Google Slams 'Confused' WSJ Story on Network Neutrality

Sam Gustin writes: Google is blasting a new Wall Street Journal story that suggests the internet search giant is ditching its support for network neutrality as "confused," "hyperbolic," and "overblown."

The Journal article says that Google is talking to the major cable and phone companies about paying for a "fast lane" for Google's content -- including YouTube videos -- and suggests that the Google is moving away from its long-standing support for network neutrality, the principle that all internet traffic should be treated equally.

Google responded quickly and did not mince words in denouncing the Journal's article.

"In short, the Wall Street Journal story is wildly, dramatically overblown and reflects a misunderstanding of both our caching practices as well as our position on net neutrality," Adam Kovacevich, a Google public affairs spokesperson, told Portfolio.com by email.

Stanford Professor Larry Lessig, who is referenced by the Journal, called the story a "made-up drama."

In the article, provocatively titled "Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web," the paper reports that the search giant is seeking "preferential treatment" over other Web content providers by placing servers "directly within the network of the service providers."

In a company blog post late Sunday, Richard Whitt, Google's chief telecom and media counsel, sought to refute the story.

"Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality, and we will continue to work with policymakers in the years ahead to keep the Internet free and open," White wrote.

In the story, Google's plans were sourced to "documents" obtained by the Journal and a single anonymous cable executive, who provided an inflammatory (literally) quote.

The Journal article failed to mention that Google has been colocating servers in major telecom hotels, such as Google's New York City headquarters, for years. Google's strategy has long been to position servers close to telecom peering facilities in order to lower the company's bandwidth costs and improve network performance. This practice also lowers costs for broadband providers, as Whitt notes. Did the Journal not know this?

Google's New York headquarters at 111 Eighth Avenue in New York is one of the largest telecom hotels in the country and gives Google "direct access to the building's network-neutral meet-me room -- literally, an area where telecommunications companies can physically hook up and exchange data cheaply and efficiently," as I wrote a couple of years ago. The old Port Authority building is the third largest building in New York and takes up an entire city block. Google's official address is 76 Ninth Avenue.

These giant facilities are the nodes where content companies hook up with telecom companies. Google occupies over 300,000 square feet over several floors in the building, employing several thousand workers and housing an untold multitude of servers. Other tenants include Nike, WebMD, Barnes and Noble, and Armani Exchange. In 2007, a private-equity-operated outfit called Telx bought the 111 Eighth Ave meet me rooms -- which serves BT Americas, MCI, Sprint, Level 3, Qwest, NTT, XO Communications, according to its website -- for an undisclosed ammount. Telx also operates 60 Hudson, the other major carrier hotel in New York, as well a dozen other peering facilitates around the country.

Whitt said that the Journal has misunderstood Google's efforts to colocate "caching servers" close to telco and cable nodes as an effort to seek a preferential treatment. "We've always said that broadband providers can engage in activities like colocation and caching, so long as they do so on a non-discriminatory basis," he wrote.

Whitt also disputed comments attributed to him by the Journal which seemed to suggest -- somewhat bizarrely -- that president-elect Barack Obama, a vocal supporter of network neutrality, has softened his support on that issue since his election.

"The Journal story also quoted me as characterizing President-elect Obama's net neutrality policies as 'much less specific than they were before,'" Whitt wrote. "For what it's worth, I don't recall making such a comment, and it seems especially odd given that President-elect Obama's supportive stance on network neutrality hasn't changed at all."

Stanford's Lessig -- who has been floated as a possible F.C.C. chairman -- was also perplexed by the Journal's suggestion that Obama has changed his views on the subject. "I've not seen anything during the Obama campaign or from the transition to indicate it has shifted its view about network neutrality at all," Lessig said.