edge services without appending proprietary Google metadata to search requests? <BR/><BR/>If you're serious about maintaining your pro-network neutrality stance, you should render any and all access agreements transparent to the public, and demonstrate how their implementation would support non-preferential FIFO access.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11424406732508116911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-37584780222307749992008-12-24T09:49:00.000-05:002008-12-24T09:49:00.000-05:00Net neutrality hmmm?As in providing the same servi...Net neutrality hmmm?<BR/>As in providing the same service to all?<BR/>As in not censoring things?<BR/>As in not doing [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google#China]these things[/url]?Leohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02939712218006471084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-23830306828246848252008-12-20T05:27:00.000-05:002008-12-20T05:27:00.000-05:00The big story here is mesh networking. Yep that's...The big story here is mesh networking. Yep that's what I said and I'm not crazy. If one were to colocate a bunch of the internet in mesh networks we could have free internet service for the most part. We had the best network engineers working on this there would be huge reduction in unnecessary data being transmitted.ymerejhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15659677792581004348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-91482975187511284952008-12-19T21:07:00.000-05:002008-12-19T21:07:00.000-05:00What you're perceiving is that there is an arms ra...What you're perceiving is that there is an arms race going on between Google's algorithms, which are designed to make search results *more* relevant, and SEO (<A HREF="http://newblogtopic.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Search-Engine-Optimisation</A>) consults, who work for those who pay big bucks to fool Google's algorithms into ranking them highly despite the fact that they are actually not very substantive and are intending to essentially prey on the searching herd. Google doesn't win every battle. But they are definitely fighting it, and at least once a year there is a huge upgrade to Google's algorithms and all the SEO sharks start whining their asses off that they can no longer game the system.Blonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02087216971146966912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-20471113626749672712008-12-19T06:30:00.000-05:002008-12-19T06:30:00.000-05:00Yup . . .This is good to hear--I'm glad that Googl...Yup . . .<BR/>This is good to hear--I'm glad that Google stands committed to network neutrality<BR/>I hope they fix their article.. I wish Microsoft would be more betterUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01525911784509057040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-9638161412870119962008-12-18T12:35:00.000-05:002008-12-18T12:35:00.000-05:00@Constructive Feedback,I agree with most of your p...@Constructive Feedback,<BR/><BR/>I agree with most of your perspective. If the federal government mandates free internet, I am not sure how the network carriers are going to make any money, unless they are to be subsidized by the federal government.<BR/><BR/>As someone who was a phone company customer before Judge Greene broke up the Bell System, I respected the original concept of universal service that the Bell operating companies espoused.<BR/><BR/>However, not being able to attach your own phone to an extension line in your house (you could not even own a phone, only rent), and having only AT&T for long distance service limited choice and competition.<BR/><BR/>We don't want that extreme of monopoly service to return to the world of internet access. <BR/><BR/>There are vendors who would love to force such limitations on their customers using technical means, of which the average sheeple would be blissfully unaware.<BR/><BR/>You state that Ed Whitacre was not speaking as an engineer or technician, but as CEO, the engineers, technicians and accountants answered to him.<BR/><BR/>He certainly got the attention of his CEO peers, as well as the net neutrality folks.<BR/><BR/>Is there some common consensus that satisfies NN concerns while insuring that carriers can make a reasonable profit?<BR/><BR/>The "take no prisoners" approach does not benefit either side, but I feel that it is the telcos who have the upper hand with their deep pockets, lobbyists and astroturfing.<BR/><BR/>My desire is that (for example) an ISP like Comcast not be able to degrade the transmission of content from competitors who challenge their business model.<BR/><BR/>Television viewing is dying, just like newspapers. Hulu, iTunes & even The Pirate Bay (among others) are having an impact on Comcast cable TV viewership and subscriptions.<BR/><BR/>I guess a lot of folks here don't trust the private sector to act in anyone's interest other than their own. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, a lot of other folks don't trust the NN proponents to take a look at the other side of the coin: if you can't make a reasonable profit, you're toast.<BR/><BR/>There has to be a middle ground.vaporlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15814355093119923620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-81366375170665364182008-12-18T12:11:00.000-05:002008-12-18T12:11:00.000-05:00@vaporlandLet's take a step back and consider ...@vaporland<BR/><BR/>Let's take a step back and consider the Internet architecture.<BR/><BR/>There is the access network (DSL, Cable, Wireless)<BR/>Furthermore the access network also includes the high bandwidth ingress circuits used by Google, etc to serve their content up on the Internet.<BR/><BR/>Distribution network - ie: a smaller ISP aggregates traffic from their customers and links up with a Tier 1 backbone provider<BR/><BR/>Core network - "The Internet <BR/>Backbone" that is a bunch of privately owned networks with public and private points of interconnectivity.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ed Whitacre (who is gone from the helm of AT&T) was not speaking as an engineer or technician thus, as crazy as it sounds - you cannot take his words literally as he doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to technical fact.<BR/><BR/>Instead lets look at what is going on in aggregate. Comcast Cable, for example has a broadband access network. They currently have one coax pipe coming into your house that has 2 domains - an IP domain for Internet and a broadcast Television domain for television viewing.<BR/><BR/>As we move to IPTV these two distinct domains will be collapsed into one single IP packet domain. The companies that had a "walled garden" with respect to the broadcast domain that they now control see that in the world of IPTV - any IP video stream that you as a consumer can connect and demand a feed down to your house means more BITS flowing down that coax pipe and thus - one less "channel" that you will watch on their traditional cable bundle. <BR/><BR/>Does this make sense? I am not justifying their fears - only explaining them.<BR/><BR/>Thus since the Google TV (I made up this term) might have an OC48 circuit purchased from Verizon Business in NYC and is sending high bandwidth traffic to customers in Atlanta serviced on Comcast infrastructure. In order to keep up with the customer demand - Comcast is forced to maintain an interconnection with Verizon Business at a certain bandwidth that is commensurate with the demand from traffic originating on Verizon. <BR/><BR/>The double edged sword is that there is a loss in income stream from traditional cable TV subscribership (ie: $59.99 per month) AND an ever increasing demand for MORE BANDWIDTH to address this interconnection demands.<BR/><BR/>The local access ISPs must rely on residential customers who have flat rate DSL/Cable/Cellular Wireless plans while these customers demand more infrastructure and drop their television packages.<BR/><BR/>(I am not shedding tears for them - just communicating the changing business models)<BR/><BR/>Add to this that the FCC seeks to have "Free Wireless Internet". Electrical Power Companies are pondering ISP access. WiMax entrants are on the way.<BR/><BR/>Do you not see the conundrum that is forming?Constructive Feedbackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13417405356099504421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-1360638766588719432008-12-17T23:25:00.000-05:002008-12-17T23:25:00.000-05:00@Constructive Feedback:(1) Not all of us are well ...@Constructive Feedback:<BR/><BR/><B>(1) Not all of us are well versed in the arcane terminology of network topology and distribution.</B><BR/><BR/>But, we are intelligent folks who know when we smell a rat. I think that <A HREF="http://techdirt.com/articles/20060131/0923209.shtml" REL="nofollow">this link from techdirt.com</A> sums up most telecom companies' perspective on network neutrality:<BR/><BR/><I>AT&T's CEO Ed Whitacre was the one who kicked off all the US telcos publicly talking about ending network neutrality when he complained that it was "nuts" that Google, Yahoo and Vonage got to use his network for "free." <BR/><BR/>Of course, he was ignoring the fees they already paid in bandwidth, along with the fees consumers pay for bandwidth (which they're only paying because they get access to various web sites and services). <BR/><BR/>So, now, he's trying to better explain how, despite the fact everyone has already paid, these service providers are really getting a free ride. He does so by trying to split up how internet access is really sold:<BR/><BR/> <B>"I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network - obviously not the piece for the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in internet access fees, but for accessing the so-called internet cloud."</B><BR/><BR/>He's actually suggesting that when we buy bandwidth, we're just buying the bandwidth from the end-point to the backbone... and everything else is just free. <BR/><BR/>He's conveniently forgetting (again) that without the content and services provided at all the other endpoints, the value of connecting from the end to the middle is pretty much gone. <BR/><BR/>No one is paying to connect from the end to the middle. They're paying to connect all the ends to each other. <BR/><BR/>That's the value of network effects, and it's what makes it worthwhile to buy internet access. <BR/><BR/>So, he's being both misleading and wrong when he says: "But that ought to be a cost of doing business for them. They shouldn't get on [the network] and expect a free ride." <BR/><BR/>It's a very telco way of looking at things. These are companies that are used to providing centralized services with a government granted monopoly. <BR/><BR/>To them, the only important thing is from the ends to the middle -- where traditionally the telco then provided all the services you needed. <BR/><BR/>They'll conveniently ignore that the only value of connecting to the middle is if you have unencumbered connections to all the other ends as well. <BR/><BR/>In the meantime, with all the big telcos so brazenly talking up how they're going to ditch network neutrality, how is it that FCC chair Kevin Martin can still claim with a straight face that there's no evidence that anyone is trying to break neutral network principles? </I><BR/><BR/><B>(2) which telecom company do you work for?</B>vaporlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15814355093119923620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-16795439575127385492008-12-17T19:13:00.000-05:002008-12-17T19:13:00.000-05:00[quote]If, for example, Google were to pay Comcast...[quote]If, for example, Google were to pay Comcast to prioritize traffic to Youtube, then people accessing competing sites (say.. Hula) would be slowed down because google suddenly is taking the bandwidth.[/quote]<BR/><BR/>I am personally frustrated with the term "Net Neutrality" as certain operatives use it for their own particular agenda and thus bastardize the word accordingly. <BR/><BR/>The "fast lanes" that are feared by some will be implemented by some sort of Class of Service queuing. Put your thinking hats on: WHEN does a layer 3 device enforce CoS? Answer: During times of contention for a given network segment, at the ingress point. <BR/><BR/>I have always had a hard time understanding the full justification of "Net neutrality" in that it assumes some sort of "right" to have a steady stream of unchecked bandwidth (up to the nominal rate of your service tier) from the carrier per you having paid $44.95 per month for your service. <BR/><BR/>Sorry to tell you but - just like the phone system - if everyone actually attempted to use their 6Mb Internet connection full throttle, concurrently - the network would melt down accordingly.<BR/><BR/>Despite the perception of an unlimited supply of bandwidth (assisted by the ISP advertising that plants this seed) cable and DSL are still "shared network resources". Failure of the owners of the access network to implement some sort of network governance would likely lead to aggregate performance problems to the detriment of all.<BR/><BR/>I think that the better case for some sort of carrier bandwidth regulation (that steps in on an exception basis) is the cellular wireless network. In this case the billion dollar spectrum allocation translates into "aggregate bandwidth" available to all users on the tower. This is truly a shared piece of bandwidth in the cellular space. One guy attempting to watch HD movies over his HSPA link will degrade the performance of other users in the same sector. In this case the failure of the carrier to implement some sort of CoS strategy (or after the fact administrative sanction per the bandwidth utilization of one customer) translates into angry phone calls to the carrier from other customers who are not getting their promised throughput. <BR/><BR/>I dislike getting "lawyers and legislators" into problems that are simply "growing pains" as we shift to all IP based distribution systems. Do you really want a group of people who believe that the "Internet is a bunch of tubes" laying down the rules for concepts that they have little knowledge of?Constructive Feedbackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13417405356099504421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-50551552142764903412008-12-17T10:17:00.000-05:002008-12-17T10:17:00.000-05:00@manish,It's tough out there for a startup, but ke...@manish,<BR/><BR/>It's tough out there for a startup, but keep in mind that...<BR><BR>Microsoft<BR>Apple<BR>Adobe<BR>eBay<BR>PayPal<BR>YouTube<BR>and Facebook<BR><BR>...were all startups at one point.<BR><BR>If you have a compelling product, or compelling content, you'll succeed.<BR><BR>And yes, if you can afford edge caching, you'll have a faster response than a competitor that does not.vaporlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15814355093119923620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-87282665547605834172008-12-17T05:23:00.000-05:002008-12-17T05:23:00.000-05:00Best Web Hostinghttp://www.best-web-hosting.inBest...Best Web Hosting<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.best-web-hosting.in<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Best Web Hosting is a free research guide to help users to choose the right web host for their personal or business site.<BR/>Our focus is on providing a simple, easy to follow web site to help users in choose the best web hosting plan, most suitable <BR/>for a small site or for a large e-commerce web site. The web hosting sites, which were rated highest in the industry,are <BR/>listed below and are rated based on affordability, Reliability, uptime and tech support. <BR/>Give your website the power of reliable web hosting service providing high speed servers 99.9% uptime, Valuable account <BR/>options, plentiful disk storage, huge traffic allowance and free domain name for life. Web Hosting is not just another web <BR/>host. Continue reading to find out the difference....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-18633675865916927612008-12-17T00:55:00.000-05:002008-12-17T00:55:00.000-05:00@vaporland:Appreciate the example you have given. ...@vaporland:<BR/><BR/>Appreciate the example you have given. Just one more quick question. What will be the difference as perceived by the user between Edge Cached content and regular content? I suppose the Edge Cached content will be delivered a lot faster right? So while Google may not be killing a startup company on bandwidth, it will be nipping it on speed of delivery by paying a premium to the ISP. While advocating this equality is tantamount to being a socialist, which I am not, I do worry about this trend nipping many start-ups in the bud. I know it is a case of affording a cooper mini vs. corvette but a startup would always lose this race with Googles and Yahoos of the world. What do you think?Manishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04140369402951789020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-75470069913825429022008-12-16T23:32:00.000-05:002008-12-16T23:32:00.000-05:00Will the caching servers be those of Google or of ...Will the caching servers be those of Google or of the ISPs? Given a choice, it likely that an ISP will accommodate more of Google's caching appliances than spending money on a new server by itself, to cache the rest of the world's content, which is diminishing, if you put Google search+ Youtube together and their growth rate. Add Blog sites like these and gmail and you have an even better idea, who owns the content on the net now. BTW, I hear Wikipedia is also hosted at Google?<BR/><BR/>Sounds much like earlier distribution deals. Host my content and my family, you'll benefit. If you don't, you may not lose, but you won't benefit :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-87050937261224975552008-12-16T13:34:00.000-05:002008-12-16T13:34:00.000-05:00Very interesting. If I wanted to implement Google...Very interesting. If I wanted to implement Google's Global Cache at work (in a rural area with slow internet) could I? What would be involved?Graham Sienerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07489492556897871546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-45410189754718005972008-12-16T12:23:00.000-05:002008-12-16T12:23:00.000-05:00Edge Caching vs Prioritization:Edge Caching:- Does...Edge Caching vs Prioritization:<BR/><BR/>Edge Caching:<BR/>- Does not slow down other content providers site load.<BR/>- does create a relative difference between those with CDN's, and those without.<BR/>- <BR/><BR/>Prioritization:<BR/>- DOES slow down non-prioritized traffic (this is the direct result of the proximity issue)<BR/>- Does violate Net NEutrality principles<BR/><BR/>For those people who argue that this these two techniques effectively yield the same results, think about this:<BR/><BR/>While Google would stand to receive a relative advantage under by using CDN's and edge caching, prioritization would yield not ONLY a relative disadvantage but also a independent disadvantage. Think about this in real numbers.<BR/><BR/>Lets say Google and iFilm both have load times of 10 seconds under the current arrangement.<BR/><BR/>Under edge caching:<BR/>- Google's load time drops to 5 second<BR/>- iFilm's load time stays at 10 seconds.<BR/><BR/>Under Prioritization:<BR/>- Google's load time drops to 5 seconds<BR/>- iFilm's load time jumps to 15 seconds.<BR/><BR/>It is wrong to say that from the user's perspective these have the same material effect. <BR/>1) The relative load times are dramatically different in the two scenarios.<BR/>2) The real load time is significantly worse for iFilm (aka the little guy) under a prioritization schema. If the internet consuming population is accustomed to 10 second load times, then they will be pleasantly surprised with Google's five second load time while still accepting of iFilm's 10 second load time. However, if Google's load time drops to five seconds, and iFilm's jumps to 15 second, users will have grow frustrated that iFilm doesnt load as fast as it once did.<BR/><BR/>I think this sufficiently debunks the hypothesis that the only concern is relative load time.Daniel B Sternhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14367772983830181251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-85859161063212345002008-12-16T10:49:00.000-05:002008-12-16T10:49:00.000-05:00@ larquod, "...since the bottleneck is not going t...@ larquod, "...since the bottleneck is not going to be at the last mile -- the bottleneck is going to be in the ISP's connection to the backbone..."<BR/><BR/>In an HFC architecture (i.e. cable modem architecture), the last mile can be a bottleneck because its shared quite literally with your neighbors. Indeed, one of the key issues cable MSOs face is ensuring performance along heavily congested trunks. Historically, they can approach this by subsegmenting the network, which is quite easy to do, but can be expensive.<BR/><BR/>You're right that cacheing can lower backbone bandwidth usage, but this is not an issue. Backbone bandwidth and capacity is substantial. Indeed, most carriers and service providers are testing 100Gigabit solutions today economically.Opus48https://www.blogger.com/profile/06997416418634009415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-75560288575611394982008-12-16T10:43:00.000-05:002008-12-16T10:43:00.000-05:00to @vaporland "If Live Leak cannot afford edg...to @vaporland "If Live Leak cannot afford edge servers, then all their feeds are equally fast(or slow) regardless of how many edge servers Google deploys"<BR/><BR/>Live Leak does not have afford its own servers. Companies like Akamai, Mirror Image, Limelight, and even AT&T which provides a content delivery service using cache servers, can provide it with the same solution. In other words where Google might prefer (and have the money) to build its own content delivery solution for YouTube, Live Leak can pay someone else that has already done so.<BR/><BR/>From my point of view, this is exactly how the market should work. and if Live Leak can't afford to pay content delivery service providers like Limelight, then its business model is ultimately flawed and it 'deserves' the consequences. In the longer run (or not so long given the pace of technology and volatility of demand) you and other 'customers' will move to other solutions that perform better leading to Live Leak's demise and failure.Opus48https://www.blogger.com/profile/06997416418634009415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-62263975858286821012008-12-16T09:57:00.000-05:002008-12-16T09:57:00.000-05:00@manish, again, think of an actual highway...some ...@manish, again, think of an actual highway...<BR/><BR/>some people have fast cars, some people have slow cars, some people are skilled drivers and some are not.<BR/><BR/>edge caching is when your car is being towed by a bigger truck.<BR/><BR/>traffic prioritization is when you have a police escort and everyone pulls over to let you pass.<BR/><BR/>I think some of the posters here are confusing net neutrality with net equality.<BR/><BR/>if you had 'driving equality', then everyone would have the <B>same</B> car and <B>same</B> driving skills - a socialist utopia.<BR/><BR/>when you can only afford a cooper mini, don't expect the same performance as a corvette.<BR/><BR/>unless the government is going to subsidize Hummers for everyone, different sites on the net can't be 'performance equal', because some folks can afford bigger engines than others.<BR/><BR/>but, nobody should be able to push anyone else off of the road.vaporlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15814355093119923620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-50269362680393601862008-12-16T06:28:00.000-05:002008-12-16T06:28:00.000-05:00Here is a simple question from a lay man... (Pleas...Here is a simple question from a lay man... (Please avoid tech talk in the reply)<BR/><BR/><B>If I start a video sharing company tomorrow, will my site be slower than YouTube (who paid for co-location) for delivering the same content? Will my business plan need a budget for to Comcast just to be competitive?</B><BR/><BR/>If the answer is Yes, I think Google has no business being listed as a supporter of Net Neutrality.<BR/><BR/>If the answer is No, I think we are good.<BR/><BR/>Dont give me example of FedEx tiers because there is no such thing as Mail Neutrality and neither FedEx nor its consumers are listed as Mail Neutrality supporters.Manishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04140369402951789020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-39707770483755597822008-12-15T22:57:00.000-05:002008-12-15T22:57:00.000-05:00The central issue with network neutrality is wheth...The central issue with network neutrality is whether, and to what extent, an ISP should be able to benefit from the de facto monopoly it holds over its users' broadband network access.<BR/><BR/>Every other component of the internet has multiple providers. On the content side, there are obviously many search engines, email providers, news sites, and so on. In the backbone there are a smaller number of competitors, but generally vibrant competition.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, in the USA at least, many consumers have only a single option for broadband internet access (the last mile). If they did have choice, I believe the entire net neutrality debate would largely go away: If I liked Google and my ISP gave me slower Google than the competition, then I could switch. I hope someday there is more competition in retail broadband access. Until then, some regulatory framework is needed. An unregulated monopoly is not a pretty thing.<BR/><BR/>Note that none of this discussion has anything whatsoever to do with Google or any of the other content providers. <B>The key issue is what control should ISPs be allowed to exert over their customers' internet experiences.</B><BR/><BR/>In the case of edge caching, I think it's material that this caching doesn't slow down performance for any non-Google sites. In fact it probably speeds it up, since it removes Google traffic from the network and therefore reduces congestion for everyone else. Personally I'm fine with a monopoly (the ISPs) implementing, and making money from, a technical solution that improves my experience across the board. This seems qualitatively different to me than monopolistic practices that result in a degradation of performance for sites that can't pay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6479491108286515994.post-16252206243755516432008-12-15T20:02:00.000-05:002008-12-15T20:02:00.000-05:00Thanks for clearing this up Google!I was wondering...Thanks for clearing this up Google!<BR/><BR/>I was wondering what the heck was going on as Google going against Net Neutrality is like Al gore going against Global Warming (no arguments pleas, I am just using it as an example).<BR/><BR/>~DarnellDarnell Claytonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10892014932718500845noreply@blogger.com