[1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ articleerrors.

[Gary Gomes]

You raise an interesting issue - is Layer 2 or Layer 3 the right end-user
interface?

If the Layer 3 1st/last mile network is truly open, there is the prospect of
a wide range of innovative services (telemedicine, security, etc.)of which
the customer is free to select any that they choose.  If it is layer 2,
there may be a selection of ISPs, but the customer must select one or the
other.

This is very roughly analogous to the Cable "Package" versus "Ala Carte"
debate.

I would like to more thoroughly understand the issues and ramifications, but
right now I believe I favor a publically owned open Layer 3 network.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org
[mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of John Osmon
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:31 AM
To: 1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ
articleerrors.

We need to make sure people aren't fighting the wrong battle.  As long
as people fight for/against net neutrality, it distracts from the real
issue.

We need neutral first/last mile networks.  They should be layer-2
only, and consumers should be able to choose which ISP that layer-2
connections hits.  Qwest's original DSL model works this way, and
it was a boon to ISPs and consumers.

Once we have a plethora of ISPs to choose from, we can let each 
ISP do whatever prioritization/caching they want.  Since we're free to
switch between them, we can find one that matches our preferences.  

*IF* you assume that the last mile connection also defines your choice
in ISP, *THEN* network neutrality is an important argument.

Turn the argument around.  Fight for a framework where network
neutrality isn't a requirement.



On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:17:25AM -0800, Richard Lowenberg wrote:
> Net neutrality and the benefits of caching
> 
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/
> 
> Monday, December 15, 2008 at 12:14 AM
> Posted by Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel
> 
> One of the first posts I wrote for this blog last summer tried to define
what we
> at Google mean when we talk about the concept of net neutrality.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> _______________________________________________
> 1st-mile-nm mailing list
> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm
_______________________________________________
1st-mile-nm mailing list
1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org
http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm