If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Sen. Stevens explains the internets: "And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck. It's a series of tubes"   (dailykos.com) divider line 245
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

11806 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2006 at 12:34 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-03 01:13:19 PM
Rockdrummer: Because government intervention should be a last resort, not a pre-emptive policy.

Except when we already had laws regulating it because it was a perceived danger, then those laws were allowed to lapse, and now we wish to reinstate them for the same reason they were originally written. I would say that's trying to plug a hole that should already be filled, rather than waiting for the floodwater to rise just to prove there's a problem.
 
2006-07-03 01:14:32 PM
www.tradoc.army.mil
TEH INTARNETS ARE TUBES!!!!
 
2006-07-03 01:15:28 PM
There is only ONE engineer in Congress. And he's from Indiana. Meditate on that for a bit.
 
2006-07-03 01:18:03 PM
jjorsett

I understand what you are saying about ISP and bandwidth, that the current model doesnt really provide for segmented services and such...but my connection speed has been bumped several times in the last two years. The upload speed is still low, but the down pipe is very phat, and I havent had to pony up extra money (other than cable rate increases on the package). The cable company did this to compete with others, and in this market at least it's working, DSL subscriptions have been flat or slightly down while cable subscriptions have been trending up. Competition works without letting those greedy farks in Washington stick thier hands in it.
 
2006-07-03 01:18:26 PM
Chuck Norris sent an internet to Senator Stevens, who got it in only EIGHT DAYS!
 
2006-07-03 01:19:32 PM
Rockdrummer: you mean like dismissing stories quoted by Drudge, NesMax, etc?

No. Not like that. When people dismiss Drudge and Floorhumper.com, they criticize the content of the articles, not simply that they come from a site with different views than their own.
 
2006-07-03 01:19:40 PM
Okay, you know, if you translate what he is saying, his position is understandable. Am I the only one who sees this?

What he said:
"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."

Translated:
"There are services that deliver movies/information to your door in a physical manner, like Netflix"

What he said:
"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?"

Translated:
"But thats a physical delivery system. Over the internet, there are services that do the same thing, only muchmore information is bought/sold/delivered - with no overhead for actually transporting the information - so people order considerably more infomation th an they would if it was delivered in person to their door. SO what happens when people order 10 times as much information?"

What he said:
"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 [...]"

Translated:
"The other day, my staff sent me an email, and it didnt arrive untilt he next day. Why? Because of the incredible amount of this commerical traffic on the internet that delayed it."

What he said:
"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"."

Translated:
"There needs to be some sort of rationing of bandwidth such that not just anyone can bring the internet to a crawl with enormous traffic. There should be some sort of penalty or fine for abusing the internet and causing delays for everyone else"

What he said:
"No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time. [?]"

Translated: (after being interrupted and asked if he was done giving his speech)
"No, I'm not finished. I want people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time."

What he said:
"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."

Translated:
"Bandwidth is not infinite. There is a limit to how much information can be transfered at any given moment. It is limited. If information was water, and the internet were a series of tubes of various sizes, you could see that even if you have large tubes somewhere, the places where the tubes were small would restrict the flow of water through the entire system. Even if you expand the internet, it will still have places where the bandwidth is limited, because of how the information is relayed."

What he said:
"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."

Translated:
"Because of this paradigm, It is possible that with increasing traffic, that more and more information will be delayed as more and more of the bandwidth is used up,r eaching the maximum limits in many areas. Something needs to be done to prevent abuse of bandwidth at the expense of everyone else"

I think his point is, or at least could be, a valid point. I think he's just not good at explaining technical things. But I think he really does grasp the problem.
 
2006-07-03 01:19:53 PM
MaKaM: There is only ONE engineer in Congress. And he's from Indiana. Meditate on that for a bit.


And they ain't even senators....
 
2006-07-03 01:20:07 PM
Tubes? I thought it was all done with clacks and imps.
 
2006-07-03 01:20:27 PM
The internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

Now who could argue with that? Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.


/They said you was hung
//Baby, they was right
 
2006-07-03 01:21:32 PM
Maybe he just got confused by the word "YouTube". On the up side, this will no doubt lead to many hilarious T-shirt designs.
 
2006-07-03 01:21:43 PM
mtylerjr: I think his point is, or at least could be, a valid point. I think he's just not good at explaining technical things. But I think he really does grasp the problem.

We should however expect that when someone is head of the committee that will lay down legislation that will shape the future of the communications sector in the united states and likely the world that they perhaps.. you know have a grasp of the english language and the subject upon which they are talking about?

I mean is that so much to ask?
 
2006-07-03 01:22:50 PM
Click, Daily Kos, close. Why do people even read that crap?
 
2006-07-03 01:23:51 PM
img267.imageshack.us

Unfrozen Caveman Senator
 
2006-07-03 01:23:56 PM
It's an analogy. I'm sure he's aware that the internet is not really made of tubes.

What I fault the guy for is saying "an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning". Gee, where's MY internet?
 
2006-07-03 01:25:57 PM
Was that suppose to be a speach or an entry in a Vogon poetry contest?

/cue the confused dog pic
 
2006-07-03 01:26:37 PM
Major Thomb

Pretty much the entire thing is a direct quote from Stevens, so what does it matter where it's from?
 
2006-07-03 01:26:57 PM
mtylerjr


I think his point is, or at least could be, a valid point. I think he's just not good at explaining technical things. But I think he really does grasp the problem.


Not so much.
 
2006-07-03 01:27:26 PM
Greenslime,

Vogon poetry was less painful to listen to than this speach.
 
2006-07-03 01:28:02 PM
To the people agreeing with his vote (if not his words.) Did you actually read what the vote was about?

It was an amendment to existing regulation that would force all ISPs to treat VoIP traffic equally. In other words, you can use QoS to up your VoIP traffic priority but you must also place all other VoIP traffic (even from your competitiors) in the same QoS group.

He voted no, in essence, he voted that ISPs can offer a VoIP service, place a higher priority on that traffic, and in turn send another businesses VoIP traffic to the back of the line.
 
2006-07-03 01:28:27 PM
My god, it's full of tubes!
 
2006-07-03 01:29:30 PM
I used to work at the Senate Computer Center and I know there is an entire staff dedicated to helping Senators with their computer needs.

Perhaps Senator Ted should speak with one of them.
 
2006-07-03 01:29:33 PM
Rockdrummer Thank you.

tonesskin: If this were someone sane, then that would work just fine. A teacher, perhaps. Maybe some public speaker. But a politician?

Sure! The guy has a set of skills you and I could only dream of having: The ability to repeatedly get elected and serve in positions of actual power.

We know technology. He knows how to advocate a given point of view. Why not mix the two?

The guy wouldn't deliberately spout nonsense (nobody in power enjoys looking like a fool), he just doesn't know any better. Why not correct that with a well thought-out letter?

"I can easily see how you could come to the conclusions you have, since Internet technology often behaves the way you describe. However, behind the scenes it actually works like this..."

[yadda yadda yadda]

"...and that is why I think your personal preferences actually support the opposite position. In that spirit, I hope you'll reconsider supporting/rejecting similar legislation in the future."
 
2006-07-03 01:30:32 PM
Senator Stevens,

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Dude

perso.orange.fr
 
2006-07-03 01:31:16 PM
Wow! WOW! This is the kind of article I started reading Fark for years ago, and the kind that has been missing for far too long. The kind where I just sit here and hold on to the desk to keep from falling off my chair because I'm laughing so hard and the customers are looking at me funny. WTG, submitter.
 
2006-07-03 01:33:50 PM
From TFA: 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.

No shiat? Where can I find such a wondrous thing? Is it magic? Do I need some sort of crystal ball?

It's funny, for all his other rambling, the part about tubes (as a metaphor for bandwidth) was about the only other thing in his speech that had some semblance of an inkling of an idea that may be sort of correct.

/His staff sent him an internet?
//A whole farking internet?!
 
2006-07-03 01:34:23 PM
Note to senator: shut the hell up and stop pretending you are technically knowledgable and stick to your bought and paid for activities you moron.

Isn't that what he's doing here also? I'm sure some corporation paid him to have that opinion.

Unfortunately his description of the internets got filtered through a dozen different marketing weasels before it reached his speech notes.
 
2006-07-03 01:35:09 PM
what really ticks me off is he didn't mention "penis enlargement emails" EVEN ONCE!
 
2006-07-03 01:35:30 PM
Tube technology FTW!
 
2006-07-03 01:35:51 PM
Blank83: And that would be just fine, except he's head of the farking committee currently considering a major telecommunications overhaul


Yeah, and this guy knows more than anyone else in the government! Sure, it's wrong, but nobody has told him that. On top of that, the folks who are educating him on the subject (the telco lobbyists) aren't about to correct him.

He doesn't know he's wrong. Why not point out to him what he doesn't know he doesn't know?

As a technology guy, I really appreciate it when marketing/speaking/political folks point out where I bugger up a presentation or sales spiel. You're literate technology folks who actually vote for these people (something I'm unable to do, not being a citizen of your nation). You can actually DO something about this beyond ridicule, so why not do it?

It's -- what? -- an hour of your time and $.50 postage?
 
2006-07-03 01:36:16 PM
The only thing more funny than this are the wingnuts trying to defend this guy. Anything they won't defend? Wow.
 
2006-07-03 01:36:16 PM
It's Alaska, so who cares, right?
 
2006-07-03 01:36:46 PM
You know why you didn't get that email until yesterday? Because that's when you opened your inbox, stupid! I've heard of CEOs who don't know how to use Outlook because their secretary does all of it for them, but this is ridiculous.
 
2006-07-03 01:36:54 PM
Downloading the Internet is so easy, even a caveman could do it.
 
2006-07-03 01:37:15 PM

Translated:

"Because of this paradigm, It is possible that with increasing traffic, that more and more information will be delayed as more and more of the bandwidth is used up,r eaching the maximum limits in many areas. Something needs to be done to prevent abuse of bandwidth at the expense of everyone else"

I think his point is, or at least could be, a valid point. I think he's just not good at explaining technical things. But I think he really does grasp the problem.


We already have a mechanism that compensates bandwidth providers for building networks capable of handling the bandwidth. People are charged for the size of bandwidth they are delivered .

now, due to recent market competitive forces (price war) bandwidth providers want to gouge the content providers.

In the abstract, I can accept that. It is just capitalism, seeking a buck from anyone that has one.

The real danger here is that it allows for all sorts of abuse. Through regressive pricing, bandwidth providers force vertical integration. Use their browser, their content partners, their news sources, their blogs, their proxies, or suffer from miserable bandwidth and annoying latency.
 
2006-07-03 01:37:33 PM
jjorsett: With no incentive (i.e. a higher cost) to increase capacity for things like video-on-demand, ISPs will stick us with the bandwidth we have for a very long time, and it could choke off many new services that won't be able to get the throughput to the consumer that's needed to run them.

What about the incentive of providing the best service to the customer? Wouldn't the company that's first out the gate with video on demand win? Wouldn't the company that offers video on demand for the lowest price win?

The same exact argument happened in the 90's with respect to building out infrastructure for high-speed internet service, and those tired arguments are the very reason why cable started kicking DSL's ass. The cable companies put the money into laying the digital-ready cable, and then they reaped the reward.

And elchip is right on--the US is woefully behind other countries in terms of broadband (and wireless) access. Yes, this country is not as densely populated as those with widely available high-bandwidth connectivity, but even dense metro areas of the US don't have the options widely available in Asian and European cities.
 
2006-07-03 01:37:57 PM
mtylerjr

Translated:
"The other day, my staff sent me an email, and it didnt arrive until the next day. Why? Because of the incredible amount of this commerical traffic on the internet that delayed it."


Quite simply, no, that is not possibly the reason. Possible reasons include, problems with DNS, problems with a firewall, problems with the mailserver. Unless the incredible amount of commerical traffic was actually a DDOS against the mail server, traffic is not the problem.

But, by far and away the most likely reason? The staffer didn't really send it when he said he did, then lied about it knowing Stevens would never know any better.
 
2006-07-03 01:38:52 PM
mtylerjr:


I think his point is, or at least could be, a valid point. I think he's just not good at explaining technical things. But I think he really does grasp the problem.

Commercial traffic does not make emails (or internets) get to you faster or slower. Bandwidth is not infinite, which is why, when people use more bandwidth, they pay more. Like any commodity, you pay to use more bandwidth, so the very idea that YouTube existing slows down the Internet for the rest of us is retarded.

Further, no body is talking about adding new regulation. What we're discussing is taking existing regulation and expanding it to cover the newer incarnation of the Internet. This same regulation already guarantees that a Cingular user can place a phone call to a Verizon user.
 
2006-07-03 01:40:33 PM
nastro: Tube technology FTW!


i4.photobucket.com

/I can't help myself
 
2006-07-03 01:41:05 PM
images.telestatic.net
 
2006-07-03 01:41:40 PM
IdBeCrazyIf

Had to self-Heimlech after that one....

/golf clap
 
2006-07-03 01:42:52 PM

Major Thomb


Click, Daily Kos, close. Why do people even read that crap?


Uh, how is a quote from a Senator not fark-worthy in this case ?

ooooohh, I get it. It's from Kos, therefore....it's not really a quote ? or something.. no, I don't get it.
 
2006-07-03 01:43:05 PM
As a technology guy, I really appreciate it when marketing/speaking/political folks point out where I bugger up a presentation or sales spiel. You're literate technology folks who actually vote for these people (something I'm unable to do, not being a citizen of your nation). You can actually DO something about this beyond ridicule, so why not do it?

The point is, it's not going to change anything. Yes, thats very cynnical of me, but it's true. I've tried teaching some computer illiterat people how to use PC's, and while most get it, theres ALLWAYS, in every class, the guy who memorizes all the vocabulary, then tries to write on the monitor with a pen, or will order something off amazon and then stare at the printer waiting for it to come out "I clicked the button, why isn't my book coming out?". Some people are just too rigid in their mindset to take to a radically new and different technology.
 
2006-07-03 01:43:19 PM
Major Thomb

Click, Daily Kos, close. Why do people even read that crap?

I kinda think that, in this case, the KOS got it right.

Senator Stevens has no business enacting controls and regulations on a system as wide and disparate as the Internet, seeing as he has no grasp on how it actually functions.

/so there!
 
2006-07-03 01:43:33 PM
haha...I cannot believe how surprised everyone is. This goes on EVERY SINGLE DAY here in DC. Its amazing it doesnt get into the news more. The president's secretary loads his iPod for fark sake. Thats not even close to representative of the American public. Go vote you morons, and maybe you won't have to cry so much.
 
2006-07-03 01:43:53 PM
Thank you to those who spent the time to deconstruct and translate what the Senator was saying.

For some reason, though, I can't get past: "I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday

Classic.
 
2006-07-03 01:45:34 PM
Out with the onion-belters!
 
2006-07-03 01:45:43 PM
"A friend asked me to try AOL, but I said, I already own a computer..."

Duh...........
 
2006-07-03 01:50:48 PM
Tomorrow, he needs to sit down with his pre-teen grandchildren and have them explain this whole internets thing to him.
 
2006-07-03 01:51:16 PM
Sorta scary, isn't it?

Not surprising if you think about how many citizens really still think that computers will slowly go away. He probably never felt the "need" to learn what the internet actually was or how it operates, and decided to bluster his way through an explanation. Many of us do or have done the same thing when we're just plain ignorant about something. He sure as fark fits the ignorant part. I wonder how many other committee members in our government are in the same shoes when they come to vote on some legislation? Just a point to ponder.
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report