I don't see how this means anything to do with network neutrality... at all.

Why would it be that just because Google and the cable companies are on opposite sides of a political dispute, they would stop doing business with each other? Businesses are not bloggers. Being "in bed" with one's enemies is not particularly weird in that world. Ever notice, just for starters, how deeply in bed with each other Apple and Microsoft are?

Now, aside from the (totally irrelevant) "in bed" aspect you bring up, if Google entered into network-specific video content deals with the cable companies-- which they may or may not be proposing with their whole "combine its technology" thing-- this would be against the spirit of their net neutrality positions last year. But:

1. It's not clear that's specifically what Google is proposing here
   
2. This is just a proposal, being made by the head of Google TV, and the views of Google as a whole may not have been factored in yet,
   
3. Aside from what it would mean "in spirit" from an idealist's perspective, there's not necessarily a conflict between finding network-specific applications for video streaming acceptable, and the positions google campaigned for last year-- i.e., opposing the use of tiered internet services and/or kickbacks from content providers to ISPs for preferential treatment.

Depending on how whatever it is that the Google TV guy is proposing here is implemented, it's quite technically possible that the services Google is proposing would be entirely within the legal bounds of the network neutrality legislation shot down last year.

In fact, it is possible that this kind of argument is being made in service of a pro-network-neutrality philosophy-- though the Google TV guy is quite vague, he seems to be saying that rather than moving toward IPTV, the cable companies should continue delivering TV broadcasts as they have and instead attempt to integrate internet-like features (which incidentally they would pay Google for) into their TV delivery systems. From a purely practical perspective, this helps network neutrality a good deal. If IPTV never comes to pass, one of the major economic arguments in favor of tiered internet services disappears utterly.

All this said, I find it funny you seem here to be using the words "an unorthodox view of net neutrality" to describe the mainstream, Republican view of net neutrality.

This position doesn't run contrary to Google's position on net neutrality - it's just the latest bit of evidence about what the company is really after.  It's part of a plan, including purchasing enormous fiber backhaul capacity and building up huge datacenters around cheap power, to make Google the go-to-guy for cable and phone companies when online video and things like BitTorrent hit the real mainstream - I'm talking about people who just use the Internet for email and news right now.  At that point, ISPs won't have enough bandwidth to handle the new traffic - especially if their hands are tied by net neutrality regs - and Google, with its huge caching facilities that help content take short cuts - will be the obvious peering partner.  What does that mean for Google and net neutrality?  I think they still take the same position - they are for it.  The question is: should Internet users reconsider their positions?

Hmm, anti-net neutrality spam in the rec diary list.  Interesting.  Good job getting Reuters to carry a questionable story.

I'm procrastinating work I should be doing, so might as well answer: bandwidth to users is limited by the last mile to the user location, usually two telephone copper wires re-purposed to carry data (aka DSL) or a TV cable re-purposed to carry data.  

The whole idea of "ISP's not having enough bandwidth" is hogwash.  Let's say there is a 10x increase in traffic.  Both the last mile and the ISPs need to increase their bandwidth.  Which is easier, pulling new wires or fiber into every user's home, or pulling a pair of fibers from an ISP datacenter to another ISP datacenter?  A: the latter, by orders of magnitude.  If users do want 15 or 100 megabit service, and are willing to pay for new wires to their house to support it, pennies on the dollar will pay for new ISP to ISP capacity.

And none of this even considers more local hosting, caching servers, etc., that can reduce traffic even more.  It reminds me of the whining of coal companies or car companies when tighter regulations are debated.  They gnash teeth, say doom is nigh, then after the new rules come out, they are able to comply at 1/10th the projected cost.

Also, Google has a lot of products, and what do they have in common?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Goo gle_products

Yes, they all use bandwidth.  It shouldn't be a surprise that they buy bandwidth.

Oh, and last I checked, online video (like, say, youtube) already hit the mainstream.  And "mainstream" users that only use email are still running Windows 95, and would have to upgrade computers to watch video, too.  Why do that when their cheapo TV works just fine?  

Sorry to feed the trolls everyone...

Thanks to everybody who commented here, I apologize I didn't follow up over the weekend as I planned. It seems things move very fast here, but I at least appreciate having the chance to be heard.

Silent sound, I agree we don't know where it's going here, but I doubt the move is toward support of net neutrality or getting Comcast to change its position. Google actually has patents pending on QoS services that appear to violate neutrality goals.

I think I agree with She said she said. The Cringely column makes a good case for what Google's up to. They fear the "exaflood" like everyone else, only they are making plans to prepare for it.