[Cialug] How the Internet works

[Dave Weis]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Claus wrote:
> It's not about whether or not the amendment is reasonable.  Its about the 
> attitude of the posts.  Knee jerk reactions like that only cause more harm. 
> Here is a senator that needs the expertise from people like you, yet you call 
> him an idiot.  This doesn't foster any communications, instead positions the 
> senator more solid with the telecom lobbyists.
> The mistakes he made during the speech are quite common throughout the normal 
> population.  There is always the notion that someone has to have invented the 
> Internet, that one is using the Internet, that one can buy it and that it's 
> free.  The Internet is a bunch of different things to different people and 
> there isn't one exact definition, not even within the IT world.  But it 
> really doesn't matter.  We all know that the Internet he got was an email 
> message.  What matters is that he like millions of other people want to get 
> their email to arrive reliably and fast.  While the opponents promise that 
> they will, we tell him he's an idiot.  Good job!

It's one thing to not know and stay quiet, it's another thing to not know 
and ask questions, it's an entirely different thing to not know and tell 
everyone how much you know!

Senators don't position themselves with lobbyists because someone hurt 
their feelings. If that bothered them, they wouldn't have run for office 
in the first place. I'm unable to find the site now that contains the 
donor information for Senators, but I did see that so far this year AT&T 
has spent $1.3 million on lobbying.

His aw shucks act misleads people into thinking that their email is slow 
because AT&T can't charge Google extra for all the bandwidth they get for 
free. The best part of the BS show is that the tier 1 carriers that are 
whining and moaning don't pay for IP transit like Google or tier 2 and 
tier 3 providers do!

dave


> On 7/3/2006 1:20 PM, Dave Weis wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Claus wrote:
>>> First of all you have to remember that Senators have to deal with all 
>>> kinds of issues, not just IT.  So it's very difficult for them to be an 
>>> expert on everything.  If you listen to the audio you'd know that right 
>>> away.
>> 
>> If it's part of your job to make decisions that affect 250+ million people 
>> directly, plus a few billion more around the world indirectly, you should 
>> understand the basic principles of how it works. He's also not a first year 
>> peon, he chairs the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. That 
>> sounds like someone that should have an inklink of how things work.
>> 
>>> While he did get some things incorrect, he also had several things 
>>> correct. While he wasn't the smoothest speaker, he voiced a valid concern. 
>>> It is hard for us to overhear the little mistakes like "sending the 
>>> Internet" and such and focus on the real concern.
>>> 
>>> All what I hear is bashing by us but nobody stepped up and tried to 
>>> clarify things and argue for or against it with solid and easy to 
>>> understand reasons. In a democracy it is our duty as citizens to stay 
>>> informed in politics and elect and vote intelligently when called upon. 
>>> As technological experts it's our duty to advice our political 
>>> representatives.  For this list it would be fully appropriate, with the 
>>> proper subject line, to discuss the amendment intension while bashing 
>>> people shouldn't be.
>> 
>> The amendment was completely reasonable and had a good reason to be there, 
>> see next paragraph.
>> 
>>> The part that makes me sick are the people that make just make fun of them 
>>> but don't contribute anything useful.  Such behavior is extremely low and 
>>> just plain destructive.  Who wants to serve in a public office or voice 
>>> their opinions just so others make fun of you?
>> 
>> There are plenty of astroturf groups making noise about the issue. I saw in 
>> person a petition paid for by the telephone companies getting people 
>> excited about protecting the internet from regulation. The regulations 
>> being that carriers can not intentionally degrade traffic over their 
>> network that goes to a competitor. It didn't prevent carriers from giving 
>> themselves priority, just preventing them from affecting competitors. The 
>> request for the law has come up because some carriers are intentionally 
>> harming traffic like Vonage when it eats into their wireline revenue.
>> 
>> dave
>> 
>>> On 7/3/2006 7:11 AM, Dave J. Hala Jr. wrote:
>>>> Sometimes you want to laugh when you realize that these politicians just
>>>> don't get it. Then you realize that they are our leaders, and it just
>>>> makes you sick.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 06:50, Dave Weis wrote:
>>>>> I guess I was wrong on how I thought things worked:
>>>>> http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/?entry_id=1512499
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Cialug mailing list
>>> Cialug at cialug.org
>>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>> 
>> 
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>

-- 
Dave Weis
djweis at internetsolver.com
http://www.internetsolver.com/