Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Gossamer · Jul 16, 2006, 02:46 PM

I thought this was pretty funny

Salty · Jul 16, 2006, 03:27 PM

Oh my... sooooooo good... but soooooo bad.

I still can't believe that guy is in charge of the internets.

stevesnj · Jul 16, 2006, 04:54 PM

i found the transcript of this, this is why Government should stay away from the Internet, this guy is a BOOB!!

From 'Wired News' Thursday, 29 June 2006
Your Own Personal Internet

The Senate Commerce Committee deadlocked 11 to 11 on an amendment inserting some very basic net neutrality provisions into a moving telecommunications bill. The provisions didn't prohibit an ISP from handling VOIP faster than emails, but would have made it illegal to handle its own VOIP packets faster than a competitor's.

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) explained why he voted against the amendment and gave an amazing primer on how the internet works.

"There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

But this service is now going to go through the internet* and what you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and the delivery charge is free.

Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?

I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.

So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.

We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people [¿]

The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [¿]

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

[¿]

Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they should develop a system themselves.

Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using what consumers use every day.

It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small businesses, to our operation of families.

The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there is something that has been done that really is a viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me."

Kerrigan · Jul 16, 2006, 05:25 PM

To be fair, net-neutrality is one of the muddiest, least understood issues in politics today.

I don't understand it myself. Obviously there are the cliche interpretations of it (corporations versus the people, two-tiered internet, etc). But I have yet to hear anyone explain it in a way that actually makes sense, and that includes the articles I've read on it in the NYT and WSJ.

nonhuman · Jul 16, 2006, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

To be fair, net-neutrality is one of the muddiest, least understood issues in politics today.

I don't understand it myself. Obviously there are the cliche interpretations of it (corporations versus the people, two-tiered internet, etc). But I have yet to hear anyone explain it in a way that actually makes sense, and that includes the articles I've read on it in the NYT and WSJ.

Basically it means that even if you pay twice as much as your neighbor for the super high-speed connection, some websites will still be slow because they couldn't afford to pay the ISPs for the faster connection.

Kerrigan · Jul 16, 2006, 05:33 PM

Thanks nonhuman, that makes sense.

A hell of a lot more sense than that guy in the video.

CMYKid · Jul 16, 2006, 05:33 PM

The DoD may have their own "Internet" but it's no better. My dad works in weapons system development, i.e. in a vault, not even allowed to take a digital watch in, white noise generators running constantly, etc etc...sometimes he doesnt get email I send him for three days.

Betetr yet, their voicemail system totally went to the low bidder...they develop the defense systems that ensure the fate of the free world but they dont have time/date stamp? Brilliant. Oh yeah, v/m arrives a day or two after it's left also.

nonhuman · Jul 16, 2006, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Thanks nonhuman, that makes sense.

A hell of a lot more sense than that guy in the video.

Oh, I forgot to mention that the way they'll restrict the access to the sites that don't pay is by tightening the valves on the tubes to those sites. This will cause clogs to accumulate faster in those tubes as well, so the speeds will end up being even slower.

Angus_D · Jul 16, 2006, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

Basically it means that even if you pay twice as much as your neighbor for the super high-speed connection, some websites will still be slow because they couldn't afford to pay the ISPs for the faster connection.

The issue is that the telcos are claiming that some commercial companies (e.g. Google) use such a large amount of bandwidth these days that it's putting an unfair burden on their infrastructure, and as such those companies should have to pay more or be throttled down to use less bandwidth.

However, the thing is that people are already paying for the bandwidth that they use. Google pays way more for their internet connections than I pay for my ADSL. If the telcos haven't been keeping pace with their infrastructure, then that's their mistake.

Another example issue would be if one ISP decided it was going to drop traffic originating from other companies on competitive grounds. Vonage recently claimed that a large broadband ISP was blocking their traffic, I think because that ISP wanted people to use their own VoIP offering. Again, they would claim that Vonage is benefitting from their infrastructure, but that's just the nature of the internet.

nonhuman · Jul 16, 2006, 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

The issue is that the telcos are claiming that some commercial companies (e.g. Google) use such a large amount of bandwidth these days that it's putting an unfair burden on their infrastructure, and as such those companies should have to pay more or be throttled down to use less bandwidth.

However, the thing is that people are already paying for the bandwidth that they use. Google pays way more for their internet connections than I pay for my ADSL. If the telcos haven't been keeping pace with their infrastructure, then that's their mistake.

Another example issue would be if one ISP decided it was going to drop traffic originating from other companies on competitive grounds. Vonage recently claimed that a large broadband ISP was blocking their traffic, I think because that ISP wanted people to use their own VoIP offering. Again, they would claim that Vonage is benefitting from their infrastructure, but that's just the nature of the internet.

But that only works if the Internet is a 'public good' rather than a privately owned network that we all buy access to. Currently the fiber and copper that the Internet runs on is owned by private companies not the government (in the US at least), so really they're free to do with it as they please (for the most part) and charge whatever they want for that access.

besson3c · Jul 16, 2006, 06:45 PM

I don't understand why the DoD can't use Internet 2 or some high speed academic-type networks if they are concerned about tubes being clogged? Or, is this about commercial enterprises complaining? Aren't they all on metered bandwidth?

I need to learn more about this issue, as of now I don't understand what the kuffufle is about.

ghporter · Jul 16, 2006, 09:20 PM

Ah, it's the tubes!!! I thought they used transistors, or chips or something...

Of course I thought this was the reason for the Internet...

Angus_D · Jul 17, 2006, 07:35 AM

Originally Posted by nonhuman

But that only works if the Internet is a 'public good' rather than a privately owned network that we all buy access to. Currently the fiber and copper that the Internet runs on is owned by private companies not the government (in the US at least), so really they're free to do with it as they please (for the most part) and charge whatever they want for that access.

Exactly, hence the move toward enshrining its neutrality in law.