Ben
18th July 2006, 02:27 AM
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/17/net_neut_slow_death/
The Register has an excellent Q&A about Net Neutrality and why it might actually be a bad thing. I'd assumed, quite wrongly it seems, that net neutrality was important to the maintenance of the Internet. Perhaps the point I was missing, with VoIP and VoD about to zap much of the 'nets resources, was:
"Q: People only seem to object to a 'two lane' highway until you point out one slow lane for everyone isn't any better. Who stands to benefit from the 'Net Neutrality'?
A: I think Google and Yahoo! have made the calculation that IPTV may be lucrative in the long term, and this would put them at an advantage. Google is building massive server farms to enable them to pump enormous amounts of data onto the Internet. The one in Oregon is so big they had to build it close to a dam to get enough electricity - see Markoff's article in the New York Times.
With net neutrality, whoever generates the most traffic controls the network."
The Register has an excellent Q&A about Net Neutrality and why it might actually be a bad thing. I'd assumed, quite wrongly it seems, that net neutrality was important to the maintenance of the Internet. Perhaps the point I was missing, with VoIP and VoD about to zap much of the 'nets resources, was:
"Q: People only seem to object to a 'two lane' highway until you point out one slow lane for everyone isn't any better. Who stands to benefit from the 'Net Neutrality'?
A: I think Google and Yahoo! have made the calculation that IPTV may be lucrative in the long term, and this would put them at an advantage. Google is building massive server farms to enable them to pump enormous amounts of data onto the Internet. The one in Oregon is so big they had to build it close to a dam to get enough electricity - see Markoff's article in the New York Times.
With net neutrality, whoever generates the most traffic controls the network."