approval from:
cjski 
| I'm still disturbed by this.... I don't doubt that there are scummy motives in the people trying to stir up trouble about this but we still have an obligation to think about the implications of this move.
I don't think there is a problem inherent in edge caching.
I do think however that we are playing at the edge of slippery slope when google starts negotiating to pay to colocate servers on providers premises. Aren't they essentially paying to be on the inside of the providers network? I'm not sure that this is a line we want to see crossed. I believe google when they say they aren't paying to have packets treated differently. Saying that the deals aren't exclusive is less than candid. Only the deepest pockets will get to play that game of burrowing deeper inside the core networks. Are we supposed to believe that these negotiated deals(whose terms we will never be privy to) between communications providers and content providers aren't going to go further and further in blurring lines?
This only makes the issue very murky(which opponents of net neutrality love) and starts realigning the interests of key content providers with the interests of the service providers. We don't want a battle in which the public has to face off against an alignment of all the most powerful corporate interests both content and communications provider, and their whores in government.
I fear we will see more and more blurring of all lines until we will likely have de facto destruction of the neutral net, even if we continue to pay lip service to the idea. |
