Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Case for Non-Net-Neutrality

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the i-like-my-internets-biased dept.

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.'"

5 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. invalid analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Akamai is a distributed hosting service, not a common carrier.

    This guy is seriously a professor?

    1. Re:invalid analogy by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Akamai is a distributed hosting service, not a common carrier.

      This guy is seriously a professor?


      He is a law professor that's an opponent of neutrality. Whether his distortions of the technology are because he knows the law better than the technology, or because he is expounding an ideologically-based viewpoint and trying to snow people over with FUD, or because of some other reasons is, I suppose, something you'll need to form your own opinion about.
  2. Re:Great argument on Akamai, except... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know, Mrs. Lincoln, but what I'm trying to get at is, other than that, didn't you basically enjoy the play?

    --
    Apology to Ubuntu forum.
  3. Re:Net Neutrality is Communism by TheWoozle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Bullshit.

    You and Prof. Christopher Yoo make the same fundamental mistake. Net Neutrality is *not* about preventing people from optimizing the Internet!

    It *is* completely about preventing abuse of monopolistic power by telco companies. (This is espcially urgent in light of the reconstitution of the old AT&T). It is to prevent telcos from offering "protection" for your valuable content.

    AT&T: That's an awful nice video service you've got there Mr. YouTube. It sure would be a shame if somthing were to happen to all those pretty little bits flowing over our network...
    YouTube: What could happen to them?
    AT&T: -laughter- Hey guys...he wants to know what could *happen*! -more laughter-

    People always say that this can't happen because of competition. Again, bullshit. What ISP you use doesn't matter in the slightest; at some point, your bits *will* cross AT&T's network. If you don't pay the "protection", your poor little bits might have one hell of a time making it to their destination.

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
  4. Re:Can't access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Apparently the school has a special department for people like them.
    From TFA (emphasis mine):

    Professor Christopher Yoo joined the faulty of the Vanderbilt University School of Law in 1999,...