[Infowarrior] - Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web

[Richard Forno]

Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web

By VISHESH KUMAR and CHRISTOPHER RHOADS

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not  
supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly  
losing powerful defenders.

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry  
Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own  
content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.  
Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal  
network access for all content providers.

At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone  
companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all  
traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line.

But phone and cable companies argue that Internet content providers  
should share in their network costs, particularly with Internet  
traffic growing by more than 50% annually, according to estimates.  
Carriers say that to keep up with surging traffic, driven mainly by  
the proliferation of online video, they need to boost revenue to  
upgrade their networks. Charging companies for fast lanes is one option.

One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been  
reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate  
Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.

"If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at  
the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the  
likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.

Separately, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from  
a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each  
company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In  
addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised  
President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their  
views on the subject.

The contentious issue has wide ramifications for the Internet as a  
platform for new businesses. If companies like Google succeed in  
negotiating preferential treatment, the Internet could become a place  
where wealthy companies get faster and easier access to the Web than  
less affluent ones, according to advocates of network neutrality. That  
could choke off competition, they say.

For computer users, it could mean that Web sites by companies not able  
to strike fast-lane deals will respond more slowly than those by  
companies able to pay. In the worst-case scenario, the Internet could  
become a medium where large companies, such as Comcast Corp. in cable  
television, would control both distribution and content -- and much of  
what users can access, according to neutrality advocates.

The developments could test Mr. Obama's professed commitment to  
network neutrality. "The Internet is perhaps the most open network in  
history, and we have to keep it that way," he told Google employees a  
year ago at the company's Mountain View, Calif., campus. "I will take  
a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality."
[Barack Obama]

Barack Obama

But Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University  
and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted  
gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able  
to pay for faster service. Mr. Lessig, who has known President-elect  
Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of  
Chicago, has been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal  
Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications  
industry.

The shifting positions concern some purists. "What they're talking  
about is selling you the right to skip ahead in the line," says Ben  
Scott, policy director of Free Press, a Washington-based advocacy  
group. "It would mean the first part of your business plan would be a  
deal with AT&T to get into their super-tier -- that is anathema to a  
culture of innovation."

Advocates of network neutrality believe it has helped the Internet  
drive the technology revolution of the past two decades, creating  
hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The concept of network neutrality originated with the phone business.  
The nation's longtime telephone monopoly, nicknamed Ma Bell, and its  
regional successors were prohibited from giving any public phone call  
preference in how quickly it was connected. When the Internet first  
boomed in the 1990s, content largely traveled via telephone line, and  
the rule survived by default.
'Dumbpipes'

The carriers picked up the unflattering nickname "dumbpipes,"  
underscoring their strict noninterference in the Internet traffic  
surging over their networks. The name heightened resentment among the  
carriers toward the soaring wealth of the content providers, such as  
Amazon.com Inc., that couldn't exist without the networks of the  
telecom and cable companies.

In August 2005, amid a deregulatory environment, the FCC weakened  
network neutrality to a set of four "guiding principles." The step had  
the effect of making the FCC's power to enforce network neutrality  
subject to interpretation, emboldening those looking for ways around it.

Stirring the waters further, major phone companies including AT&T and  
Verizon announced they intended to create new fast lanes on the  
Internet -- and would charge content companies a toll to use it. They  
claimed Internet companies had been getting a free ride.
[heavy traffic]

That unleashed a firestorm of criticism. A diverse group including  
Internet companies Google, Microsoft and Amazon joined the likes of  
the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association and the pop  
singer Moby in what they characterized as a fight to "save the  
Internet." The coalition claimed such steps could endanger freedom of  
speech.

Advocates of network neutrality also claimed that dismantling the rule  
would be the first step toward distributors gaining control over  
content, since they could dictate traffic according to fees charged to  
content providers. The fortunes of a certain Web site, in other words,  
might depend on how much it could pay network providers, rather than  
on its popularity.

That concern would grow if the carriers themselves offer content,  
which some have tried, with mixed success. AT&T, the country's largest  
broadband provider, recently launched its own online video service,  
called VideoCrawler, to compete with YouTube and others.

"One way AT&T can win that competition is to give their own video  
service preferential treatment on their network," says Robert  
Topolski, a networking engineer based in Portland, Ore. An AT&T  
spokesman says the company has no plans to give VideoCrawler  
preferential treatment on its network.

Mr. Topolski discovered that Comcast was slowing a video file-sharing  
service called BitTorrent. That discovery eventually led to sanctions  
against Comcast by the FCC. Comcast has appealed the decision, arguing  
the FCC did not have the authority to make such a ruling.

In 2006, Microsoft felt strongly enough about the issue that it wrote  
Congress to declare that saving network neutrality "could dictate  
whether the U.S. will continue to lead the world in Internet-related  
technologies."

The debate eventually reached a stalemate. Legislation to codify  
network neutrality failed to pass, and carriers backed off their plans  
for a tiered Internet.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama spoke frequently about the  
Internet, which was a critical tool in his grass-roots effort to reach  
new voters, and the importance of network neutrality. "Once providers  
start to give privilege to some Web sites and applications over  
others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out," he told Google  
employees a year ago when he campaigned at the company. "And then we  
all lose."
Obama Advisers

But some of those who advise the new president on technology have  
changed their view on network neutrality. Stanford's Mr. Lessig, for  
one, has softened his opposition to variable service tiers. At a  
conference, he argued that carriers won't become kingmakers so long as  
the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to  
pay it.

"There are good reasons to be able to prioritize traffic," Mr. Lessig  
said later in an interview. "If everyone had to pay the same rates for  
postal service, than you wouldn't be able to differentiate between  
sending a greeting card to your grandma versus sending an overnight  
letter to your lawyer."

Some telecom experts say that broadband is the most profitable service  
offered by phone and cable companies, and they are simply trying to  
offset declining revenue from their traditional phone business.

In the two years since Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other Internet  
companies lined up in favor of network neutrality, the landscape has  
changed. The Internet companies have formed partnerships with phone  
and cable companies, making them more dependent on one another.

Microsoft, which appealed to Congress to save network neutrality just  
two years ago, has changed its position completely. "Network  
neutrality is a policy avenue the company is no longer pursuing,"  
Microsoft said in a statement. The Redmond, Wash., software giant now  
favors legislation to allow network operators to offer different tiers  
of service to content companies.

Microsoft has a deal to provide software for AT&T's Internet  
television service. A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment whether  
this arrangement affected the company's position on network neutrality.

Amazon's popular digital-reading device, called the Kindle, offers a  
dedicated, faster download service, an arrangement Amazon has with  
Sprint. That has prompted questions in the blogosphere about whether  
the service violates network neutrality.

"Amazon continues to support adoption of net neutrality rules to  
protect the longstanding, fundamental openness of the Internet,"  
Amazon said in a statement. It declined to elaborate on its Kindle  
arrangement.

Amazon had withdrawn from the coalition of companies supporting net  
neutrality, but it recently was listed once again on the group's Web  
site. It declined to comment on whether carriers should be allowed to  
prioritize traffic.

Yahoo now has a digital subscriber-line partnership with AT&T. Some  
have speculated that the deal has caused Yahoo to go silent on the  
network-neutrality issue.

An AT&T spokesman said the company should be able to strike any deal  
it sees fit with content companies. Yahoo said in a statement that  
carriers and content companies "should find a consensus on how best to  
ensure that Americans have access to a world-class Internet."
Google Connections

Google, with its dominant market position and its perceived ties to  
the Obama team, may hold the most sway. One of President-elect Obama's  
most visible supporters during the campaign was Eric Schmidt, Google's  
chief executive officer. Mr. Schmidt remains an adviser during the  
transition.
[Eric Schmidt]

Eric Schmidt

Google's proposed arrangement with network providers, internally  
called OpenEdge, would place Google servers directly within the  
network of the service providers, according to documents reviewed by  
the Journal. The setup would accelerate Google's service for users.  
Google has asked the providers it has approached not to talk about the  
idea, according to people familiar with the plans.

Asked about OpenEdge, Google said only that other companies such as  
Yahoo and Microsoft could strike similar deals if they desired. But  
Google's move, if successful, would give it an advantage available to  
very few.

The matter could come to a head quickly. In approving AT&T's 2006  
acquisition of Bell South, the FCC made AT&T agree to shelve plans for  
a fast lane for 30 months. That moratorium expires in the middle of  
next year. A Democratic lawmaker has already promised new network- 
neutrality legislation early in 2009. And a new chairman of the FCC  
could take a stricter position on forcing companies to comply with  
network neutrality.

Richard Whitt, Google's head of public affairs, denies the company's  
proposal would violate network neutrality. Nevertheless, he says he's  
unsure how committed President-elect Obama will remain to the principle.

"If you look at his plans," says Mr. Whitt, "they are much less  
specific than they were before."

Write to Vishesh Kumar at vishesh.kumar at wsj.com and Christopher Rhoads  
at christopher.rhoads at wsj.com