Google's regional caching and media response

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an article stating that Google offers the largest ISPs in the world to install directly caching servers that will serve Google content.
Thus, according to the magazine, it will be able to provide faster delivery of its content in comparison with other services and the principle of network neutrality will be violated, according to which traffic from all information providers should be processed with the same priority, there should not be channels of the first and second classes .
Many content providers such as Akamai or Limelight already use the same caching facilities. But it is important to remember that these providers do not have their own content, so they are interested in all the data being given with the same priority. In the case of Google, this is not so and, theoretically, a situation is possible where Picasa is 2 times faster than Flickr.

But what was meant from a technical point of view? According to Google in his response post, we are only talking about introducing regional caching for large ISPs. These services will not be exclusive, and everyone can use them. So the example of Picasa and Flickr is not correct because Yahoo is likely to buy or build its own caching solutions too.

But it may be important that large companies began more or less massively buying regional caching services, and small companies, as soon as they begin to leave the startup phase, will have to think about buying not only traffic, but also caches.
However, I will not be surprised if this is happening now.

Returning to Google, we can say that the speed of information delivery to the end consumer is one of the most important parts of their service because in the Internet search it is important not only to find relevant results, it is important to quickly show them. Impression speed is also important for advertising. And the company has been working hard to improve response times for a long time, investing quite noticeably in infrastructure (USD 3.8 billion was spent on capital expenditures in 2006-2007), and the introduction of caching tools can be considered a simple development.

According to a Google post, caching is implemented as part of the Google Global Cache and OpenEdge projects .

In this whole situation, the following is interesting to me:

1. Is there really network neutrality, and how can it be determined.
2. The way issues that, it would seem, are relevant only to IT, flow into the inhuman. For example, when the creation of caches can be perceived as a threat to the freedom of dissemination of information.
3. As non-specialists in IT see our area and everything that happens in it

I will try to write about this in my next posts.

The original, rather controversial article in the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html
Post on Google Blog (all providers do this): http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2008/12 /net-neutrality-and-benefits-of-caching.html
Answer to a post from Google with the idea that network neutrality is losing ground anyway and Google is just the first to start a new war: http://gigaom.com/2008/ 12/14 / google-turns-its-back-on-network-neutrality /
Comment in the New York Times Bits Blog: bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/15/googles-treat-all-rich-companies- the-same-vision-of-net-neutrality /
A small guide to network neutrality from Google: http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html
An article on 2001's Edge Caching: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_1_21 / ai_77057992

Update: Thanks for karma, I can edit topics again.