Ted Stevens

I haven’t been following the Net Neutrality issues too closely, but occasionally something will pop up that grabs my attention. This morning, a Wired article came into my feed reader that had an interesting take on the issue. It involves Senator Ted Stevens, a bumbling idiot who has no idea what he’s talking about, explaining why he’s voted to allow companies to prioritise and demand extra charges for certain types of Internet traffic going to the consumer’s home. Apparently the fact that both the server and the user both pay money for their connection over the Internet isn’t enough, he expects the server to pay extra for the privilege of actually getting its content delivered.

As far as I can tell, the idea behind the whole issue is that some people want the government to regulate what companies can do, in order to keep things the way they are. Another separate group of people (and presumably ISPs,) are saying that’s a silly idea, and that carriers should be allowed to restrict or block content from flowing through their network. Maybe that’s fair for the company who owns the network, but when you’re the one paying that company to allow you access, I fail to see why anyone would want them to be able to charge the owner of any web site you visit on top of that.

“I think network security, network independence… It absolutely essential.”

The issue itself isn’t really the point. The point is that we have ignorant fools like Senator Ted Stevens voting on the issue. He thinks that because companies are massively invading this world of the Internet they should have to pay for not only the bandwidth on their end of the connection, but on the consumer’s end in order for their content to get through. Mr. Stevens describes the Internet as a series of pipes that you send data down, and explains that if you’re sending some large piece of data through the pipes, everything else has to wait until it’s finished. He seems to think that by restricting what the consumer can do on the ‘net, his email is going to be delivered faster. Let’s have a quote. It’s a long one, because I thought it was priceless.

“Whether you realise that, you’re asking for regulation. You’re asking for a two-tiered system. You’re asking now that you tell people who do have these systems, that they can not ask that someone pay for the increased capability they provide, what? For business.

“I don’t have to have that kind of speed they’re talking about in terms of the speeds that they’re gonna put in the Internet. But the people that are streaming through ten, twelve movies at a time… Or a whole book at a time for a consumer’s use: those are not you and me. They’re not consumers; they’re the providers. And those people who provide these things […] and use the Internet for a delivery service rather than for a concept of communication, that’s the difference.

“And I do not believe that ‘net neutrality is something that… Well, I will say this: I don’t think anyone here has defined what ‘net neutrality is. We’ve heard that we’re slipping behind. This bill is designed to let us go ahead.”

This guy is a natural politician, who uses words to try and confuse people into believing that what he does is justified. Not one sentence in his entire speech makes sense. There’s not an iota of logic, just words to cover up the fact that this guy can’t even pronounce the phrase “Net Neutrality.”

Sure, he might not use the network capacity other people use. That’s why there are different plans people purchase from providers with varying speeds and download limits. If someone wants to download a song from iTunes, or a video clip from YouTube, the customer should upgrade their plan with their provider. Not the provider upgrade the user’s connection for them, that would make Internet commerce extremely expensive for everyone. There isn’t even any logistical way for the millions of web sites to individually pay the thousands of providers for every spare byte that passes through their network. I challenge Senator Ted Stevens to come up with a solution to that problem that won’t hinder the Internet any more than Gran downloading her 2 megabyte ebook. Even Dvorak, one of the biggest trolls on the Internet agrees.

“The phonecos and cable companies cannot see themselves in the business of handing someone a wire and letting them do what they want with it. This is tantamount to becoming a utility much like the water company. It’s simply no fun.

“Except in totalitarian regimes where the Net is out-and-out censored, nobody else has this issue on the platter. They are too busy using the Net “to its fullest.”“

You can download Mr. Stevens performance from the Public Knowledge web site, or visit Dvorak’s take on the issue. Wikipedia also has an article on Net Neutrality if you’re interested.