Plane To Nowhere

[Waco Kid]

http://www.ktuu.com/global/Story.asp?s=12952729

Former Senator Ted Stevens

[Gilgamesh]

"Dead Stevens."

[Bort]

He went down the series of tubes.

[ChuckD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWfbGGZE07M

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Godspeed, Ted...

http://albertoslopez.typepad.com/digital_impulses/files/stevens-on-nn.mp3

[J. Walter Weatherman]

I would call your attention to Title Nine. It really is the internet consumer Bill of Rights.

Now we have consumers who use this internet, and we have commercial users who use this internet. Unfortunately, your comments bring them together. I would call the committee's attention to an article that was called to my attention by my wife, as a matter of fact, in the International Herald Tribune. We talk about the World Wide Web. This demonstrates that nowhere, nowhere in the world today is there the kind of decision made that is recommended by those who really want to create a two-tier system. The position that you've announced is a two-tier system.

And as a matter of fact, if you look at this article—I would hope for you to read it—it says this:

In addition, many of the companies that have opposed legislating net neutrality do so because they believe the speed and capabilities of the internet are being improved on their backs. They are footing the bill for building ever-faster broadband connections that others like you and me, in effect, are benefitting from.

In Europe, Deutsche Tech— Telekom and Telecom Italia are among the corporate voices starting to express this view. Deutsche Telekom expects to spend 3.8 billion dollars on building a fiber-optic network with 25 times the speed of today's broadband and it wants to keep its competitors off that network.

But the Eastern European Commission believes that the German telecommunications market is not competitive enough for such a restriction. The Commission is by and large following procedure set up by the EU while white papers as far back as the Bangemann Report in 1993 calling for inter-operability and minimal regulation.

Now, it closes by saying "my biggest fear in this debate is that we don't know enough about the consequences that turn the internet into a two-tier system"! Which is just what those who are pleading for net neutrality would do.

Now, when you look at this bill, we have a consumer Bill of Rights. We express what it is, the consumer is fully protected. And we have network security: worms, virus, denial-of-service, parental controls, blocking child pornography. We have sections to protect the consumer, protect the application of the First Amendment, and we prohibit the commission from issuing regulations to change what we have provided in the bill.

Why did we do that? We did that because when you look at it, this is the non-discriminatory portion of the bill. We demand that the internet not discriminate against consumers.

Now, the heart of non-discrimination is really the heart of Kerry regulation. What the Senator is talking about is allowing all of these entities that support this to provide streaming stuff going onto the internet.

Now the internet, you know, let's go back— Internet started with a concept of local-to-local connections across the country. And you could go to Alaska, but you had to go through local connections to get there. The industry wisely provided for a streaming—for, in effect, a new kind of long distance—and that's what we've got. We've got a service that's immune to distance. And it's there for the consumer! But when we take and really indicate that anyone that wants to use this system for massive, massive commercial purposes—

There's one company that you can sign up and get a movie delivered to your house, daily, by subscription— by delivery service. Okay? And currently it comes to your house, put in the mailbox and you get home, and annually or monthly you changed your order. But you pay for that, right? This service is now going to go through the internet and what you do is you just go to a place on internet and you order your movies and, guess what? You can order ten of them delivered to you, and the delivery charge is free, right? Ten movies 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 ten o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday! Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things that are going on the internet commercially.

See, you want to talk about the consumer, let's talk about you and me. We use this internet for communication. We're not using it for commercial purposes, we're not earning anything by going on that internet.

Now, I'm not saying you have to discriminate or we want to discriminate against those people, I'm just saying we haven't seen anything yet that indicates there is discrimination. And until you can define it, I'm opposed to the concepts that are implied by your recommendation.

...

[J. Walter Weatherman]

We already have 'unfair competition.' I've already said if you want to make a special provision with regard to anti-trust laws—as a matter of fact, that's going to come out of the judicial committee. We made an agreement—I don't know if you know this—with the judicial committee, we would not deal with anti-trust concepts in this committee. They're going to look at internet with the point-of-view of anti-trust and they're going to report something concerning anti-trust to the floor and we'll decide whether we add that to this bill or whether we have to do it seperately.

But the regulatory report approach is wrong! Your approach is regulatory! It's regulatory in the sense that it says no one can charge anyone for massively invading this world of the internet.

Senator: Mr. Chairman?

Stevens: Now— yes, sir??

Senator: I'm sorry— I didn't— I thought you were finished, I'm sorry.

Stevens: No I'm not finished, I've listened for quite some time. I want to make sure people understand my position. I'm not going to take a lot of time.

But those people who want to support these things [...] are the people who want to use the internet for the end-use of their profit. Not for the consumer. These are people who are charging, in effect, for what they're delivering. Now I think the result, if we went your way, instead of paying 30 dollars a month we'll be paying 50 to 60 dollars a month, will be fewer broadband subscribers, it will restrict it, I think that's why— The world has turned against this. They have not done it.

I don't think anyone can show that there's been a violation in the sense that we call net neutrality. As a matter of fact, in our bill, we have a provision that requires the FCC to monitor this. If they find anything that looks like a violation of internet neutrality, they must immediately call its attention to Congress. Until that time— until that time, we are saying that they cannot invade this area and start regulations of the type that the Senator is describing.

I think network security, network independence, absolutely essential. The wrong regulatory approach, imposing a heavy-handed regulation, before there is a demonstrated need is wrong. And Senator, whether you realize 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 cannot ask that someone pay for the increased capability that provide, what? For business! I don't have to have that kind of speed they're talking about in terms of the speeds they're going to put in the internet. But the people who are streaming through ten, twelve movies at a time or a whole book at a time, for consumers' use, those are not you and me! They're not the consumers, they're the providers! And those people that 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.

And we've heard that we're slipping behind. This bill is designed to let us go ahead. To expand the whole concept of communication.

And here we have this one situation where enormous entities want to use internet for their purpose to save money for doing what they're doing now! They use Fed-Ex, they use the delivery services, they use the mail. They deliver in other ways. But they want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet.

And, again, the internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes! And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and, if they're filled, when you put your message in it gets in line, it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

Now, we have a seperate Department of Defense [internet] now. Did you know that? You know why? Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately and can't afford getting delayed by other people. The security of the United States requires a seperate net for Defense.

Now, I think these people are arguing whether they should be able to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider whether they ought to build a system themselves! Maybe there is a place where— commercial net.

But it's not using what the consumers use everyday. It's not using the messaging service that is essential, I think, to this small business, it's essential to our operation of families, the whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone shows that there's something that's been done that really is a violation of net neutrality that is you and me!

If one of the big corporations that want this net neutrality concept adopted...