The Wall Street Journal has created a ton of Internet buzz, but not in a good way. In what now appears to have been a slam against Google, Barack Obama, and Network Neutrality, there are misrepresentations, misquotes, and pure fabrications seemingly tailored toward a desired end: create the appearance Net Neutrality is losing its most important supporters.
The article, by
That fast lane would be created by a Google project “internally” called OpenEdge and, Google’s Washington Telecom and Media Counsel Richard Whitt adds in David Isenberg explains, arrangements like this are non-exclusive on the access-side of the issue, not the content-delivery side:
“…if Google does edge caching it buys access. It's the same as when I, as a residential customer, pay $34.95 for one megabit DSL service or $49.95 for 3 megabit DSL.
The concern of Network Neutrality advocates is not with access but with delivery. The fear is that Internet connection providers would charge for expedited delivery of certain content to the end user, and in so doing would put themselves in the business of classifying which content gets enhanced delivery.”
Isenberg’s interpretation jives with Lawrence Lessig—a vocal and important advocate of Net Neutrality—departs with how the Journal has portrayed his stance. The article claimed Lessig had “shifted gears” and “softened his opposition to variable service tiers,” or charging consumers for higher speed access.
Writes Lessig: 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.”
Lessig isn’t the only named source disputing his portrayal in the article. Whitt, too, who calls the article “confused,” takes issue with a quote attributed to him:
“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.”
Those interested can read Obama’s still-posted stance on Net Neutrality
"This could create a two-tier Internet in which websites with the best relationships with network providers can get the fastest access to consumers, while all competing websites remain in a slower lane. . . .Barack Obama supports the basic principle that network providers should not be allowed to charge fees to privilege the content or applications of some web sites and Internet applications over others."
This strong language is the same as it has always been from the President-Elect, and if there is a new stance, the Journals needs to present evidence, not broad, questionable statements. In Obama’s explanation, though, we find the technical fine line Google is walking. Though open to anybody wishing to make caching arrangements with ISPs, the expense of doing so is prohibitive for most companies.
While Google gets a definite advantage by these arrangements, the ISPs are not actively (and fearfully, arbitrarily) deciding which companies can and cannot make the arrangements. This is one area that would remain market controlled (depending on how staunch one’s neutral net view is) by a content-provider’s ability to serve its own content, but the ISPs would remain “dumb pipes.” Caching arrangements mean Google can connect to those dumb pipes without special favor.
The Journal appears to have jumped on this fine line to create the impression net neutrality supporters are either hypocritical or reversing course, and it has done so with some pretty cheap journalism tactics. Kumar and Rhoads don’t offer access to the documents (in this transparent century, that’s often necessary), they quote anonymous sources “familiar” with what’s happening and named sources who dispute what was said. Quoting “sources familiar” isn’t too far off in Journalism World from the “
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!