Daily Show Report - A Call for Action on Net Neutrality
July 20th, 2006 by tkarrOn Wednesday night, the Daily Show revisited Senator Ted Stevens’ speech on Net Neutrality to demonstrate what the Internet would look like without this guiding principle.
Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman uses several envelopes or “packets” to illustrate how information travels across a neutral Internet. He then describes a world without Net Neutrality.
Here’s Hodgman’s exchange with show host Jon Stewart. Watch it and then call your senator today:
John Hodgman: The point is with Net Neutrality all these packets, whether they come from a big company or just a single citizen, are treated in the exact same way.
Jon Stewart: So what’s the debate? That actually seems quite fair.
Hodgman: Yes… Almost too fair. It’s as though the richer companies get no advantage at all. That’s why the big telecom and cable corporations are lobbying to create a special class of Internet service where, for example, this packet from Google and this one from Amazon get through very easily. But this packet from #@%!!TimeWarner.org somehow gets routed a little differently (Hodgman tears up an envelope representing the last packet and tosses it to the side).
Stewart: So that packet will not get through?
Hodgman: Oh no, it’ll get through. It’s just that they’ll travel on a second tier of the Internet, which, ironically, will be a series of tubes.
Later Hodgman says that if Net Neutrality fails we should all get ready “for the excitement of the information super-tube.”
Check out the video at YouTube.
Then watch the Daily Show’s earlier send-up of Senator Stevens’ speech. To learn where your senator stands on Net Neutrality, visit our Senate Map. And call your senator today.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Is there a disconnect between his explanation of net neutrality (which would prohibit QoS and is sometimes called “pure” net neutrality) and the softer conception of net neutrality being proposed in Congress (which would permit QoS but not QoS fees)?
July 20th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
He’s a comedian. It’s funny.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
Yeah, it is funny. My point is more about this site using Stewart’s casual value judgment as a reason to contact senators to support net neutrality legislation without explaining the difference in net neutrality conceptions. That being said, my place is a mess. I tore up the floor boards but couldn’t find my super-tube.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Can’t find my tubes either. I’d like to pnu-mail friends for advice.
July 20th, 2006 at 7:24 pm
ChadB:
QoS is not the same thing as Net Neutrality. QoS are the rules by which different types of data are routed for optimum use of a network however such rules are applied irregardless of who is sending/recieving the data (i.e. streamed video packets are handled the same way no matter if its a large company sending or an individual). QoS is a commonly used network tool used by many network providers to give routing priority to those data types which require a timely and in-order delivery such as streamed video/audio. QoS (as it is used today) is in no way impaired by the Net Neutrality legislation introduced by Senators Snowe/Dorgan. The telco’s “softer conception of net neutrality” equals no Net Neutrality protections.
The Big Telco lobbyists have said that Net Neutrality is a solution seeking a problem as if its a good idea to wait until it is a problem rather then taking steps to prevent it from ever occuring! I’m sure the Big Telco’s would love for us to believe that what they are trying to push through Congress is a “softer conception of net neutrality” but it only takes a little reading to quickly figure out that whats good for the Big Telco’s is not good for its citizens (don’t even get me started on corporations having citizen status!)
July 20th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Btw, Stewart’s biting satire is anything but a casual value judgement. Just because the topic is treated using comedy does not mean Stewart cares less about the issue then the millions of other concerned citizens. I’m grateful that people with the kind of audience reach that Stewart has are taking up the fight to save the internet from the greedy Telco’s!
July 21st, 2006 at 12:45 am
The Net Neutrality issue has an international effect. It would be great if this site allowed non-USA people to sign up.
The swell in numbers would also emphasise - to the decision makers - that there is a worldwide flow on effect. Do they REALLY want to take on the world?
I’m going to post a link on my blog now. I hope that will help in some way.
July 21st, 2006 at 9:22 am
Jon Stewart is a hero to the cause and should be memorialized on YTMND. Period.
July 21st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Raz,
I suggest you re-read the NN amendments being proposed and my post above. You will see that the NN amendments permit enhanced QoS but forbid the telecoms from charging QoS fees. The idea is this will prevent the wireline owners from using high QoS fees to exclude competition in Internet services (particularly VoIP and broadcast video) that the wireline owners want to provide themselves. This “no QoS fees” idea IS the softer version of NN that I was discussing above.
The “pure” version of NN, which none of the recent proposed amendments require, would prohibit any packet discrimination and instead would require that each data packet be treated on a first-come, first-served, “best efforts” basis. In short, the “pure” version forbids QoS. It is this “pure” version that was explained on the Daily Show, and not the “no QoS fees” version that is in the Snowe/Dorgan and other recent NN amendments.
And Stewart’s value judgment appears casual for two reasons. First, if you watched the video, it looked like he was giving a casual endorsement of NN. Second, and perhaps more importantly, he does not address the details of the debate or any arguments made by the other side, some of which are worthy of consideration. Many of the scholarly proponents of NN legislation (e.g. Professor Wu) recognize that there is a trade-off.
This is not a criticism of Stewart or the Daily Show because such discussions belong elsewhere–not in a 5-minute comedy feature. And I have no problem with Stewart raising the issue so more people pay attention to it.
And look out for Richard Bennett regarding this comment: “QoS (as it is used today) is in no way impaired by the Net Neutrality legislation introduced by Senators Snowe/Dorgan.” From a technical perspective, what you said might be true. But from an economic perspective, it is more doubtful. Richard Bennet has argued that the wireline providers might choose not to provide QoS if they cannot charge for it. If he is right, the S/D amendment would impair QoS.
July 22nd, 2006 at 4:13 am
ChadB,
Thanks for the clear and thoughtful response. I misunderstood what you were saying and pretty much agree with everything you just said. The thing about QoS is that it has the potential to increase several fold a providers effective bandwidth so it actually saves money rather then costs money. That makes me think the telco threat of not implimenting QoS is a scare tactic.
July 22nd, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Why is this even an issue?
What I mean is, these megalithic companies only have the power to do this because we let them. Eg. They are your cable and phone companies, if they are going to take away your freedoms, you take away theirs.
Eg. I am with AOL right now, but if I find out that they want to back this bill, I don’t need to be with them, and I can cancell and move to an internet provider who is not backing this bill, like I guess earthlink or someone else.
Maybe what you need to do is have people write to their phone and cable companies instead. That would wake them up, take away our freedom, we will take away yours. I am so sick and tired of having freedoms, and rights taken away at every turn, while most people just sleep and let it happen.
The internet is the last free frontier and I really don’t want to see that let go. I however no longer blame these megalithic companies, if we the people stopped using them, do you think they would have the power to do this to us? To even make suggestions like this. Write to congress if you must, but write to your phone and cable companies ask them what they think they are doing?
Advise them that if they want to take away your freedom you will take theirs, I bet if all these people who signed the petition were so serious, they would switch from these companies who want to do this, or at least write to them.
When someone goes after you, you go after them. This is their first strike against freedom, and if allowed it won’t be the last. I can’t even believe that they are suggesting this, but why should this surprise me. Look at how well the internet is doing for everyone, rich, poor, every race and creed on the planet, ofcourse they want to stop that. They also want to silent the voices, and break up the unity. Imagine if this succeeds, then they can tell you what to put on your forums, groups etc.
This has to be cut off at the knees, I for one would like to know where AOL stands on this, because I can stop using them tomorrow if they are backing this. I can also switch phone companies. So can many others who care about this issue.
Without us, they don’t have the power to do this. So if you take away their power, they won’t be able to take yours. Fight while you still can, fight while it’s still free, because who knows what tomorrow will look like.
July 23rd, 2006 at 8:39 am
On a more serious note, Bob Frankston (co-inventor of the spreadsheet) has weighed in with a series of excellent articles explaining net neutrality. One uses an analogy of sidewalks:
Another explains why the FCC is an antiquated body that is not suitable for regulating the Internet:
July 26th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Freedom: Please tell us your post was satire that I just didn’t get.
|”I can cancel and move to an internet provider who is not backing this bill.”|
Otherwise, please explain how (in the current cable broadband monopoly in my building) I can switch to a broadband internet provider who in not backing this bill? By switching to the monopoly DSL provider that services my building? Rats, both companies are very vocal opponents of NN. So much for choice in a broadband duopoly . . .
July 26th, 2006 at 9:51 am
That was quite humorous.
August 4th, 2006 at 11:06 am
[…] You know it is truly a moronic idea when the Daily Show takes a crack at it and more than once. […]
August 28th, 2006 at 2:57 pm
[…] Assurez-vous de regarder en page d’acceuil le clip de la satire diffusée au Jon Stewart Daily Show récemment. (EDITION : le clip n,Est plus en page d’acceuil. Voici le lien pour le visionner.) […]