The Googlization of Everything

If you need any more evidence that Rupert Murdoch's low standards of evidence are infecting what was until recently the greatest newspaper in the world, you only need to take a look at the fallout from this story in the Wall Street Journal.

Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web

By VISHESH KUMAR and CHRISTOPHER RHOADS

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.

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.

At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line. ...

Well, it turns out it took two WSJ reporters to misunderstand the issue for the rest of us.

The worst thing about this article, however, is that it posited -- without any evidence, of course -- that both the Obama administration and Stanford (soon Harvard again) Law professor Lawrence Lessig had or would soon shift positions on network neutrality.

Here is Lessig's understandably angry response:

...The article is an indirect effort to gin up a drama about a drama about an alleged shift in Obama's policies about network neutrality. What's the evidence for the shift? That Google allegedly is negotiating for faster service on some network pipes. And that "prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject."

Who are these "Internet scholars"? Me. And of course, because I have "softened" my views about network neutrality, and because I advised the Obama campaign about technology issues during the primary, it follows (and obviously so) that Obama too must be going soft on network neutrality.

I don't know what Google is doing, though if they are trying to negotiate exclusive deals for privileged access, that shows exactly why we need network neutrality regulation. (Though note, the article doesn't say the deal Google was striking was exclusive).

And I've not seen anything during the Obama campaign or from the transition to indicate it has shifted its view about network neutrality at all.

But I do know something about my own views, and what the Journal has done here is really extraordinary.

...

Missing from the article, however, is the evidence that my view is a "shift" or "soften[ing]" of earlier views. That's because there isn't any such evidence. My view is the view I have always had -- whether or not it is the view of others in this debate. ...

It seems clear that neither of these reporters actually talked to Lessig or anyone close to Obama's communication policy transition team.

And here is the official Google response to the WSJ story:

Net neutrality and the benefits of caching

Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel

... Broadband providers -- the on-ramps to the Internet -- should not be allowed to prioritize traffic based on the source, ownership or destination of the content. As I noted in that post, broadband providers should have the flexibility to employ network upgrades, such as edge caching. However, they shouldn't be able to leverage their unilateral control over consumers' broadband connections to hamper user choice, competition, and innovation. Our commitment to that principle of net neutrality remains as strong as ever.

Some critics have questioned whether improving Web performance through edge caching -- temporary storage of frequently accessed data on servers that are located close to end users -- violates the concept of network neutrality. As I said last summer, this myth -- which unfortunately underlies a confused story in Monday's Wall Street Journal -- is based on a misunderstanding of the way in which the open Internet works.

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.

By bringing YouTube videos and other content physically closer to end users, site operators can improve page load times for videos and Web pages. In addition, these solutions help broadband providers by minimizing the need to send traffic outside of their networks and reducing congestion on the Internet's backbones. In fact, caching represents one type of innovative network practice encouraged by the open Internet.

Google has offered to "colocate" caching servers within broadband providers' own facilities; this reduces the provider's bandwidth costs since the same video wouldn't have to be transmitted multiple times. We've always said that broadband providers can engage in activities like colocation and caching, so long as they do so on a non-discriminatory basis.

All of Google's colocation agreements with ISPs -- which we've done through projects called OpenEdge and Google Global Cache -- are non-exclusive, meaning any other entity could employ similar arrangements. Also, none of them require (or encourage) that Google traffic be treated with higher priority than other traffic. In contrast, if broadband providers were to leverage their unilateral control over consumers' connections and offer colocation or caching services in an anti-competitive fashion, that would threaten the open Internet and the innovation it enables.

Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open.

P.S.: The Journal story also quoted me as characterizing President-elect Obama's net neutrality policies as "much less specific than they were before." For what it's worth, I don't recall making such a comment, and it seems especially odd given that President-elect Obama's supportive stance on network neutrality hasn't changed at all.

One thing the WSJ got right:

... 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.

Microsoft has a deal to provide software for AT&T;'s Internet television service. A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment whether this arrangement affected the company's position on network neutrality. ...

One of the biggest challenges I have had during the composition of this book is sifting through the hyperbole. There is "gotcha" hyperbole among cynics and critics of Google. And there is an almost religious devotion to the company from those who celebrate technology for technology's sake and consider everything Google does for them to be a precious gift. This is one more example of this problem. We tend to hold this company to too high a standard -- one that it unfortunately set for itself. So the company has almost invited misunderstandings by virtue of its claims to virtue..

Let's say that Google shifted its policy on network neutrality (which, of course, it has not). That would not be a big deal nor a big problem. Google would do this because the company concluded it was in the best interest of the company. Why would anyone begrudge any company of the right to do what's best for it? Idealist, of course.

Google does not work for us. It often works with us (as in the net neutrality battle). But it works for its shareholders and its shareholders alone.

This is why I resent the "don't be evil" pose. Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Regardless of which big, rich, connected companies support or oppose network neutrality, the U.S. government should support and enforce network neutrality because it's good for the public, for innovation, for the future, and for rich and free speech. I can and have made that case at length. And I will again.

So the real news here would be that the pending Obama administration has shifted its postion on network neutrality. Of course, it has not. This article offers no evidence that it has. I know of no evidence that it has. But if Obama appointees to the FCC, for instance, were to shift positions for the sake of expediency, that would be a huge moral and policy breakdown.

So let's wait to see what actually happens, shall we?

UPDATE: TPM did what the WSJ would not do: report. They found that Obama has not changed his position on network neutrality.