Net Neutrality
A Politician explains how the Internet works and why Net Neutrality is bad
The following is a quote by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). There was a deadlock in a vote to get some net neutrality provisions in a bill, and this Senator explained why he voted against it.
Personally, I can't tell you how many times I've gotten mad when someone sent me an internet, only to have it arrive several days late.
The following is a quote by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). There was a deadlock in a vote to get some net neutrality provisions in a bill, and this Senator explained why he voted against it.
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.
Personally, I can't tell you how many times I've gotten mad when someone sent me an internet, only to have it arrive several days late.
Comments
people like him should be banned from the internet.
I hate to say it, but I think this Net Neutrality thing is really over certain people not wanting their cheap downloading taken away in favor of a variable-bandwidth tiered system, and telecom companies wanting more money because they don't want to foot the entire bill for getting better Internet coverage, and of course the government doesn't want to step in and fund the project either.
I don't think there's going to be net discrimination against certain sites anyway, that hardly seems like a good business model in the end, and it wouldn't really be worth doing. Realistically, the discrimination is going to be against end users who can't afford the more expensive service, and really, that's already happening now with the different levels of bandwidth you can pay for from many providers.
The real issue in the United States regarding the Internet isn't Neutrality, it's a matter of coverage. Compared to many other countries we pay more, have slower speeds, and a lower percentage of of our area and population isn't blanketed with high-speed internet.
So who's being discriminated against here? It's not web sites, sure it's partly people out in sparsely populated areas, but for the most part it's people who can't afford high speed where it is available.
As always, the lower income families get the short end of the stick, just like, ya know, the same as throughout all of history.
This guy is obviously just voting one way because a certain financial contributor to his campaign wants him to.
I have a problem with people who have no idea what the hell they're talking about in Washington making what could be history changing decisions.
I can't say no contributions at all, although that would be optimal, because then only the rich could afford to run.
But yes. It's wonderful that the taxes we pay go to geniuses like him.
And to keep this slightly on topic, you should definently have at least a slight understanding of what it is your deciding before you vote on something.
PS: Yay! The PC Man ^_^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIn_J_jxf-o