Google's idea, called OpenEdge, would position some of Google's servers within the Internet service providers' networks. This would have provided a "fast lane" for Google's traffic.
If this scenario played out, it would have had a dramatic affect on the Internet and its denizens. Powerful companies such as Google could get preferential treatment and leave less-powerful competitors in the dust. If true, this scenario also would have completed Google's switch to the "dark side." There's no way it could say its motto, "Don't be evil," plays any sort of role in how Google runs its business.
This morning, says the AP, Google responded via a blog post written by Richard Whitt, Google's Washington-based telecom and media counsel. He said, "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."
He calls the Journal's report a misunderstanding, and that Google isn't trying to get preferential treatment.
I think the story isn't so black and white. Whether or not the Journal misunderstood Google's intent, we need to hear directly from the players involved. That means Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and from the management of the Internet service providers with which Google is supposedly talking.
What say ye, Schmidt? What's the real story here?