4 ms·
The author is mixing up (or perhaps trying to force into the same boat) private peering and caching with Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is about not prioritisin
by kierank 16y ago
The author is mixing up (or perhaps trying to force into the same boat) private peering and caching with Net Neutrality. Net Neutrality is about not prioritising traffic from one source or the other.
- nanairo 16y agoI think he is not mixing it up... I think the main point of the article (no matter if you agree or not) is that the philosophy behind the net neutrality, e.g. the idea of maintaining a levelled field, are already history. The author suggests that already now a company like Google can use money to set up a "parallel" Internet. Because it's closed, they don't need to uphold any regulation. But they can use them to shorten the number of hops a package has to take to travel between two computers.
- kierank 16y agoThe number of hops still isn't related to net neutrality any more so than buying servers in a particular country can reduce the number of hops to a given ISP.
- nanairo 16y agoHey, don't shoot the messenger. :) What you just said was pretty much his point. By decreasing the number of hops you are speeding up the connection (maybe not, but let's say so for simplicity). His point then is that net neutrality has always been a fuzzy concept. Because even now you can boost your speed by spending a lot of dollars, for example buying servers as you point out. I won't comment if its a realistic comparison, but I definitely found it an interesting pov: food for thoughts. :)