Yeah there's definitely room for amusement in his little speech, but to be fair to him, its not an entirely inappropriate analogy/explication. His point, given a charitable reading, is that its not like all our data sits in one big truck and travels end to end, but that it passes through a series of pipes. He should have added: as discrete chunks. As he points out, when someone initiates a large transfer, your chunks get queued up within or behind theirs, and since there are a lot of chunks of their data, you inevitably get your data later (this cannot be the reason, though, for his email delays). I am generalizing a lot (and there are particular TCP behaviour issues and router configurations that
make things more complex) but not at the risk of error.
His point is this: why should regular users of the Internet suffer because people provide and other people consume crazy downloads (e.g: huge video files)? This is pertinent, I would suggest, since no network provider will provision for peak usage. His argument (if I am getting it right) is incorrect/disingenuous, not technically, but empirically/logically: Verizon and AT&T want to police the pipes not to ensure fair use, but to offer privileged use.
What I would like is not net neutrality, but what Stevens seems to unwittingly be asking for: net fairness. Legislation that requires NSPs to: throttle or back-pressure large flows at routers. Provide public access connectivity and services (similar to public access TV). etc.
I leave you with this:
http://www.freepress.net/docs/dj_teds_techno_tubes.mp3
;-)
--ravi
P.S: I should add that most of the delays are due to the lack of capacity at the regional networks and the last hop to the end user.
-- Support something better than yourself: ;-) PeTA: http://www.peta.org/ GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/ If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/