said by Mr Matt :


What are the ISP's complaining about. As I see it the fact that Google handles a large number of short transactions per day is a thorn in the ISP's side. The incumbent ISP's want you to pay for your connection to the internet and not use it. In this case the ISP's are wearing their pig suits.

said by Desdinova :

You mean the folks like me who purchase service promising six megs down and two megs up 24/7 but then get lambasted and capped for actually trying to USE six down and two up for 24/7? Hey, it's real simple: if the network can't handle that kind of traffic, fine, then don't sell it to me.

But Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service. Mr. Lessig, who has known President-elect Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of Chicago, has been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications industry.

The shifting positions concern some purists. "What they're talking about is selling you the right to skip ahead in the line," says Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, a Washington-based advocacy group. "It would mean the first part of your business plan would be a deal with AT&T to get into their super-tier -- that is anathema to a culture of innovation."

But some of those who advise the new president on technology have changed their view on network neutrality. Stanford's Mr. Lessig, for one, has softened his opposition to variable service tiers. At a conference, he argued that carriers won't become kingmakers so long as the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to pay it.

"There are good reasons to be able to prioritize traffic," Mr. Lessig said later in an interview. "If everyone had to pay the same rates for postal service, than you wouldn't be able to differentiate between sending a greeting card to your grandma versus sending an overnight letter to your lawyer."

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.

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.

An AT&T spokesman said the company should be able to strike any deal it sees fit with content companies. Yahoo said in a statement that carriers and content companies "should find a consensus on how best to ensure that Americans have access to a world-class Internet."

Richard Whitt, Google's head of public affairs, denies the company's proposal would violate network neutrality. Nevertheless, he says he's unsure how committed President-elect Obama will remain to the principle.

"If you look at his plans," says Mr. Whitt, "they are much less specific than they were before."

said by Kearnstd :

it is also helping the ISPs if all those youtube videos are being delivered with in the grid it means there is no cost to the ISP for what goes over their own network. and the ISP that is most google and youtube friendly would likely gain customers.

said by Desdinova :

Hey, it's real simple: if the network can't handle that kind of traffic, fine, then don't sell it to me.

said by dec15 :

Who's painting who as the "bad guy" here? Can't you just report the news vs how you want people to interpret it?

said by TKJunkMail :

A more interesting part of this WSJ story is that Professor Lessig from Stanford, the darling of the "Internet should be Free" and the anti-telco crowd, has switched positions on Net Neutrality:
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1229292···065.html
....

said by nasadude :

if the article is wrong on the basic premise of the story about google and net neutrality, why should a reader believe their characterization of Lessig's position is correct?