Google regional caching and media reaction to it

On Monday in the Wall Street Journal, an article was published stating that Google offers the largest ISP in the world to install caching servers directly at their site that will give 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 first and second class channels .
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 data being given with the same priority. In the case of Google, this is not the case and, theoretically, it is possible that Picasa works 2 times faster than Flickr.

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

But it may be important that large companies start buying regional caching services more or less massively, and small companies, as soon as they start leaving the start-up phase, will have to think about buying not only traffic, but also caches.
But I will not be surprised if it happens now.
')
Returning to Google, we can say that the speed of information delivery to the final 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. The speed of impressions is important for advertising. And the company has been working on improving response time for a long time, quite noticeably investing in infrastructure (in 2006–2007, US $ 3.8 billion was spent on capital expenditures), and the introduction of caching can be considered a simple development.

As stated in the post by Google, caching is implemented in the framework of Google Global Cache and OpenEdge projects.

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

1. Is there really network neutrality, and how can it be defined?
2. The way the questions that seem to be related only to IT flow into the general human. For example, when creating caches can be perceived as a threat to the freedom to disseminate information.
3. How non-IT specialists see our region and everything that happens in it

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

The original, rather contradictory, 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
The answer to the post from Google with the thought that network neutrality in any case looses its positions and Google is just the first to launch a new war: http://gigaom.com/2008/12/14/google-turns-its-back-on- network-neutrality /
Comment on 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 what Edge Caching is from 2001: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BRZ/is_1_21/ai_77057992

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