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.'"
Net-neutrality is a travesty.
/.) and by the people who do know what it means, know it's in their interest, know it will shaft everyone else, but are of course entirely in favour.
It's been picked up by a mass of people who don't know what net neutrality actually means and so can't know it's actually in their best interest (e.g. readership of
This latter group are the people with large amounts of content to shift over the net, and who have to pay according to how much they actually use, rather than being subsidized, as they are now, by everyone else.
Net neutrality *actually* means everyone pays the same for net use, regardless of how much they use the net.
Net non-neutrality means people pay according to how much they use.