Thanks to Number Two, the Conspiracy would like to offer for your perusal the comments of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, member of the Senate Commerce Committee (better known at the "Anti-commerce Committee"). As a member of the committee, Senator Stevens is charged (though not constitutionally) with regulating the nation to death.

This he does with aplomb and striking enthusiasm, despite his glaring lack of knowledge about the things he wants to regulate. Case in point, the internet. Ted and his pals in DC are looking into the interest of businesses to provide upgraded levels of internet service for added fees. Since Ted does not seem to believe that people can be free to use their money to get something better, because it might make others feel inadequate, he is against letting businesses offer things like faster service, video news, and music options for a bit more. Equality means the equal sharing of misery, not equal treatment under the law.

The second issue involved in Mr. Stevens' blather is that of VOIP (Voic-over Internet Protocol) technology, which would expand the ability of web users to employ their computers for audio conversations, instead of using the phone. Mr. Stevens doesn't think the web shoudl be used for these crazy things like commerce and talking... Scary guy.

Here are some samples from the Senate Transcript:

Thursday, 29 June 2006
Your Own Personal Internet

The Senate Commerce Committee deadlocked 11 to 11 on an amendment
inserting some very basic net neutrality provisions into a moving
telecommunications bill. The provisions didn't prohibit an ISP from
handling VOIP faster than emails, but would have made it illegal to
handle its own VOIP packets faster than a competitor's.

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) explained why he voted against the
amendment and gave an amazing primer on how the internet works.

  There's one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie
delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently
it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home
and you change your order but you pay for that, right.

  But this service isn't going to go through the interent and what
you do is you just go to a place on the internet and you order your
movie and guess what you can order ten of them delivered to you and
the delivery charge is free.

  Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to
your own personal internet?

  I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10
o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?

  Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the
internet commercially.

  So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and
me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for
commercial purposes.

  We aren't earning anything by going on that internet. Now I'm not
saying you have to or you want to discrimnate against those people
[...]

  The regulatory approach is wrong. Your approach is regulatory in
the sense that it says "No one can charge anyone for massively
invading this world of the internet". No, I'm not finished. I want
people to understand my position, I'm not going to take a lot of time.
[?]

  They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the
internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump
something on. It's not a 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 its
going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous
amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.

  Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you
know that?

  Do you know why?

  Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't
afford getting delayed by other people.

  [...]

  Now I think these people are arguing whether they should be able
to dump all that stuff on the internet ought to consider if they
should develop a system themselves.

  Maybe there is a place for a commercial net but it's not using
what consumers use every day.

  It's not using the messaging service that is essential to small
businesses, to our operation of families.

  The whole concept is that we should not go into this until someone
shows that there is something that has been done that really is a
viloation of net neutraility that hits you and me.

here's the audio for those can't believe this...:
http://media.publicknowledge.org/stevens-on-nn.mp3

In response, Caveman Radio covered the issue, with the inimitable Grumpy Old Caveman providing commentary. Enjoy.