I've not seen a good concise, intuitive definition of 'network neutrality'.
Under the abstract definition "you should not be able to make special contractual arrangements with telecom companies so your services are faster than your competitors", yes, this is a violation of 'neutrality'.
If the only special contractual arrangements prohibited are those implemented in router software, then no, installation of edge-service-accelerator machines is 'neutral'.
But it looks like a loophole to me. In both cases, company G pays telecom T a certain amount $X, and thus gains a competitive advantage in reaching people downstream of T.
Whether that competitive advantage is sold from T to G via router software configuration (S) or physical-space cooperation (P) should be irrelevant.
In fact, method 'S' might be more economically and environmentally efficient. There's no mixing of operations/facilities. Each party has incentives to maximally scale what they do best -- G big energy-efficient datacenters, T big divisible pipes -- and lesser physical space/power demands are placed at network bottlenecks.
One of the weaknesses in the arguments pro-net neutrality is that it prescribes what the network should be like in too much detail. Net Neutrality advocates don't allow for the possibility that significant and unanticipated improvement could come in the future from innovations in network technology.
When internet access is provided "like a utility" (one of their catch phrases), your network providers will be every bit as innovative as your water and sewer company.
Have we gotten any significant and unanticipated improvement in the Internet in the last 5 years?
The value of, say, a neutral 100Mbps symmetric FTTH utility is large. What is the value of the future breakthroughs of the unregulated Internet? How do we measure and compare these?
OTOH, if the last mile is congested then router prioritization would really benefit Google, but with edge caching their packets still have to fight it out with all the others.
Under the abstract definition "you should not be able to make special contractual arrangements with telecom companies so your services are faster than your competitors", yes, this is a violation of 'neutrality'.
If the only special contractual arrangements prohibited are those implemented in router software, then no, installation of edge-service-accelerator machines is 'neutral'.
But it looks like a loophole to me. In both cases, company G pays telecom T a certain amount $X, and thus gains a competitive advantage in reaching people downstream of T.
Whether that competitive advantage is sold from T to G via router software configuration (S) or physical-space cooperation (P) should be irrelevant.
In fact, method 'S' might be more economically and environmentally efficient. There's no mixing of operations/facilities. Each party has incentives to maximally scale what they do best -- G big energy-efficient datacenters, T big divisible pipes -- and lesser physical space/power demands are placed at network bottlenecks.