Net Neutrailty

Peteee

A lot of you have probably seen this, and I'm not sure whether to put this in the humour board or not!

Senator Ted Stevens wrote:

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 isn't 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.

And thus my faith in democracy is shattered. At least get a clue on what your talking about. 'I got sent an internet'...jesus! :mad:

Ruu_Old

Yep there was a thread on the humour board for that article, shocking.

TomCo

I heard a rumour on the........................internets.

SeanW

That guy is a clown anyway.

weeder

does the dod have their own net?!?!

Ruu_Old

Yeah they call it Version 1.1

philologos

whats the difference between the US Dept of Defence internet and the regular internet? just faster kinda or what?

po0k

A private network, in much the same way as any large corporations intranet.

snappieT

And I'd be inclined to suggest it's for security rather than speed.

Peteee

SeanW wrote:

That guy is a clown anyway.

He also happens to *head up* the commitee on Net neutrality, and we get this idiot possibly deciding about it, when he clearly hasn't a clue of what he's on about. If the president, vice president and speaker of the house are killed he gets to be president.

Wait....he's no worse then Bush

Mutant_Fruit

As obvious as it is that poor Senator Ted Stevens is deluded and hasn't a clue what he's on about, unless that net neutrality amendment gets passed we're all going to get shafted.

The problem with his ideal approach is that people will be paying at every level possible to recieve their internet service. On top of the €30 per month charge to have an internet connection, you might end up paying additional "transit" charges to actually get the data transported to you.

Worst case scenario:
ISP to customer: Fine, you want to use Gmail, then pay €10 per month to have the site load fast, otherwise wait 15 mins per page refresh. Or pay us €9 a month for our service which is guaranteed to be fast. You want to use google video, so pay €20 per month if you ever want to see a video load. Or you could just buy our service for €19.00. It's cheaper and guaranteed to be fast.

ISP to google:
If you want people to be able to use Gmail normally, pay us €10 per user per month or we'll charge them. If you want em to use google video pay us €20 per user per month or we'll charge them.

Or worse again...:

Isp to Microsoft: So you want all links relating to linux to load slowly? We'll do it for €1 million a month