Google comes up in the debate over net neutrality. ISPs have complained that Google should pay more because the content they offer fills up bandwidth out of proportion to the fees they pay. Net neutrality is a tough issue because the illustration offered is not necessarily at the core of the motives of ISPs. For example, in prioritizing bit types to thwart bandwidth hogs, companies could also protect their self interests (e.g., cable providers could slow online video to protect a primary service they offer).
While this is how I have previously understood the intertwined motives and challenges of providers, the Wall Street Journal just published an article that presents a position I find confusing. Google wants providers to offer them a fast lane. Now, the situation is growing more complicated. Providers may offer priority delivery of bits provided by paying customers (e.g., Google). Would allowing this business practice also allow cable providers to slow the video bits competing with the paid video business of the same cable company? These situations are different, but once the provider can slow/speed one category of information, will any justification for doing so be necessary?
You might not expect that the issue of which bits receive priority when passing through the Internet would seem an important political issue for the new administration, but the analysis offered by the WSJ may surprise you. The article notes that Google CEO Schmidt is a member of the transition team. The new Google position would seem just as much a violation of net neutrality as the thinly hidden agenda of the cable providers. One of the cool things about the Internet has been the role inexpensive access has provided in encouraging innovation. Hope this is not another of those “pay to play” political/business games.
Since the WSJ article appeared, Google has responded to clarify its position.
