Comments on: Google to WSJ: I Got Yer Dumb Pipes Right Here… http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20081215/googles-net-neutrality-nightmare/ by John Paczkowski Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:15:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Richard Bennett http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20081215/googles-net-neutrality-nightmare/comment-page-1/#comment-3892 Richard Bennett Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:35:41 +0000 http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=9605#comment-3892 You say: [Google] is not proposing “a fast lane for its own content.” Why install cache servers if not to speed up the delivery of Google content? If they don't do this they're a waste of money. Whether this particular fast lane arrangement violates NN is in the eye of the beholder, but under most common definitions used by the players in the debate (of which Timothy Lee is not one) it is a violation because it bundles content with delivery. And yes, it is also a fact that Lessig's views have evolved, as all of us who've debated him over the years can attest. So don't be so quick to pounce. You say: [Google] is not proposing “a fast lane for its own content.”

Why install cache servers if not to speed up the delivery of Google content? If they don’t do this they’re a waste of money.

Whether this particular fast lane arrangement violates NN is in the eye of the beholder, but under most common definitions used by the players in the debate (of which Timothy Lee is not one) it is a violation because it bundles content with delivery.

And yes, it is also a fact that Lessig’s views have evolved, as all of us who’ve debated him over the years can attest.

So don’t be so quick to pounce.

]]> By: Mac Beach http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20081215/googles-net-neutrality-nightmare/comment-page-1/#comment-3858 Mac Beach Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:37:34 +0000 http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=9605#comment-3858 That's the problem. A few "experts" have a narrowly defined notion of what "Net Neutrality" means and have convinced a lot of less technically oriented people that we need a new government entity to "enforce" it. We will end up with a new agency, or department who will soon develop their own quite non-technical notion of what the term means ("hey we are dealing with the public welfare here!"). Net neutrality will become a matter of who you know or influence in Washington DC. Google and Microsoft will do just fine as they already have their agents in place. Bloggers promoting the concept now will be scratching their heads and wondering what went wrong. The Internet, which has thrived in a world where pretty much "anything goes", and don't forget, isn't being taxed like a lot of other things are, is about to be changed so that we don't recognized it. That’s the problem. A few “experts” have a narrowly defined notion of what “Net Neutrality” means and have convinced a lot of less technically oriented people that we need a new government entity to “enforce” it.

We will end up with a new agency, or department who will soon develop their own quite non-technical notion of what the term means (”hey we are dealing with the public welfare here!”).

Net neutrality will become a matter of who you know or influence in Washington DC. Google and Microsoft will do just fine as they already have their agents in place. Bloggers promoting the concept now will be scratching their heads and wondering what went wrong.

The Internet, which has thrived in a world where pretty much “anything goes”, and don’t forget, isn’t being taxed like a lot of other things are, is about to be changed so that we don’t recognized it.

]]>