Om Malik has some interesting analysis of Google and its stance on Net Neutrality. The genesis of the story is a Wall Street Journal article discussing Google and how it is looking to peer its caching devices directly with network operators. This would allow Google's content to get to you faster than other content and would reduce the bandwidth requirements for carriers.
What is Malik's take on Google after reading this story?
Given how close President-elect Obama is to the current Google management, I can only fear the worst. Many startups might skip over this issue, which I constantly bring up, but they need to wake up and realize that in the end they are all going to be impacted if network neutrality is backstabbed to death. If Google can buy better performance for its service, your web app might be at a disadvantage. If the cost of doing business means paying baksheesh to the carriers, then it is the end of innovation as we know it.
A part of me doesn't want to believe this report -- I mean it goes against everything Google stands for. If true -- and I have no reason to doubt a fine publication like the Wall Street Journal -- it proves for once and for all that Google's talk about 'do no evil' is nothing more than hot air, a fancy phrase designed to get more publicity than anything else. Google, at the very core, is no different than any other monopoly before it.
A part of me doesn't want to believe this report -- I mean it goes against everything Google stands for. If true -- and I have no reason to doubt a fine publication like the Wall Street Journal -- it proves for once and for all that Google's talk about 'do no evil' is nothing more than hot air, a fancy phrase designed to get more publicity than anything else. Google, at the very core, is no different than any other monopoly before it.
Ouch but if the story is true, how can you argue with him?
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
twitter
![02digi.xlarge1[1].jpg](http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/assets_c/2009/01/02digi.xlarge1[1]-thumb-150xauto-5678.jpg)
Let's see if the WSJs Tuesday edition will have a correction of the story...
We were discussing this on Geekazine live on Ustream tonight. here's my take:
How is deploying a CDN network evil? Akamai has been providing this service for a while for $$. AT&T and VZ got into the game this year - but they own the pipes, the backbone and now the content distro.
Microsoft uses Akamai but is looking at Limelight. Amazon rolled out its own CDN this year. Google has been directly peering at prime locations (like 56 in ATL) to anyone in the building that had a cat5 cable).
A simple case of WSJ not knowing the tech -- and everyone else being bored (and lazy).