Friday, July 07, 2006

A series of tubes? No, more like a highway.

I was pondering Senator Ted Stevens's speech on why he opposes network neutrality. I knew that he's wrong, but I couldn't figure out why he was wrong. I suddenly figured it out.

The internet is not like a series of tubes.

It's more like, forgive the cliche, a highway.

Any data to be sent across the internet gets broken up into little chunks, called packets, and (basically) get addressed to the computer where they're headed. It's a lot like filling up freight trucks with the stuff you need to send across the country. The packets get individually sent across the internet, and are reassembled at the other end into the full amount of data.

That's why data I send doesn't slow down data you send. Even if I'm gonna be sending a greater total amount of data across the internet, you get to send a packet just as often as I get to send a packet.

That's why it takes much less time to send a web page across the internet (just a few packets) than, say, download a video (lots and lots of packets).

What network neutrality says is that internet service providers cannot give special treatment to packets from companies that give them money, or block packets from companies that don't. For example, an ISP that doubles as an internet phone service cannot give special treatment to it's own packets, and slow down the packets of, say, Skype or another internet phone service.

I'm concerned that the lawmakers in DC will make a huge mistake over network neutrality because they do not truly understand how the internet works, and why we need this abstract concept called network neutrality.

Oh, and if it takes something like a day for Senator Ted Stevens to get an e-mail, it's becuase someone's system is on a time delay to either send or receive e-mail messages at a certain time of day. It's not that traffic on the internet has been slowing his e-mail down for hours and hours.

4 Comments:

At 7/08/2006 8:45 PM, Blogger Roshan said...

HA! That speech was one of the funniest things I have read in a long time. I'm not sure how I feel about net neutrality completely, but I see good points to both sides. On the pro side, there's obviously the "freedom" issue, being able to give everyone fair treatment. On the anti-side for net neutrality is the fact that companies should be able to charge their customers more for more service, similar to how current-day cable/satellite TV operates. I think that not having network neutrality is better for free enterprise and free trade/etc, but then again, (even though I'm a huge, huge advocate of Smithiian economics). Then again, net neutrality is good, just because it's good. I don't want to have to pay more for internet service that I'm used to having, but that's mostly because I'm kinda cheap :). So, I guess it could be argued both ways...

 
At 7/08/2006 10:30 PM, Blogger Matthew said...

Here's why you're wrong.

Network neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with how fast you have access the internet. Your ISP can give the customer as fast or as slow service as he or she pay for. Fair is fair.

See, network neutrality is not about the client end, but about the server end. What we don't want is ISPs delaying packets from servers from companies that compete with them. The biggest example is some ISP in Canada, I think, which blocked packets for VOIP from anything other than their own service.

 
At 7/09/2006 11:42 AM, Blogger Roshan said...

Hmm....I always thought it was the other way around...lol. I think I have an op-ed from the Ayn Rand Institute about this. If I can dig it up, I'll post it here.

 
At 2/05/2007 7:37 PM, Blogger Lucas said...

Thanks for your help Matt!

I sent in a bill to be debated at the Harvard National Congress on this and it was accepted! I'm writing my authorship/sponsorship now thanks to this blog's help! thanks again!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home