Scott has a very good postthis morning laying out the debate over Google's supposed flip-flop on net neutrality, front and center on p.1 of today's WSJ . One premise of the story is that something new is going on, and the "openness of the internet" is "quietly losing powerful defenders." Let's look at the powerful defenders one by one. Is there any evidence to back up the rather breathless headline and first few paragraphs of the piece?

1) Google is edge-caching—and this is both new and evil.

Nope. Google's been trying to do this for years. It's a complicated issue, as Scott explains. But in any event, it's nothing like
Google demanding its "own fast track on the Web" or its own separate highway, which is the most common metaphor used in this debate. It's more like Google offering to set up free car washing stands in cities near its users.

2) Lawrence Lessig, the piece says, has "shifted gears" by declaring that "content providers should be able to pay for faster service."

Nope. Lessig has always believed this.

3) Microsoft and Yahoo are no longer strong network supporters of net neutrality. Microsoft, in fact, has "changed its position completely."

Nope. Microsoft and Yahoo dropped away from this issue in 2006. Might have something to do with the fat deals each has with telecom companies that care passionately about the issue.

4) The Obama administration is changing its view on this.

Nope. There's no evidence presented in the piece at all. The only shred is a quote by Google's Richard Whitt at the very end, which he repudiates (and in fact denies having said) but which doesn't provide any specific information.

5) Amazon uses a special download channel with Sprint for its Kindles.

Nope. Kindles have been out for a year. And the company gave a statement to the journal saying it continues to support net neutrality.

The story in the Journal does a very nice job describing the issue of net neutrality and why it matters. It may also be the case that momentum is turning against it in Washington. I just don't see any evidence for that claim in the story.

See Also: