chromas writes:
"Reed Hastings of Netflix writes in his blog:
The essence of net neutrality is that ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast don't restrict, influence or otherwise meddle with the choices consumers make. The traditional form of net neutrality which was recently overturned by a Verizon lawsuit is important, but insufficient.
This weak net neutrality isn't enough to protect an open, competitive Internet; a stronger form of net neutrality is required. Strong net neutrality additionally prevents ISPs from charging a toll for interconnection to services like Netflix, YouTube, or Skype, or intermediaries such as Cogent, Akamai or Level 3, to deliver the services and data requested by ISP residential subscribers. Instead, they must provide sufficient access to their network without charge.
Business Week and Forbes have articles with very slightly contrasted viewpoints."
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 22 2014, @12:42AM
The current payment system, and net neutrality, is too simplistic. There should be a move to a more complicated form of internet payment. Distance should be a factor. Caching should be factored in. I wish netizens wouldn't be too simplistic, and be only pro net neutrality.
(Score: 1) by Solaarius on Saturday March 22 2014, @01:33AM
Why? What incremental cost is there for the system you propose? The true incremental cost for the IPS to forward those packets is zero. They already built and paid for the bridge, now they get to toll it forever? And double it if you are going farther?