Slashdot Mirror
A Case for Non-Net-Neutrality
boyko.at.netqos writes "Network Performance Daily has an in-depth interview with Professor Christopher Yoo from Vanderbilt University Law School on his opposition to Net-Neutrality policies. While some might disagree with his opinions, he lays out the case for non-neutrality in an informed and informative manner. From the interview: 'Akamai is able to provide service with lower latency and higher quality service, because they distribute the content. This provides greater protection against DoS attacks. It's a local storage solution instead of creating additional bandwidth, and it's a really interesting solution. Here's the rub ... Akamai is a commercial service and is only available to people who are willing to pay for it. If CNN.com pays for it, and MSNBC.com does not, CNN.com will get better service.'"
No, the John Yoo that is an accused war criminal and noted proponent of the idea that the President is above the law is shaping future lawyers at Boalt Hall, the law school of the University of California, Berkeley, not the University of California, Los Angeles.
But, in any case, you are correct that he is not the Christopher Yoo that wrote TFA.
Yes Libertarians are against government stepping in, and that's exactly what happens with net neutrality.
No, dumbfuck.
The government already bloody fucking stepped in. Or rather, they already bloody created the thing and the corporations horned in to make a buck.
What you want now is to allow corporations to ass-rape the monopolies they have to extort more money out of everybody.
The only way net neutrality goes against the ideals of libertarianism, would be if we were tear it all up by the roots first. Remove imminent domain, public domain, public funds and make the corps pay for every last inch of wire they have to re-lay to get a network working again (wouldn't be the Internet then). Oh, and make them deal with every little podunk municipality (to get their cut) and private owner (to get their cut), oh, and I want the telephone poles taken off my land or I want rent. BECAUSE THATS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO TO CONTENT PROVIDERS, nickel and dime ass rape for more money. Until you are advocating that, net neutrality remains a valuable thing that upholds liberal and libertarian ideals, and protects everybody from racketeering thugs trying to get another yacht and BMW this year. While at the _same_ time, allows providers to make some money by, imagine this, being a fucking internet provider! (gasp!)
So this makes you a true dumbfuck. You have no concept of the surrounding facts and get all caught up in "more laws bad [grunt]" without thinking about it. You are exactly the type of person that gives libertarianism a bad name. You don't fucking think about why your point of view should be the way it is and don't really care if your view would hurt others. That's not libertarianism, that's fascism or corporatism. Exactly the same shit you are trying to avoid.
Likewise, your repeated definition of "what a liberal is" just absolutely screams "hey, I am a dumbass libertarian youngster punk and don't want to think anybody else has a better view, so I'll redefine a word to something it doesn't mean anymore so I can be in the winning side"
Grow up, and get a clue. Better yet, get fucked.