The flaw in net neutrality-ers defense of Google Caching -- non-discriminatory relativism

The blogosphere's flaming of the Wall Street Journal's story on Google caching/net neutrality, served the purpose of mis-directing attention from a big flaw/hypocrisy in net neutrality supporters defense of Google's caching argument.

• (Let me be clear: I am not criticizing caching -- my objection is that -- widespread confusion over what net neutrality actually is -- has created a destructive chill over smart network innovation and reasonable network management.)  

Kudos to Scott Gilbertson of Wired for making the following under-appreciated point in the blogstorm over the WSJ article:

• "Defenders of Google's plan argue that the company is doing nothing different that what Akamai does. But there is a difference. Akamai has no content of its own and therefore it's always in Akamai's best interest to ensure that all its traffic is treated the same. Google, on the other hand, does have its own content and, obviously, it has a vested interest in making that content faster and more accessible than its competitors."

   

Bingo! Mr. Gilbertson spotlights the "non-discriminatory relativism" in the net neutrality debate.

• Google is the single biggest web-based media company in the world, yet net neutrality supporters refuse to even consider the theoretical possibility that Google could have a vested interest in ever giving Google content faster delivery or more accessible ranking than non-Google-affiliated content -- even though it is in Google's obvious financial self interest to do so.   

In appears that in many net neutrality supporters minds,

• Only competitive broadband providers could be Internet access gatekeepers and have the incentive to discriminate against content; and
• A monopoly Internet advertising gatekeeper like Google could not have any incentive to discriminate against content. 

It is a stunning, naive and dangerous double standard. 

• If Google supports net neutrality legislation/regulation, but still poses a discrimination risk to Internet content -- they get a pass for any non-neutral discrimination they may do. 
• If broadband providers strongly support and abide by the FCC's net neutrality principles in reality, but oppose the orthodoxy supporting formal net neutrality legislation/regulation, everything they do is suspect and subject to condemnation as discrimination.

Bottom line:

The flaming of the WSJ on net neutrality shows there still is no one that can define what net neutrality is -- it is whatever the latest and loudest supporters of net neutrality say it is at any given time. 

• It also shows that net neutrality is not a "principle" at all, because it is not applied uniformily or fairly. 
• The sad irony here is that net neutrality supporters claim to be against duopolies on the Internet, but have no qualms bending over backwards to strengthen the current DOJ-officially-declared monopoly on the Internet -- Google.