On why Net Neutrality is stillborn and there will be no funeral.

I've come to the conclusion that the impassioned "Net Neutrality" topic is not only mutual hubris (from both sides of the issue) but a dead horse.

My gut feeling was validated last night when Robert X Cringely dropped his latest column, "We Don't Need No Stinking Best Effort: Net neutrality may have been just a fantasy all along."

In a nutshell, ISP's already give priority to certain packets (DNS for example, as they should -- we all want our pages to load faster), the cable company has already configured their network to give priority to VoIP (as they should -- you don't have to buy VoIP from them to get Net access, or television.) Beside that, the ISP's have a number of other tricks up their sleeves to throttle bandwidth either way- even in a ways that might seem to enforce Net Neutrality, but in reality might make the web slower!

Before you think I've lost my mind and turned trust over to the telco's & ISPs let me back up and put the whole "argument" in perspective: There is NO Neutral Ground in this battle. The players aren't even speaking to the same issues half the time. At the end of the day...It's all about who pays. The Content Providers or the Users. The content providers don't want to pay. By wrapping the issue up in emotion (and even legislation) safeguards are added against efforts to make them pay. My question, since this has become an emotional & misunderstood issue for the public at large is, how concerned are they about us paying more?

Google and it's faithful got spooked to shit, when they heard that Ed Whitacre, the CEO of AT&T, wanted to make Google pay him for generating traffic that passed over his wires. This comment was pure success (revenue) envy - it's a big stretch for AT&T to try and extract money from Google just for being a destination of their customers! If Google or any other content providers are cause for network congestion on a carriers network, it stands to reason that the carriers customers (you know, the ones already paying for the service) are the ones generating that traffic - regardless of what kind of traffic it is!

Packet Prioritization will find a way be neutral enough for the corporate proponents of Net Neutrality as long as they don't have to pay for it. We will, and we always do.

That's just the way it goes.

Is Google pulling a Net Neutrality Head fake?

Drew Clark has a great piece today on GigaOm entitled: Is Google Changing Its Position on Net Neutrality?

Basically, Google's Senior Policy Counsel, Andrew McLaughlin, made some comments that he thought the FCC should be "cut out" of enforcing Net Neutrality regarding the Cable providers vs. the Telcos, and that it should be the domain of the FTC (!) This is a big deal, because both pieces of pending Net Neutrality legislation squarely place the FCC in charge of enforcing the issue. Evidentially, some at Google feel that it's OK to differentiate between charging for various different "services" (which could ultimately all be IP packets) as long as its charged to the end user and not to them.

These comments come from a Tech Summit held in San Jose and came on the heels of those made by Google's TV chief to cable operators in Europe about how the web and Google's infrastructure couldn't scale to support IPTV. Both comments are still reverberating across the web.

I must admit it's refreshing to see that I'm not the only one who sees a connection (or in this case, a dis-connection) between Google's Net Neutrality lobbying efforts and their new overtures to partner with Cable/Satellite television. The concern stems form the idea that in a converged, digital, world all data is ultimately the same ... already we've seen the erosion of distinction between a "TV service provider" and a "Phone service provider" - both are merely bringing "bit streams" and/or "packets" into your home. It's just the pipes, or delivery mechanisms, that differ

Perhaps there's no conspiracy or "head fake" fake here at all, but the perception lingers. Forgivably, Google is a big "for profit" institution with a lot smart & talented people driving it. Perhaps we're seeing an internal struggle play-out as their growth motives intersect and perhaps conflict with their idealistic, yet official Company position on the matter.

Google + Your Cable Company = advanced services for your TV

Whether or not the 'Net can currently withstand multi-cast IPTV delivery (and Google has changed it's tune and says that it CAN, despite what we heard earlier), the thought of the marriage of Google's indexing & targeted advertising with Cable/Satellite Television could be revolutionary not for TV over the Internet, but for TV over the TV Set

It could also be to the detriment of the Internet by not supporting IPTV though! IPTV is more "net-neutral" than CATV because the cable franchises differentiate between & charge seperately for the video and data services they deliver over the same pipe. In our idealized, digital world, isn't it all the same? What if in 3-5 years (or sooner), it's not necessary to pay twice?

I know that with the depth of engineering talent in the telecosm, on Google's engineering bench, with it's world class cloud-network, and technological innovation, amazing things are possible. Before you say, "the internet wasn't designed for multi-cast TV" Remember, it wasn't designed for Streaming, VoIP, or Music downloading either. A lot of people lost a lot of money because there once was a bandwidth "glut"

Google may someday soon seek to index & monetize CATV, but the Cable companies can meter for these new advanced services as much as telecoms can for theirs. The $ is the real fear from the "Telecom Hegemony" by the Net Neutrality lobby on behalf of the end user, isn't it? They are looking out for "our" best interests, aren't they?

Google throws a Hail Mary pass to the Cable companies!

As reported in Reuters, Vincent Dureau, Google's head of TV technology, spoke at the Cable Europe Congress. Some net-neutrality die-hards will undoubtedly feel betrayed by this Machiavellian business move, but it's smart business politics for Google.

According to Google's Dureau:

"The Web infrastructure, and even Google's (infrastructure) doesn't scale. It's not going to offer the quality of service that consumers expect,"

You read that right -- A Google Exec telling the world their infrastructure can't "scale" to the bandwidth needs of "TV over the Internet" (!)The Reuters story goes on:

Google instead offered to work together with cable operators to combine its technology for searching for video and TV footage and its tailored advertising with the cable networks' high-quality delivery of shows...One cable chief executive, Duco Sickinghe from Belgian operator Telenet, said it was "the best news of the day" to hear that Google could not scale for video.

Google is bluffing, folks. They have more fiber rights than some telcos. They don't want to become a telco and there's a big difference between net neutrality in principle and in application. Network operators should be able to tweak their networks for optimum delivery and QoS (Quality of Service) (without screwing the customer for it preferably)

It's puzzling that Google is speaking for themselves and Joost...According to the CTO of Joost, its delivery system is designed to accommodate relatively lower bandwidth & bit streams. In fact he's pretty bold about the advantages of Joost's delivery mechanism vs. YouTube and Google's:

He's very clear about the economic folly of using big servers to mainline video to millions of desktops. "You can try to cut costs by allowing only crappy little images. You can limit the run times or make money selling hardware. But eventually the bandwidth bills will eat you alive. YouTube, iTunes, and the rest of them haven't got a chance. We just hope they take their time realizing it."

It's ironic that Google throwing themselves under the bus, actively seeking the partnership of the Cable Companies as an internet "white knight." Could it be more of a desperate attempt to build an alliance with them? (preemptively against Joost) It has the added benefit giving them better leverage against the traditional network operators too.(e.g. AT&T, Verizon, BT, etc)

Business is Business...but, Don't be E***, Google