|
|
|
|
|
|
by ikeboy
4104 days ago
|
|
|
>As an aside, I find Feamster's comment reply, "What is false in Oliver’s presentation (and many of the claims in the popular press) is his claim about what causes* that slowdown. The cause of the slowdown is congestion, not intentional throttling,*" to be simply disingenuous. What exactly is the difference between intentional throttling and intentionally introducing congestion by not upgrading inadequate peering relationships? He discusses that in a later comment. The point I think he's making is that it wouldn't qualify as "paid prioritization", and shouldn't be characterised as such. |
|
|
It was paid; it succeeded in getting Netflix to write them a check. And it may not be strictly "prioritization", but to me the intent means more than the letter.