-
Website
http://techliberation.com/ -
Original page
http://techliberation.com/2008/12/16/edge-caching-vs-preferential-treatment/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
MikeRT
195 comments · 6 points
-
eee_eff
803 comments · 8 points
-
mwendy
97 comments · 4 points
-
Ryan Radia
184 comments · 5 points
-
Richard Bennett
612 comments · 1 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus
2 days ago · 7 comments
-
The Deontological Case Against Net Neutrality Regs
4 days ago · 16 comments
-
Facebook Privacy Controls Change & EPIC’s FTC Complaint
1 week ago · 10 comments
-
Cutting the Video Cord: “Apple TV” 2.0 + Disney & CBS
3 days ago · 3 comments
-
Google’s “Open” Philosophy and the Conspicuous Lack of Open-Source Search
1 day ago · 1 comment
-
Google on “Open”: Myopic Self-Focus
Think about it. It's obvious that Google will be able to place an edge cache at the site of any ISP it wants, probably for free. Why? Because YouTube and its related services consume SO much bandwidth that the ISP would be crazy to say no. The ISP would surely save big on its backbone connection. Terabytes per month on YouTube alone. That's money in the bank right there. And service would be faster, too.
But would an ISP allow just any content provider to put a cache at its sites, for free or even for money? Doubtful. Caches take up space and power and require access for maintenance. The ISP needs to be strongly motivated, by big bandwidth savings, even to consider it. And only big companies like Google have that to offer. If a small Internet startup were to call your local cable company and ask for "co-location space," the person there would probably say, "That’s not a product we sell to the public." That is, if the person who answered the phone at the cable company even knew what it was.
And of course, would-be competitors of Google won’t be able to buy space on Google’s private edge caches.
So, in what way is this neutral? Google can get its servers into places where CoolNewInternetGarageStartup.com can’t, and can make its services more responsive than the startup's. Therefore, Google is indeed getting preferential access to infrastructure. It’s just that the infrastructure happens to be co-location space instead of pipes. And it has a big advantage there, because co-location is much more difficult to obtain than bandwidth. You can get any Internet carrier to sell you a pipe. But co-location space at ISPs, which is more cost-effective than buying pipes, isn’t necessarily even available to you unless you’re Google. So this is really, really anticompetitive. And how could anyone say it was "neutral?"
In the Dorgan NN bill, "broadband service provider" is defined as "a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free."
If these servers are co-located within the ISP networks, aren't they facilities used to provide broadband service?
Even if Google did not violate NN, doesn't edge-caching now make them subject to any NN legislation? Therefore, don't they have to offer non-discriminatory edge-caching on their co-located servers to any business on the Web? Therefore, if these edge-caching servers serve exclusively Google content, isn't that a violation of NN?