The discussion turns to network neutrality, a battle then unfolding in Congress between telecom giants and internet companies like Google. Weinstein warns that phone and cable companies seek to charge content providers for access to their customers, a move that could reshape the open internet into something resembling the old telephone monopoly. He notes that Americans already pay more for slower internet than citizens in many other countries, including the Philippines.
Art and Weinstein also explore government surveillance of internet communications, including the AT&T and NSA controversy and the broader implications of warrantless data collection. They examine broadband power line technology and its threat to the radio spectrum, with both men drawing on their experience as amateur radio operators to highlight potential interference dangers.
Key Moments
Could the Internet just disappear?: Weinstein traces the Internet's resilience back to ARPANET's nuclear-survivable design but warns that the real fragile point is the domain name system, where a small number of servers translate names to IPs.
Net neutrality and AT&T vs. Google: Weinstein lays out the network-neutrality fight: phone and cable carriers, led by the new AT&T's CEO, want to charge services like Google for the right to reach subscribers, while Congress is heavily lobbied by the telcos.
EFF lawsuit on AT&T routing traffic to NSA: Weinstein describes the ongoing Electronic Frontier Foundation lawsuit alleging AT&T funneled vast Internet traffic to the NSA, and the government's 'we can't even tell you whether it happened' state-secrets defense, plus USA Today's call-records story.
President Weinstein refuses mass surveillance order: Art puts Weinstein in the Oval Office: a possible nuke is in-country, will you sign an order to monitor all US communications? Weinstein says no, arguing broad-based surveillance would bury the rare relevant signal and that 9/11 collected data was already drowning unanalyzed.
Surveillance state vs. losing the war on terror: Weinstein invokes Franklin to argue trading privacy for security is a bad bargain, agrees a police state could deliver more security but says most Americans would not want to live there, and stresses oversight as the line between reasonable and abusive operations.