The tubes of the Internet are getting plugged!

[Foonie]

Quoted from http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1512499

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 interent 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.

 

[moghedancarns]

Huh? Wait? No? Huh?

The dangers of joining crack use and weblogs?

 

[Bone]

I For one have noticed the internet slowing down. I attribute it to people using the internet like a truck. Its high time somebody stepped up to the plate like this guy has and told it like it is!

 

[Allielyn]

I beleive the OP is referring to recent legislation and issues surrounding Network Neutrality. What it comes down to is whether or not it is OKAY for companies to give priority to specific packets coming through, based on their origin and destination than other packets; vs. allowing whatever packets that come first to go through first.

On one hand, the first-come-first-serve approach leads to slower internet when you've got a bunch of people downloading or listening to streaming audio/video etc.

On the other hand, the preference-for-packets approach leads to companies giving priority to packets that belong to them or their affiliates, in addition to being able to CHARGE certain companies to have their packets delivered quickly.

/sarcasm on

Sweet. Preference-for-packets: the ISP can charge you for the opportunity to access the internet. And charge the advertisers for the opportunity to advertise to you. From a corporate POV, I don't see anything wrong with the picture.

/sarcasm off

Bet it's not hard to determine which side of the fence I land on.

P.S. Most of the stuff I've read on this "speech" is quite hostile. Read some of the comments at the blog that Homogenn linked. Pretty amusing!

But, in all seriousness, here's my favorite:

"With technology knuckleheads like this in our SENATE, it's no wonder we get the kind of legislation that we do. There is so much dark fiber in this country that broadband content delivery and VOIP should be no problem at all for the backbones. The truth of the matter here is that the telcoms want to get into that content delivery business and want the ability to hamper their competition by artificially slowing the delivery of their data. This is the nth example of special interest money combined with the abject technical ignorance of legislators resulting in legislation counter to the best interests of the public."

 

[Armando]

hello

nice breakdown of the topic. i would just like to add that the original poster was referring to republican senator Ted Stevens of alaska.

he is currently the longest serving republican senator, of "Bridge to Nowhere" fame (this $223 million bridge would replace a ferry to connect Ketchikan, Alaska -pop. 8,000- to Gravina Island -pop. less than 50- a money saving alternative to this plan would be to simply buy leer jets for every resident of Gravina Island.)

the specific allocation to this project was struck from the language of the legislation, though the money is still allocated towards alaska. when senate colleagues attempted to remove this pork barrel project, ted stevens said he would quit.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a staunch opponent of pork barrel spending, tried to block $453 million for two Alaska bridges that had been tucked into the recent highway bill. Coburn wanted to redirect the money to the Interstate 10 bridge across Lake Pontchartrain, a major thoroughfare that was severely damaged during Hurricane Katrina.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the veteran Alaska Republican, was dramatic in his response. "I don't kid people," Stevens roared. "If the Senate decides to discriminate against our state . . . I will resign from this body."

Towards the end of 2005, Ted Stevens attached a rider to a "military spending bill that includes money to support troops in Iraq and $29 billion for victims of Hurricane Katrina" (link) which would appropriate money to drill in the Arctic Wildlife National Refuge. The result?

It was inching toward 1 o'clock in the afternoon Wednesday when the gavel finally fell on a vote that apparently killed this year's effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. [...]

In the far corner of the stately room, a handful of dour lobbyists for the Teamsters, the American Petroleum Institute and the State of Alaska watched the crescendo of glee with blank expressions.

"If we lose this vote, it's a disappointment," said Jim Ford, a petroleum institute lobbyist with a gift for understatement.

In fact, Alaska's senior senator, Ted Stevens, in an angry speech on the floor Wednesday night, said it was "the saddest day of his life."

Another fun quote from the same speech,

"I'm going to go to every one of your states, and I'm going to tell them what you've done," [Ted Stevens] told colleagues who voted against the measure. "You've taken away from homeland security the one source of revenue that was new ... I'm sure that the senator from Washington [Cantwell] will enjoy my visits to Washington." The American Petroleum Institute also condemned the Senate, saying "its refusal to seize this opportunity does a disservice to American consumers and fails to acknowledge that the consequences of inaction are adverse and significant."

but really, just who is ted stevens? jon stewart at the daily show answers this and more ! (highly recommended viewing)

 

[Allielyn]

Oh gosh! I heard he was bad, but I didn't know he was THAT bad. =( Sounds like a little kid throwing a temper tantrum. Please, let him quit!