Well, strictly speaking, that's not inaccurate. As long as you don't capitalize internets, of course. There are lots of networks that use the TCP/IP protocol, but not all of them are connected to The Internet.
Is that why people sometimes say "Intertoobs"? Or does that refer to You-Tube? I'm so far behind the curve, I don't know why I bother.
I must admit that Stevens doesn't sound like he has much idea what he's talking about, but he's not completely clueless either. This comment here is exactly right as it applies to broadband cable access.
"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 are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
DSL technology, on the other hand, really is a series of tubes, where every subscriber has a tube of his own. And with ATM technology in the telecom switching offices, even cable traffic can be sorted into individual tubes once it gets to the telecom switches and prioritized so that traffic that is time-sensitive can be separated from slower bulk traffic. If that's what the "net neutrality" people are objecting to, I think they're being silly. Traffic is being prioritized right now based on its sensitivity to jitter and latency, and it would be really stupid to prohibit that.
Or is that not what's meant by "net neutrality?" I understand the technology, but I'm a little behind on the politics.
If Stevens had said anything else that implied he understood the concept, however broadly, I might agree with you. But it's clear that people tried, very hard, to explain his job to him and this is all he took away from the explanation.
Missed from before: No, net neutrality is something different, reacting to something far more sinister. Some companies want to give preferential treatment to some internet providers/channels. That is, providers want web sites to pay for the privilege of being on the net. Net neutrality is the movement to keep the net free of such communist leanings...
IMHO, it's no more important than whether people say "see you at the con" or "see you at con."
People did sometimes say "internets" in the old days, before Arpanet morphed into something huge and world-consuming. And considering how many gazillion little networks are now camped out behind address translation routers using the same set of 10.0.0.x addresses, it might be more accurate to describe the situation as a bunch of little internets. I tend to think of The Internet as the Big Network that shares a single address space (no duplicates allowed, and nobody ussing Network 10 anymore).
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 08:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 09:36 pm (UTC)Well, strictly speaking, that's not inaccurate. As long as you don't capitalize internets, of course. There are lots of networks that use the TCP/IP protocol, but not all of them are connected to The Internet.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 10:06 pm (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 10:05 pm (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 11:26 pm (UTC)Wikipedia
Date: 2008-01-10 11:48 pm (UTC)B
no subject
Date: 2008-01-10 11:54 pm (UTC)The party that lied about Al Gore's contribution to the technology simply hasn't a clue what it really is.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 01:56 am (UTC)I must admit that Stevens doesn't sound like he has much idea what he's talking about, but he's not completely clueless either. This comment here is exactly right as it applies to broadband cable access.
"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 are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."
DSL technology, on the other hand, really is a series of tubes, where every subscriber has a tube of his own. And with ATM technology in the telecom switching offices, even cable traffic can be sorted into individual tubes once it gets to the telecom switches and prioritized so that traffic that is time-sensitive can be separated from slower bulk traffic. If that's what the "net neutrality" people are objecting to, I think they're being silly. Traffic is being prioritized right now based on its sensitivity to jitter and latency, and it would be really stupid to prohibit that.
Or is that not what's meant by "net neutrality?" I understand the technology, but I'm a little behind on the politics.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 02:34 am (UTC)If Stevens had said anything else that implied he understood the concept, however broadly, I might agree with you. But it's clear that people tried, very hard, to explain his job to him and this is all he took away from the explanation.
We need adults running the government.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 04:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 03:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 12:26 am (UTC)But the thing is, at first people were saying "the internets" to be funny, now I see it so much I fear some people are serious or don't know better.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-11 02:00 am (UTC)People did sometimes say "internets" in the old days, before Arpanet morphed into something huge and world-consuming. And considering how many gazillion little networks are now camped out behind address translation routers using the same set of 10.0.0.x addresses, it might be more accurate to describe the situation as a bunch of little internets. I tend to think of The Internet as the Big Network that shares a single address space (no duplicates allowed, and nobody ussing Network 10 anymore).