13 ms·

I can't help but worry this is because Google knows how much a "fast lane" could help it. They've got the cash to deliver their product at super speeds and get

by apozem 12y ago

I can't help but worry this is because Google knows how much a "fast lane" could help it. They've got the cash to deliver their product at super speeds and get a leg up on everybody else who doesn't.

eunoia 12y ago
I do believe that's the point. Big companies like Netflix benefit from their 'peering' deals. Sure costs go up, but they also create a walled garden to keep out any upstart competition.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  If that's their attitude, it's short-sighted on Netflix's part. No matter how much money they can throw at ISPs, I guarantee Amazon can throw more. So if streaming video performance comes down to who can throw the most money at ISPs for preferential treatment of their packets, it's hard to imagine Netflix not getting clobbered in that contest.
  - eunoia 12y ago
    I think it's a mistake to consider streaming performance the only variable on which success in that business is predicated. Content and customer relationships have to be factored in as well, probably much else. Your point is valid though. Maybe the conclusion is that such walled gardens aren't useful in competition between established players, merely to make disruption from a a startup of little means but good ideas more difficult?
cyorir 12y ago
At the same time, it's not like Google is arguing against net neutrality either. For a large company like Google, some services (like, say, Youtube, which is bandwidth-intensive) may have a lot to gain from a "fast lane," but that company may also have a lot of smaller services that do not stand to gain as much. I do not think Google will see net neutrality policies as equally impacting all of its products, but as an issue that affects different products in different ways. Likewise, a "fast lane" costs money, and I suspect it will cost more money for a larger, high-bandwidth product, so for Google the concern will be whether or not pricing works in its favor.
- eunoia 12y ago
  Interesting point, but I think that even with their smaller products Google will almost always be in a position to out-spend their competition if they so choose. I see it as almost like having an ace up their sleeve. It's always there, but they'll only play it when they feel a product is sufficiently threatened. Or am I being too cynical?
  - ntakasaki 12y ago
    They're hedged against net neutrality and are covered either way, so it's not going to hurt them whatever happens. It's like Microsoft on patents. Strengthening software patents will make it more vulnerable to patent trolls suing over MS products but it also makes their licensing play stronger. Weakening software patents will make it easy to defend against trolls but will weaken licensing as well. So they have to walk a fine line, just like Google with net neutrality.
    - PaulHoule 12y ago
      A lot of Google's work on QUIC and SPDY is oriented towards the weaknesses of the LTE networks that AT&T and Verizon want to force most Americans to use.
- dm2 12y ago
  The YouTube "fast-lane" is already in place for some ISPs, same with Netflix. https://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/#what_youtube_is_doing https://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/#what_youtube_...
diminoten 12y ago
What exactly is a slow lane? Does the Internet work in a slowlane? What speeds are we supposed to envision when we think of a slow lane? Dial-up? 10mbps? 20?
- Brakenshire 12y ago
  The slower the speed, the greater the price an ISP can charge websites for access at normal speeds, so it would be a balance between slowing down more, and maximizing revenue from content providers, and keeping speeds high enough not to lose customers. The customer would be both a subscriber, and an extra member of an audience which could be sold to a website. If you're talking about a situation where the ISPs are monopolies within a particular geographical area (at least for wired internet) that balance could mean very significant speed reductions. If the revenues from content providers reduced subscription costs by a meaningful amount, it would probably mean quite a significant slow-down even when there's competition, because I suspect many consumers would pick the lowest cost subscription regardless of other factors.
  - diminoten 12y ago
    So what you're saying is below 56kbps? How long do you think a "slow lane" website will take to load? What would viewing resolutions be for something like Netflix in the "slow lane"? Give me something more concrete.
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      It would be enough for you to notice or else it wouldn't be an effective sales tool. It hasn't happened yet because the FCC has not ruled on it yet.
      - diminoten 12y ago
        So we're talking, what, no HD from YouTube or Netflix? Is this just about video? Are my pings going to be artificially inflated in Starcraft? If they throttle based on service, can't I circumvent this by just using a VPN and buying a fast enough base service? Isn't this mostly a, "but the police man could shoot me whenever he wants if he gets to carry a gun!" argument?

by apozem 12y ago

I can't help but worry this is because Google knows how much a "fast lane" could help it. They've got the cash to deliver their product at super speeds and get a leg up on everybody else who doesn't.

eunoia 12y ago

I do believe that's the point. Big companies like Netflix benefit from their 'peering' deals. Sure costs go up, but they also create a walled garden to keep out any upstart competition.

smacktoward 12y ago
If that's their attitude, it's short-sighted on Netflix's part. No matter how much money they can throw at ISPs, I guarantee Amazon can throw more. So if streaming video performance comes down to who can throw the most money at ISPs for preferential treatment of their packets, it's hard to imagine Netflix not getting clobbered in that contest.
- eunoia 12y ago
  I think it's a mistake to consider streaming performance the only variable on which success in that business is predicated. Content and customer relationships have to be factored in as well, probably much else. Your point is valid though. Maybe the conclusion is that such walled gardens aren't useful in competition between established players, merely to make disruption from a a startup of little means but good ideas more difficult?

cyorir 12y ago

At the same time, it's not like Google is arguing against net neutrality either. For a large company like Google, some services (like, say, Youtube, which is bandwidth-intensive) may have a lot to gain from a "fast lane," but that company may also have a lot of smaller services that do not stand to gain as much. I do not think Google will see net neutrality policies as equally impacting all of its products, but as an issue that affects different products in different ways. Likewise, a "fast lane" costs money, and I suspect it will cost more money for a larger, high-bandwidth product, so for Google the concern will be whether or not pricing works in its favor.

eunoia 12y ago
Interesting point, but I think that even with their smaller products Google will almost always be in a position to out-spend their competition if they so choose. I see it as almost like having an ace up their sleeve. It's always there, but they'll only play it when they feel a product is sufficiently threatened. Or am I being too cynical?
- ntakasaki 12y ago
  They're hedged against net neutrality and are covered either way, so it's not going to hurt them whatever happens. It's like Microsoft on patents. Strengthening software patents will make it more vulnerable to patent trolls suing over MS products but it also makes their licensing play stronger. Weakening software patents will make it easy to defend against trolls but will weaken licensing as well. So they have to walk a fine line, just like Google with net neutrality.
  - PaulHoule 12y ago
    A lot of Google's work on QUIC and SPDY is oriented towards the weaknesses of the LTE networks that AT&T and Verizon want to force most Americans to use.
dm2 12y ago
The YouTube "fast-lane" is already in place for some ISPs, same with Netflix. https://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/#what_youtube_is_doing https://www.google.com/get/videoqualityreport/#what_youtube_...

diminoten 12y ago

What exactly is a slow lane? Does the Internet work in a slowlane? What speeds are we supposed to envision when we think of a slow lane? Dial-up? 10mbps? 20?

Brakenshire 12y ago
The slower the speed, the greater the price an ISP can charge websites for access at normal speeds, so it would be a balance between slowing down more, and maximizing revenue from content providers, and keeping speeds high enough not to lose customers. The customer would be both a subscriber, and an extra member of an audience which could be sold to a website. If you're talking about a situation where the ISPs are monopolies within a particular geographical area (at least for wired internet) that balance could mean very significant speed reductions. If the revenues from content providers reduced subscription costs by a meaningful amount, it would probably mean quite a significant slow-down even when there's competition, because I suspect many consumers would pick the lowest cost subscription regardless of other factors.
- diminoten 12y ago
  So what you're saying is below 56kbps? How long do you think a "slow lane" website will take to load? What would viewing resolutions be for something like Netflix in the "slow lane"? Give me something more concrete.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    It would be enough for you to notice or else it wouldn't be an effective sales tool. It hasn't happened yet because the FCC has not ruled on it yet.
    - diminoten 12y ago
      So we're talking, what, no HD from YouTube or Netflix? Is this just about video? Are my pings going to be artificially inflated in Starcraft? If they throttle based on service, can't I circumvent this by just using a VPN and buying a fast enough base service? Isn't this mostly a, "but the police man could shoot me whenever he wants if he gets to carry a gun!" argument?