<http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/08/data-shows-cdn-prioritization-more-ha rmful-than-router-prioritization/> Data shows CDN prioritization more harmful than router prioritization
Free Press and other strict Net Neutrality advocates have their facts backwards. The router prioritization that they claim is harmful to others is actually not harmful and the CDN "geographic prioritization" that they claim is harmless is actually the most harmful. "Since both the YouTube and DigitalSociety server can run faster than my broadband connection and I verified that each server can max out my broadband connection, I can try to download a file from both servers concurrently and compare how each server performs. To my astonishment, the YouTube server that is 47 ms away averages 2.3 times faster than our DigitalSociety server which is 105 ms away! It probably isn't a coincident that 105 ms turns out to be 2.23 times slower than 47 ms so it would seem that the Internet's congestion control mechanism (Jacobson's algorithm) disfavors content proportionally to the latency. Had the latency difference been a 5-fold difference (which is often the case since I'm usually only 20 ms away from Google), a reasonable hypothesis (which I will test and update when I get a chance) would be that Google's server would run roughly 5 times faster than the distant server." For your respective mailing lists if you approve. George Ou www.DigitalSociety.org <http://www.digitalsociety.org/>
