"Google Inc. has approached Internet carriers with a proposal to create a "fast lane" for its own content, countering its previously stance of equal network access for all content providers, The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday.

One major cable operator in talks with Google said it has been reluctant to forge a deal because of concerns it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality, the newspaper said in its electronic edition.
...."

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1447331520081215

Here's Google's response:
http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12/net-neutrality-and-benefits-of-caching.html

Rubpert Murdoch's WSJ may be putting their political spin on this.

A. H.
Certainly possible, But I propose that since net neutrality vs. network management is actually a complex issue, the author simply does not know what he/she is talking about. So, the article has spin.

I would not be surprised if many ISPs already aggressively cache popular content providers. Not to mention the entire business of Content Delivery Networks relies on similar deals with big (and small) ISPs.

Net neutrality simply treats bandwidth more like a public utility and less like cable TV. All utilities are managed to deliver the best service to the most people. So are networks. This is fair and good and proper. Most utilities disclose quality of service policies. ISPs don't, but should. Government-blessed monopolies, vague bandwidth "promises" and dubiously useful features are all we get in America. Customers at least deserve full-disclosure, so if half our pipe is going to Googlezon we know that.

McNair is right and I don't know why so many have a blind spot on this.

Google and others already have an advantage as they have obtained expensive infrastructure that start-ups have to rent at a higher rate.

No government agency can fix this. In fact they can only make it worse. Look at the feds efforts to reign in Microsoft: Now every government desktop is running Windows by edict from on-high.

A Network Neutrality enforcement agency will not only *improve* lock-in currently held by big players, it will make it worse. And I maintain that is true even if the enforcement is 100 percent fair (which is unlikely). The mere existence of such an agency will be the nose under the tent for an Internet tax of some sort. Oh it will be imposed in very creative and invisible ways at first. But the results in the long run will be more of those mysterious and exorbitant "surcharges" that appear on your phone and cable bills. There will be forms to fill out in triplicate, lawyers fees and specialty companies springing up all over the place to deal with regulations, all of which small companies will be hard-pressed to pay for.

Big-government types who promote these "fairness" policies apparently haven't studied government very effectively. Either that or they are lying through their teeth in hope of lining their pockets in some way down the road to regulation.

BusinessWeek's article 'Net Neutrality,' Google, and the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/12/net_neutrality.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_technology

Lawrence Lessig from Stanford also blogged about it:
[http://lessig.org/blog/2008/12/the_madeup_dramas_of_the_wall.html]

Looks like Google has taken this one to heart, Google is always doing things they were always so 'high and mighty' about not doing before. Since their share price sunk they are getting savage, their true colors are showing.