The Wall Street Journal's Google Hatchet Job Opinion: paper helps cable, telcos smear their biggest enemy... Tipped by viperlmw 
With Google being public enemy number one to cable and phone companies for their positions on network neutrality, broadband competition, and unlicensed White Space spectrum, they've been a constant target of attacks coming from phone and cable industry lobbyists and mouthpieces. The Wall Street Journal is playing vessel for the latest attack, pushing leaked information from the cable industry that Google is violating its position on network neutrality by promoting the idea of hosting servers on ISP networks: Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers...One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality. It's a nice win for whichever cable company leaked the news as it paints Google as a hypocrite ahead of next year's renewed fight over network neutrality legislation. However, the Wall Street Journal is badly distorting Google's proposal for political effect. As the Google blog explains, Google's talking about edge caching, an idea that would save ISPs bandwidth. That's something that should appeal to carriers, considering they just paid PR talking head Scott Cleland to attack Google for being a bandwidth glutton. Google's Richard Whitt explains: Edge caching is a common practice used by ISPs and application and content providers in order to improve the end user experience. Companies like Akamai, Limelight, and Amazon's Cloudfront provide local caching services, and broadband providers typically utilize caching as part of what are known as content distribution networks (CDNs). Google and many other Internet companies also deploy servers of their own around the world. Arguments that Akamai engages in network neutrality violations because of CDN caching have been solidly deconstructed, given that the packets for such arrangements are treated just like any other packet. Similar deals have been struck for years without the Journal framing them as network neutrality infractions. According to Google, these new deals with ISPs are not exclusive, and none require that Google traffic see higher prioritization than any other content operation. Google says they remain committed to network neutrality. While Google certainly is no saint, the Journal's piece stinks of manufactured controversy. Perhaps the Journal was honestly confused about the differences between caching and packet prioritization. But when two of your own sources directly dispute what you're saying (Whitt, Lessig) and your primary anonymous source comes from an industry that's spending millions on a campaign to smear Google at any cost -- some red flags should go up. At best this was horrible reporting -- authors Kumar and Roads conned by their cable industry source into a position that makes absolutely no sense. At worst it's a public relations and political hit job with the Journal's conscious support. Either way, expect many, many more of these types of disingenuous "debates" ahead of next year's fight over network neutrality legislation. There's a lot of money at stake in 2009, and as such -- a lot of money is being spent on both sides to frame (and often distort) the debate.
|
  DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Cox used to do this back in the very early CDLP @Home days We used proxy servers for edge caching and it was great (and optional).
Meanwhile it's sad what passes for journalism these days. | |
|  |  GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Re: Cox used to do this back in the very early CDLP @Home days Luckily, Google's proposed solution doesn't involve any kind of proxying. Users just get routed to the local cache server colocated in an ISP's facility instead of going out over the net. The cache server itself worries about getting the content over the net.
It's a great idea.
Another solution that the big ISPs scoff at is public peering. Google peers at TorIX in Toronto. All traffic to Google, YouTube, etc. on ISPs that connect to TorIX (and most CLECs do, see »torix.net/peers.php) can peer with Google and effectively offload all Google-related transit. | |
| |  badtripI heart the East BayPremium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | said by Dogfather:Meanwhile it's sad what passes for journalism these days. In my recent experience, the WSJ is about on the same level as Fox news. When I was in college the WSJ had a stellar reputation for integrity. Not so much anymore. | |
| | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
1 edit | Re: Cox used to do this back in the very early CDLP @Home days FNC, NYT, LAT, WSJ...they're all propaganda machine and which ones someone would say are or aren't will be tied to their political affiliation. | |
| | |  funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by badtrip:In my recent experience, the WSJ is about on the same level as Fox news. When I was in college the WSJ had a stellar reputation for integrity. Not so much anymore. Aren't both Faux News and WSJ owned by the same guy now?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | DogfatherPremium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | Re: Cox used to do this back in the very early CDLP @Home days Yep, News Corp. | |
|
| | | | Re: More ISP B. S. 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. This is so untrue. ISPs want to ensure solid customer experience with performance and regular speed increases. Prices for broadband have remained constant while performance and speeds have steadily increased year over year. The major complaints around ISP actions are from a extremely small fraction of very vocal users that feel they are entitled to unrealistic unlimited speed and unlimited usage which do not combine together with any service.
This is just more mob inciting reporting. | |
| | | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Re: More ISP B. S. "...extremely small fraction of very vocal users that feel they are entitled to unrealistic unlimited speed and unlimited usage which do not combine together with any service."
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. | |
| | | | | | Re: More ISP B. S. 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. Not the folks that purchase 6M and get 12M of service for the majority of their browsing experience. It is the entitled few that purchase 6M and download 100's of DVDs, Blueray and more content than they can possibly consume and then share it with millions of people that they do not even know. | |
| | | | | | Get yourself a T3 line then. Residential broadband is not meant to be used 24/7 at full capacity. | |
| | | | | | | Re: More ISP B. S. said by swhitney2003:Get yourself a T3 line then. Residential broadband is not meant to be used 24/7 at full capacity. are you fucking kidding ?
go back to dial up then . | |
| | | | | |
1 edit | Re: More ISP B. S. No.
said by wifi4milez: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. The network can handle it fine, you just need to be paying for a higher class of service. Residential service is oversubscribed for a reason, and that is to keep the costs low. If you actually want to use 20+Mbps 24/7 I suggest you consider a T3, however depending on where you live be prepared to spend a couple thousand per month on it. That should explain it all. | |
|
| | |  wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | 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. The network can handle it fine, you just need to be paying for a higher class of service. Residential service is oversubscribed for a reason, and that is to keep the costs low. If you actually want to use 20+Mbps 24/7 I suggest you consider a T3, however depending on where you live be prepared to spend a couple thousand per month on it.
--
Комитет государственной безопасности
| |
| | | | DesdinovaPremium
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | Sorry, but I'm not the one breaking the rules or behaving inappropriately, the ISP is. If you sell me a level of service, I'm going to use what I pay for. If the ISP doesn't want it used that way then they have no business selling it. | |
|
| |
approval from:
amigo_boy
Scatcatpdx
| Just the Facts Who's painting who as the "bad guy" here? Can't you just report the news vs how you want people to interpret it? | |
| | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Just the Facts 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?
Amen. DSLR is a great site. But, it's not a great place for "getting the news." The front page should be renamed Karl's blawg. There's not even an attempt to present the news without "spin."
If this had been about "leaked" details of government surveillance, we wouldn't hear a peep about how the leaker may have selfish motives. Or, how such surveillance is consistent with existing US law (like it, or not.).
Mark | |
| | | | | Re: Just the Facts I would disagree. One of the things missing from 'news' is actual analysis. I think Karl does a great job on the analysis front. THAT's why this site is so good for news. | |
| | | | | | Re: Just the Facts said by viperlmw:I would disagree. One of the things missing from 'news' is actual analysis. I think Karl does a great job on the analysis front. THAT's why this site is so good for news. Actually, I think pundit analysis is the wrong thing that has been added to many forms of media over the years preventing people from thinking for themselves.
Try analyzing things yourself and coming to your own conclusions. Op/Ed should be limited and we as consumers of information should be sending that message. | |
| | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Just the Facts said by Dec15 :Actually, I think pundit analysis is the wrong thing that has been added to many forms of media over the years preventing people from thinking for themselves. Try analyzing things yourself and coming to your own conclusions. Op/Ed should be limited and we as consumers of information should be sending that message. I generally do not disagree, but OTOH, there's something wrong with calling someone who is clearly a Snake-Oil salesman an "alternative medicine advocate."
Media ought to have an analysis role. Otherwise, they're just parroting the lies that they're told.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Just the Facts said by funchords:I generally do not disagree, but OTOH, there's something wrong with calling someone who is clearly a Snake-Oil salesman an "alternative medicine advocate." Media ought to have an analysis role. Otherwise, they're just parroting the lies that they're told. Historically "Snake-Oil salesmen" did not get media time so it was not really an issue. Just reporting the facts around Snake-Oil would also get the message across without the heavy handed commentary of today's pundits. The strongest weapon a pundit has is to use their forum to deamonize their adversary.
The problem lies when a reporter has strong personal or religious beliefs and tunes the language towards that being "the truth". If you try and re-read this story (and how it has been re-edited today) it is pretty clear.
There is obvious anti-cable/telco in news posted at DSLR. That is unfortunate as perpetuating hate does not make things better.
Limit Op/Ed and let the readers decide. | |
| | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Just the Facts said by dec15 :
There is obvious anti-cable/telco in news posted at DSLR. That is unfortunate as perpetuating hate does not make things better.
That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a week, topping even the WSJ article that launched this discussion.
The people that are here at BroadbandReports or DSLReports are here because they like high-speed Internet.
If they're "anti-" anything, it's antics that are likely to threaten the future of high-speed Internet. That's not an anti-Telco or anti-Cable bias, that's an anti-stupidity bias. And the news pages dish it out pretty evenly -- giving credit and discredit to companies, individuals, government bodies that impact the future of the Internet.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
2 edits | Re: Just the Facts hmm... sounds like a opinion. Comment section is the right place for that. | |
| | | | | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
2 edits | The ultimate irony I think is that the people who cry and whine about bias (through anonymous proxies or not) are almost always pulling a paycheck from the companies I'm criticizing while pretending to be objective observers. That's not only biased in and of itself, but hypocritical.
Even when not financially conflicted, I would guarantee you that the people in this thread concerned with "bias", were I to take a press release verbatim from a company website and post it as news without identifying it as PR, would have absolutely no problem with that information.
Crying "bias" is an easy way of disregarding an argument without having to think or make actual points -- and you'll notice almost always, those who complain about bias never have specific factual corrections to make....just vague, nebulous claims of unfairness....or in this case other nonsense claims, like I'm "perpetuating hate."
That's because the goal isn't accurate discourse, the goal is to censor discourse they don't agree with. To eliminate positions that challenge their world view.
The ultimate irony is we never claimed to be objective. This is a pro-consumer website. Our subjective biases in this regard have been very clear for going on ten years now. This piece even carries not one but TWO extra labels warning readers it contains heavier editorial content so as not to offend delicate sensibilities.
I'm fine with factual corrections. I'm always available by IM. But take the vague claims of bias (and in this case "perpetuating hate") elsewhere. I'm going to inject analysis into pieces in order to get to something that vaguely resembles the truth BEHIND press releases. It's not going to stop. Feel free to correct me whenever I'm wrong.
I'm sure users can get their news elsewhere if my analysis is a problem for them. There's a literal ocean of alternative options out there. I won't be hurt in the slightest if those of you incessantly obsessed with my "bias" want to go elsewhere. | |
|
| | | | | | | | said by dec15 :
There is obvious anti-cable/telco in news posted at DSLR. That is unfortunate as perpetuating hate does not make things better.
Limit Op/Ed and let the readers decide.
It is not a matter of "perpetuating hate", nothing like it, in fact. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out the continuing insidious anti-consumer bias of monopolistic oligarchies like the Telcos and Cablecos. Especially, when the deep pockets of the major players allow them to hijack the content of the general media, substituting their own propaganda for factual analysis. If it weren't the case that consumers best interests are not being served by telecommunications company's policies and practices, there would be nothing to complain about.
The problem I have with the industry is it does not seek to provide the very best of service based upon a continuously improving technology and infrastructure enhancement at a fair and reasonable cost, including a reasonable ROI. Rather, it is their aim to minimalize investment in new technology and infrastructure, all the while milking the consumer at an ever more specious level of granularity for its obsolete offerings. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Just the Facts said by ross:The problem I have with the industry is it does not seek to provide the very best of service based upon a continuously improving technology and infrastructure enhancement at a fair and reasonable cost, including a reasonable ROI. Rather, it is their aim to minimalize investment in new technology and infrastructure, all the while milking the consumer at an ever more specious level of granularity for its obsolete offerings. Does this include the steady speed upgrades given over the years without real increase in broadband pricing and the increased competition and new technology between the telcos (FTTH) and cable (DOCSIS3)? | |
| | | | | | | | | funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Re: Just the Facts said by dec15 :
Does this include the steady speed upgrades given over the years without real increase in broadband pricing and the increased competition and new technology between the telcos (FTTH) and cable (DOCSIS3)?
You are allowed to pick one or the other. FTTH and DOCSIS3 both come with large price increases.
The legacy technologies (DSL and DOCSIS) did increase speeds and/or lower prices as all technology does -- over time, capability increases and/or pricing falls.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
What you do at Christmas does not matter so much; What counts are the Christmas things you do all year through. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | said by dec15 :
Does this include the steady speed upgrades given over the years without real increase in broadband pricing and the increased competition and new technology between the telcos (FTTH) and cable (DOCSIS3)?
I don't know wear you live, but here in AT&T territory, in Silicon Valley, I can't get anything but ADSL from them, period. It is delivered over the exact same F2 cable that I was connected to 30+ years ago. The squirrels in my neighborhood have eaten, or worn the insulation off, most overhead cables to the extent AT&T came out and covered up the cable bundles with a hard shell throughout the entire neighborhood. Too bad they didn't/won't replace the wiring.
The fastest nominal speed for AT&T ADSL here is 6Mbps/384Kbps, while my ISP (Digizip/COVAD) offers 6Mbps/768Kbps over the same lines. Problem is, there is so much noise on the lines my COVAD ADSL bounces at any speed over 3Mbps/520Kbps. So, I pay the same price for my connection as I did five years ago. I might be able to get 3Mbps/256Kbps directly from AT&T for 25% less than I currently pay, but I don't want to take the large overhead hit on either up/down speed. AT&T's uVerse is an obscene crippled dream that will likely never materialize here anyway.
Comcast HSI is available for 25%-40% more than I currently pay, but it just came up to 12Mbps Powerboost last year. DOCSIS 3 is a fantasy here for the time being since there is no meaningful competition in the area.
Verizon is not able to offer service in my area because it belongs to the AT&T monopoly. So FIOS is never going to be available here either.
My situation is typical of many subscribers in many Bell-Balkinized urban areas of the country, so where is the benefit from the Telco/Cableco duopoly? You insist vast improvements exist in the areas of technology, price/performance, upgraded infrastructure, but I can tell you it ain't available around here! I shouldn't have to move to get decent service...and don't get me started on CAPS, P2P throttling, etc.. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by viperlmw:One of the things missing from 'news' is actual analysis. You could be right. But, IMO, hubris isn't analysis.
Mark | |
| | | | | | There are a very small minority of posters here who scream "bias" any time Karl posts something they don't like. Just ignore them like most everyone else does. | |
|
| | | | I agree. I would like, i mean LOVE, to read a news piece that isn't intertwined with karl's opinion and fact, sometimes there is an extreme slant to one side or the other. I'm fine with karl having an opinion and all, but it doesn't (shouldn't be) have to be interwined with the facts. Maybe something along the lines of a small section of words explaining the relavent links and a clearly labeled AUTHOR'S OPINION section where the author writing the article and voice their opinion. | |
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: Just the Facts said by cornelius785:I'm fine with karl having an opinion and all, but it doesn't (shouldn't be) have to be interwined with the facts. What would work well is if there was a weekly op-ed by Karl.
I follow www.osnews.com. They tend to just quote the opening (or relevant) lines of the news article, and then let the opinions be expressed in the reader comments. But, the editors (and readers) occasionally submit their own articles, which are presented just like any other news they link to, but clearly an opinion piece (not news).
The lines aren't always clear. The Register, Tech Dirt, et al. They tend to employ colorful hubris as a currency of credibility.
But, the way it is now, why even bother linking to the article? Just tell me what I'm supposed to think.
Mark | |
|
|  jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | I don't recall seeing it this morning, but now the sub-title of the article says "Opinion".
It's progress, anyhow. | |
|
rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Are ISPs worried? I don't think this has anything to do with network neutrality. In my opinion, ISP's are worried because of competitive issues. If two ISPs compete for customers and Google strikes a deal with one and not the other, one ISP now has a couple of advantages:
• Better customer experience for Google content
• Frees interconnect bandwidth (may improve customer experience for other content)
Of course the potential flaw in my thinking is to consider ISPs are in direct competition. Many folks don't have a choice for broadband. | |
| | jester121Premium
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL Reviews:
·voip.ms
| Re: Are ISPs worried? And if you're a local ISP struggling to compete, good luck getting Google's attention to set up a CDN on your network -- so your customers get slower service than the incumbent ISP.
Network neutrality is a lot like environmentalism -- everyone thinks it's a good idea but at what cost? | |
| | | | | Re: Are ISPs worried? said by jester121:And if you're a local ISP struggling to compete, good luck getting Google's attention to set up a CDN on your network -- so your customers get slower service than the incumbent ISP. Network neutrality is a lot like environmentalism -- everyone thinks it's a good idea but at what cost? This is actually a very good point, IMHO. | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO | Getting Google's attention; I totally agree and that was my point. However, I'm still struggling to see this as a network neutrality issue. | |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | This Doesn't Violate Network Neutrality Google is doing the right thing for its users here by ensuring that its service is delivered to its customers as quickly as possible.
However, I'd be more worried that this new thing Google is doing (if it is true) is more sinister:
»www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12···visited/
--
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty | |
| | KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | Re: This Doesn't Violate Network Neutrality 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.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | | Reviews:
 ·Comcast
·Charter
| Re: This Doesn't Violate Network Neutrality 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. I don't think this violates any NN principals. As stated before it is just CDN like and something I think they were already doing with YouTube.. As far as "no cost to the ISP" that is far from the truth. The major cost of delivering traffic is in the last 50 miles or so and CDNs don't address that. This just cuts out some of the national elements which are a smaller percentage of network infrastructure costs. | |
|
| axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC | It becomes a network neutrality issue if they make restrictive agreements that prevent other companies from doing the same thing. Could suck for the hosting companies if everything moves to ISPs though. | |
|
3 edits |  Lessig abandons Net Neutrality stance
»online.wsj.com/article/SB1229292···065.html
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." Looks like 1 of Obama's advisers on the internet and a possible FCC commissioner has rethought his position concerning paying for better & faster service. Bye bye Net Neutrality under Obama!! WOW, Lessig is starting to sound like a spokesperson for AT&T & Comcast while speaking the words of AT&T's past CEO about content providers paying the ISPs for their traffic.
I guess Obama has already fallen in line with the wishes of the telcos and the cable companies.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
 wenter99Alpha MalePremium
join:2003-12-09
Albuquerque, NM | What is Google Now, Anyway? I liked Google better a few years ago when they were just the fastest and best search engine available. What kind of a commercial monster has this outfit grown into? | |
| |  MikePremium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: What is Google Now, Anyway? yeah they completely lost my interest when they started changing the logo for special events. too much bloat. | |
|
Reviews:
 ·MSN
·Brand X Internet
·DSL EXTREME
2 edits | There was a streaming company that did this... This idea is NOT NEW! There was a streaming company out of San Jose that was doing this back in 2000. They put their customers' streams on a satellite and sent them to large ISPs all over the country to stream locally. They called it EDGE STREAMING, in that the streams came from the edges of the 'net, minimizing the number of routers the packets had to go through. I find it amusing that it took a suppositely savvy WSJ almost ten years to realize this technology exists-and only then to write about it it in the context that conserving Internet bandwidth is a BAD thing! | |
|  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | So we're back to this On the surface I'd say I have generally been for the idea of network neutrality. It's my view that this is what built the internet as many of us knew it.
The minute business finally got off their butts and realized they could make a buck on it, things changed. Now we're using these big pipes and looking for increased volumes of content.
ISPs, carriers like AT&T and Comcast like to take aim at Google as the poster child for what's "wrong" with today's model. Of course the carriers haven't done anything to artificially create a problem...nooo they'd never do that. It's all those nasty content providers. Funny how I don't see too many if any mentions of NBC etc. all the major networks who also stream video - more and moreso. Yea it's all the big bad Google.
We've long had an economy of paying more to get better service, something faster, whatever it may be. So there's something to be said for extending that to internet service, if when I pay for 8Mb service I actually DO get priority over those with a slower service. I can't say I see that happening though.
And if we're expecting every company out there to start paying n ISPs for better service...talk about barriers to entry if you can't afford to do that. The $64k question. Would my blog or the average person's site or some small biz site that isn't streaming content get pushed so far down the ladder that it isn't worth continuing? So it's down to that.
And once again we're back to questions where the answers have no foundation. There's nothing that says all will be fine, no history to prove that, and nothing that says it's by default going to be armageddon.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
approval from:
cjski
| I'm still disturbed by this.... I don't doubt that there are scummy motives in the people trying to stir up trouble about this but we still have an obligation to think about the implications of this move.
I don't think there is a problem inherent in edge caching.
I do think however that we are playing at the edge of slippery slope when google starts negotiating to pay to colocate servers on providers premises. Aren't they essentially paying to be on the inside of the providers network? I'm not sure that this is a line we want to see crossed. I believe google when they say they aren't paying to have packets treated differently. Saying that the deals aren't exclusive is less than candid. Only the deepest pockets will get to play that game of burrowing deeper inside the core networks. Are we supposed to believe that these negotiated deals(whose terms we will never be privy to) between communications providers and content providers aren't going to go further and further in blurring lines?
This only makes the issue very murky(which opponents of net neutrality love) and starts realigning the interests of key content providers with the interests of the service providers. We don't want a battle in which the public has to face off against an alignment of all the most powerful corporate interests both content and communications provider, and their whores in government.
I fear we will see more and more blurring of all lines until we will likely have de facto destruction of the neutral net, even if we continue to pay lip service to the idea. | |
| | | | | What Google is doing matters a lot. What Google is doing is extremely anticompetitive. You just have to take off the doctrinaire glasses of the "network neutrality" crowd, who are myopically focused on the pipes, to see why.
Think about this for a second. Google is likely to be able to place an edge cache at the site of any ISP it wants. Probably for free, because Google is big. Google, YouTube, and its related services consume SO much bandwidth and are SO wildly popular that no ISP would say no. But could the ISP afford to allow just ANYONE to get free hosting by putting a cache at their sites? Doubtful. Caches take up space and power and require access for maintenance. And of course, would-be competitors won't be able to buy space on Google's private edge caches. So, in what way is this neutral? Google can get its servers into places where CoolNewInternetGarageStartup.com can't. Google is still getting preferential access to infrastructure -- it's just co-location space instead of pipes. | |
| | | | Re: What Google is doing matters a lot. So what you are saying is Google spending their money to make their end user experience better and lighten the load to ISPs is an "unfair" because they can afford to do it?
As an ISP owner/operator for 15+ years I can tell you I would welcome anyone that could reduce my overhead and bandwidth usage for free because it ultimately gives ISPs the opportunity to provide services at a low cost to end users.
The problem with all of these network neutrality and Internet should be cheaper arguments is that the current ISP business model does not work for today's markets. It all started with the liars who shouted UNLIMITED and gave 300 hours of dialup. Now we all expect (myself included) to get the 24/7 uninterrupted use of a full DS3 for $19.95/month and it really cannot be done.
The solution is coming and none of us will like it. Sorry to say it, but even all you can eat buffets have a limit. | |
|
| | what's really sad is... how people who use the net can't figure out Google's game...
Now that's pathetic...
"Google edge" indeed...
That's just what people need, a collection of libtards weighting the searches... | |
|  fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| pretty obvious what's going on here said by Karl Bode:Even when not financially conflicted, I would guarantee you that the people in this thread concerned with "bias", were I to take a press release verbatim from a company website and post it as news without identifying it as PR, would have absolutely no problem with that information. Like these:
said by dec15 :
ISPs want to ensure solid customer experience with performance and regular speed increases. Prices for broadband have remained constant while performance and speeds have steadily increased year over year. The major complaints around ISP actions are from a extremely small fraction of very vocal users that feel they are entitled to unrealistic unlimited speed and unlimited usage which do not combine together with any service. said by dec15 :
Does this include the steady speed upgrades given over the years without real increase in broadband pricing and the increased competition and new technology between the telcos (FTTH) and cable (DOCSIS3)? said by dec15 :
It is the entitled few that purchase 6M and download 100's of DVDs, Blueray and more content than they can possibly consume and then share it with millions of people that they do not even know. 3 unsubstantiated talking points, presented as fact.
said by Karl Bode:Crying "bias" is an easy way of disregarding an argument without having to think or make actual points -- and you'll notice almost always, those who complain about bias never have specific factual corrections to make....just vague, nebulous claims of unfairness....or in this case other nonsense claims, like I'm "perpetuating hate." That's because the goal isn't accurate discourse, the goal is to censor discourse they don't agree with. To eliminate positions that challenge their world view. So I see:
said by Dec15 :Actually, I think pundit analysis is the wrong thing that has been added to many forms of media over the years preventing people from thinking for themselves. Try analyzing things yourself and coming to your own conclusions. Op/Ed should be limited and we as consumers of information should be sending that message. said by dec15 :
Historically "Snake-Oil salesmen" did not get media time so it was not really an issue. Just reporting the facts around Snake-Oil would also get the message across without the heavy handed commentary of today's pundits. The strongest weapon a pundit has is to use their forum to deamonize their adversary.
The problem lies when a reporter has strong personal or religious beliefs and tunes the language towards that being "the truth". If you try and re-read this story (and how it has been re-edited today) it is pretty clear.
There is obvious anti-cable/telco in news posted at DSLR. That is unfortunate as perpetuating hate does not make things better.
Limit Op/Ed and let the readers decide.
Presenting pro-industry opinion as fact, and any documented information and opinion to the contrary as hate, commentary, and bias.
said by Karl Bode:The ultimate irony is we never claimed to be objective. This is a pro-consumer website. Hooray for that. 
--
goodbye dad | |
|
| |
|
|
·
More ISP B. S.
The ISP's are following the usual M. O. Blame the companies hosting the webpages. Users of the Google website are using the internet for it's intended purpose. Short transactions.
