imageimage Responses to a Wall Street Journal article are now appearing from Google and Larry Lessig—both have substantial criticisms of the article.

An earlier TeleBlog item discussed the WSJ piece in terms of the possible e-book ramifications if the article were right.

It isn’t, according to Richard Whitt, the Washington Telecom and Media Counsel for Google (photo).

“Net neutrality and the benefits of caching,” reads his post in the Google Public Policy Blog, which offers  “Google’s Views on government, policy and politics.”

And the GigaOm blog is running a story headlined “Google NOT Turning Its Back on Network Neutrality” by proprietor Om Malik:

In response to an earlier story in The Wall Street Journal, Google offered a clarification and reaffirmed its stance on network neutrality and pointed out that it is not backing away from it. It has dismissed the WSJ story as confused. Instead, Google explained that the OpenEdge effort (the subject of the WSJ story) was a plan to peer its edge-caching devices directly with the network operators so that the users of those broadband carriers get faster access to Google and YouTube’s content.

“Google has offered to “colocate” caching servers within broadband providers’ own facilities; this reduces the provider’s bandwidth costs since the same video wouldn’t have to be transmitted multiple times,” Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington Telecom and Media Counsel wrote on company’s Policy blog.

Larry Lessig is responding on his own blog with a piece called “The made-up dramas of the Wall Street Journal”. But I cannot read the item right now because the hosting server is not responding. The beginning states:

I got off the plane from Boston to find my inbox filled with anger about an article in the Wall Street Journal. To those who were angry, I hope you will direct any anger at the Wall Street Journal after you read what follows.


The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail