I'll bite - this strikes me as worse than Akamai, because anyone can get on those Akamai servers if you're a customer of theirs. Only Google will have access to these servers - I'd almost prefer that the Akamai arrangement would be against the rules.
I know, I know - this suggestion seems crazy. But maintaining dumb pipes is critical to maintaining the separation between content and carriage. We've already seen the cable companies get into fights over bundles of channels - and putting servers inside the networks would essentially turn websites into the new cable channels.
And if Akamai isn't bad (as I don't see any way to say they are), then how would Google doing this for their own use rather than paying Akamai rather astounding fees be "worse"? I'm failing to see how this is anything other than intelligent and efficient use of bandwidth. Bringing the content closer to users is good for consumers. It doesn't cost the consumer anything, it doesn't cost the telcos anything (it actually saves them money), and it allows Google to provide better service.
The only argument I could see against it would be, when does it end? Does Microsoft have to build a CDN like this to keep trying to compete with Google? Yahoo, I believe, already has a very favorable agreement with Akamai, so they don't. But everybody else that has a very large web presence might want the same privileges. But, since it saves telcos bandwidth, and they're the only ones that would need to accommodate these new local servers, it's probably perfectly reasonable to let them decide who they want in their data centers.
You exactly see my argument correctly as "when does it end?" If this becomes standard practice, you'll have a selected number of entrenched sites able to be inside the network. That then gives the telco provider more power than they have as mere dumb pipes, replicating the carriage issue I raise with my cable precedent. There's no reason to believe that the telcos will take everyone willing to pay a certain amount; these will all be negotiated, bundles will be introduced, and you'll kill the promise of a free and unfettered internet where we all have equal footing.
I'd be OK with licensed CDNs, but not with content and/or web application providers. Again, this is me with my antennae at attention, looking at a worst possible case scenario, but I play the red pieces. (Yes, I coined that phrase, which is why you haven't heard of it. Yes, I'm mixing chess and war games metaphors. Yes, damn straight I think it's a cool phrase.)
Who "licenses" the CDNs? That sounds scarier to me than adding more caching to an already heavily cached infrastructure.
You do realize this is all just a matter of degree, right? There are probably a half dozen caches involved in every request you make. Certainly DNS has multiple caches along the path to getting your data, your browser caches local copies of lots of data, and your ISP probably has a cache as well. A CDN is just a specialized form of cache that can be a little bit smarter than each of those caches.
these will all be negotiated, bundles will be introduced, and you'll kill the promise of a free and unfettered internet where we all have equal footing
I think this assumes a difference in performance expectations that isn't reflected in reality. The difference between data coming from Dallas, or San Jose, or Chicago, or coming directly from your ISP data center is measured in the tens of milliseconds. I don't think this could realistically be expected to result in "packages". Who would sign up for a "Google/MSN/Yahoo/eBay" Internet that merely promised "30 ms faster!"?
I agree with Lessig that there shouldn't be a problem as long as access to fast pipes is merely a matter of money. But I fear this is a slippery slope. It wouldn't take long until different types of content were priced differently (porn) or until network providers became subject to blackmail by fanatics asking for censorship.
I know, I know - this suggestion seems crazy. But maintaining dumb pipes is critical to maintaining the separation between content and carriage. We've already seen the cable companies get into fights over bundles of channels - and putting servers inside the networks would essentially turn websites into the new cable channels.