Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver is Wrong
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 тра 2017
- Progressives are freaking out now that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is beginning the repeal of Net Neutrality regulations, which give the government the right to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
Subscribe to our UA-cam channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
The main arguments in favor of Net Neutrality are really arguments guarding against hypotheticals: that ISPs could otherwise block and censor content (they never have) or that they'll run their operations like shakedowns, requiring content providers to pay up or slow their traffic to molasses. The main documented instance of an ISP favoring one content provider over others wasn't sinister collusion. Metro PCS offered unlimited UA-cam in a budget data plan but not unlimited Hulu and Netflix, because UA-cam had a compression system that could be adapted to the carrier's low-bandwidth network. In a different context, critics might have applauded Metro PCS, since bought by T-Mobile, for bringing more options to lower-income customers.
Net Neutrality is a proxy battle over what type of internet we want to have-one characterized by technocratic regulations or one based on innovation and emergent order. Progessives are generally suspicious of complex systems existing without powerful regulators present and accounted for. Small-government folks are repulsed by bureaucrats in general, and think the internet will fair better in a state of benign neglect. The FCC has come down on the side of an organic internet, instead of treating the internet more like a public utility.
We don't know how the internet is going to evolve over time, but neither do the government administrators trying to rein it in. But given the record of free-market innovation vs. government-regulated services, the odds are with market forces and entrepreneurs.
Written and performed by Andrew Heaton, with writing assistance from Sarah Rose Siskind and David Fried.
Edited by Austin Bragg and Sarah Rose Siskind.
Produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg.
Theme Song: Frozen by Surfer Blood.
----------------
Me back then: OMG THE INTERNET IS GOING TO END
Me now: nothing happened, the influencers lied to me, and net neutrality repeal did nothing.
1 year later and there has been no noticeable change. interesting....
You think it might be related to the states trying to use their own laws to enforce net neutrality or the embarassment after those firefighters had their connection throttled while they were using it to coordinate on the wildfires. With the way public sentiment is on the subject pushing to hard would only blow up in their faces. Also keep in mind that it has been proven multiple times that isps have been slowing down traffic to websites.
Wrong, internet speeds have increased
Hmm no Net Neutrality in Europe and the internet is just fine here. I'm on a Gigabit connection with zero throttling. But yea probably "states using their own laws to enforce net neutrality" is what saved the US internet 🤦♂️
Its 2020 and I just died from net neutrality....
Going on 4 years and we now have 5g. Those damn greedy corporations forcing higher download speeds on me! If only the government would have stopped them at 3g!
A year later this popped up in my feed, man I miss Heaton
2 years later
What happened to Andrew?
He has a podcast now: Something’s Off with Andrew Heaton
@@jpbochi Thank You! Looks like some awesome episodes, bummed I did not know about it sooner!
Yeah, me too.
I will say this video did age well, John Oliver’s didn’t.
What?
@@evolution__snow6784 nothing changed
Charging extra for hotspot data is a violation of net neutrality. The repeal made this extra charge legal again.
Just think about it, your ISP, who is not the creator of the data, is looking into every packet of data you consume to determine whether it was consumed on your phone, or your laptop (other devices) through hotspot.
ISPs in other countries which have good net neutrality laws don't charge extra for mobile hotspot.
I mean, at some point in the future, net neutrality MIGHT be necessary if a few big corporations like amazon, google, etc. take over most of the internet service providing on their own by squashing competition. At that point, NetNeut might make sense. But if it was implemented right now, it would just assist them in squashing competition. It really all depends, and right now, yes, Oliver was a twat full of shit.
@@AndogaSpock astroturf. Are you paid directly by FAANG or does a third party take care of that?
Me in 2017: “yeah, I’m sure this video will age reeeaalll nicely”
Me in 2021 “oh well would you look at that, it did”
It really didn’t if you know jack about internet infrastructure. NN sounds bad in the same way anti monopolization laws sound bad; it only matters when your trying to actively fuck over the system and fundamentally cannot screw anything else up.
@@codecademy7022 anyone who disagrees with you "doesn't know Jack about internet infrastructure", well argued.
We can't let the monopolies of ISP's control the internet! Let's pass more regulations to make sure that they are the only ones that can provide internet!
Because Progress. :D
I'm from the future. And I'm here to say he's right. It's all okay
I'm from the distant future... and everyone forgot about net neutrality. Everything turned out fine without net neutrality.
Charging extra for hotspot data is a violation of net neutrality. The repeal made this extra charge legal again.
Just think about it, your ISP, who is not the creator of the data, is looking into every packet of data you consume to determine whether it was consumed on your phone, or your laptop (other devices) through hotspot.
ISPs in other countries which have good net neutrality laws don't charge extra for mobile hotspot.
I'm from the even more distant future and Jesus Christ(!) do we have bigger problems to worry about now.
I’m from the same future as Mr. X, and yah this debate is not on the radar. And i’m starting to wonder why?
2.9 likes to 2.6 dislikes
Way to be centrist
He panders to the median viewer!
They're not centrist, they're right leaning and partially funded by the Koch family
@@duncangilpatric987 They're not right leaning they're Libertarians
@@duncangilpatric987 Notice how us libertarians were correct. 100%. Nothing bad happened. lol.
@@duncangilpatric987 sadly. Because the Koch brothers are great! I would like if they'd supported ARI and The Capitalist Party. Libertarians aren't very smart, but at least they kinda support property rights.
John Oliver wrong about something? Imagine that
Seems he was against it
I
M
A
G
I
N
E
M
Y
S
H
O
C
K
"I'm scared of major corporations so I'm going to do exactly what they say is good for me!"
-Everybody on the left
Same for the election lol.. all the money went to Hillary and yet they were still claiming Trump and Johnson were the puppets lol
Charging extra for hotspot data is a violation of net neutrality. The repeal made this extra charge legal again.
Just think about it, your ISP, who is not the creator of the data, is looking into every packet of data you consume to determine whether it was consumed on your phone, or your laptop (other devices) through hotspot.
ISPs in other countries which have good net neutrality laws don't charge extra for mobile hotspot.
@@AndogaSpock my phone provider in the us doesn't charge anything extra for it either though
@@EileenTheCr0w I live in US, I have unlimited data with Verizon, but only 15GB with mobile hotspot. Which means they have to look into my data and figure out where I consume it, and charge me extra if I go over 15GB. But if I consume it all at my phone, its unlimited. Ajit pai is an ex-employee of Verizon
@@AndogaSpock Oh, well I don't use Verizon. Them and AT&T are very overpriced imo.
We don't need any "net neutrality" laws, what we need is to remove the root conflict of interest and leverage our existing laws. This was a non-issue for the most of the internet's life because ISP's were not also content providers.
But nothing is stopping ISP's from partnering up with streaming services.
I applied to be a writer on John Olivers show but they said all my jokes need to be submitted in the form of a photoshop image.
And you couldn't deliver?
Man you must be so bad that you couldnt even make joke in the form of photoshop image
@@hansdrachenberg8557 yeah he whas so bad not even john oliver would take him
What we need is more competition for the broadband market, plain and simple.
5 years later: Starlink, brought to you by Elon Musk.
Aged like fine wine
Wow this aged much better than 99% of Jon Oliver's BS
Your argument against companies making sites going slower is "it's never happened yet!", that's pretty poor.
And internet providers are already blocking sites in my country, so just wait.
There are two ways we come out of this:
Like India, where because of rampant corruption and government meddling, the nightmare scenarios described by net neutrality advocates are very real.
Or like Switzerland, where the ISPs their voluntarily chose net neutrality because it is what the customers wanted. (And much of the internet their is wireless, as it is expensive to build cable infrastructure).
Unlike US ISPs which have whopping infrastructure costs, and very costly cables, Switzerland is wireless, which means that a lot of the arguments for net neutrality break down. First the companies offer it anyways, because now the cost is less than the benefit (having customers remain loyal to you). Secondly in the event that your ISP does pull something, it is much easier to change your ISP over there.
But really we shouldn't have employed laws that helped create these monopolies in the first place. This is a case of the government covering it's ass.
Personally I believe they should remove other internet regulation, in order to increase the number of ISPs, so that there is more competition when/if they remove net neutrality (it isn't quite in effect yet).
And to the 'public utility' folks, just because it is classified as one does not mean it should be one.
Charging extra for hotspot data is a violation of net neutrality. The repeal made this extra charge legal again.
Just think about it, your ISP, who is not the creator of the data, is looking into every packet of data you consume to determine whether it was consumed on your phone, or your laptop (other devices) through hotspot.
ISPs in other countries which have good net neutrality laws don't charge extra for mobile hotspot.
The problem with the highway analogy is that all data travels at the speed of light (it's all electrical pulses over copper wire or light over fiber optic cable). This means that rather than a highway analogy, it's better to think of it like the electrical grid or water system. I feel it is best described in plumbing terms so that's what I'll use. Since all the data travels at the same speed based on the pumps (routers/switches) through the pipes, the biggest limiting factor is the size of the pipe and how much data it can shove into it. Fast lanes have always been a bad analogy, a fast lane is really an unimpeded pipe, but in this case of a slower pipe all data is slowed down.
If the ISPs didn't have a bunch of localized monopolies, they might have some incentive to improve their infrastructure and increase speeds. ISPs would also likely have less incentive to slow down the pumps from content providers like (e.g. netflix), but that was covered by John Oliver.
The biggest problem with this video is that he never made a case for why the internet is worse now than before Net Neutrality came into effect.
But the main issue that Net neutrality seems to "attempt" to resolve is the lack of competition among ISPs. Some neighboorhoods and regions of the country only have 1 choice in order to get internet access. How do we encourage more competition in these underserved areas?
Comcast as also effectively throttled Netflix since it didn't want to pay for a peering agreement. Netflix eventually agreed to pay, but not all startups want to or can pay for such a peering agreement.
Charging extra for hotspot data is a violation of net neutrality. The repeal made this extra charge legal again.
Just think about it, your ISP, who is not the creator of the data, is looking into every packet of data you consume to determine whether it was consumed on your phone, or your laptop (other devices) through hotspot.
ISPs in other countries which have good net neutrality laws don't charge extra for mobile hotspot.
WOOT! Free the internet!!!
.
lol fccyeahyouknowme I died.
Not only have providers intentionally slowed down or favored certain site or services, they have done it out in the open even with net neutrality rules in place.
It's suggested that incumbent providers of right-of-way (government and their public utilities), not incumbent ISPs, created barriers of entry for smaller competition. The cost of the the labor, fiber, copper and equipment is only half of the cost ofa broadband network- that doubles when you factor in negotiations for use of easement.
Providers trying to gain entry are charged far more than what it actually costs to obtain right-of-way and attach to existing poles. It's government-sponsored monopolies via typical government barriers of entry (regulation) that created the lack of choice for consumers in the cable TV market- but since these were just networks for entertainment back then, and not the backbone and gateway to the Internet like they are now, it wasn't viewed as that big of a concern a few decades ago. What's the worst they could do, air commercials on C-SPAN?
Now, absent competition, these cable TV providers are ISPs, and have the ability to screw over customers without the free market providing choice. Government tried to 'do the right thing' by further regulating these broadband ISPs as they do with public utilities because they saw that they created and harbored a monster. But adding regulation on top of the mistake of past regulations isn't going to help reduce barriers of entry in the market, it will just strengthen the hold of those that exist, stagnate innovation, and limit competition until government has to step in and break up these mega corporations like they did with Bell.
The solution to this issue is not more regulation, it's less. Open right-of-way and streamline easement access like happened with Google Fiber. Allow competition in. Competition gives customers choice, and competition creates innovation. Merely defeating Net Neutrality may be a step in the right direction but it's not tackling the root cause.
This is why I love you, Reason. Great video - logic, facts, humor. Thank you.
What? You can charge for more speed. Paying more for faster service is allowed under Net neutrality rules. They just say you can't pick and choose what data goes at what speeds. Or alter it, speed up some websites, etc. ALL Of the internet must be treated equally, and not tampered/charged more for. That is all it mandates.
Charging extra for hotspot data is a violation of net neutrality. The repeal made this extra charge legal again.
Just think about it, your ISP, who is not the creator of the data, is looking into every packet of data you consume to determine whether it was consumed on your phone, or your laptop (other devices) through hotspot.
ISPs in other countries which have good net neutrality laws don't charge extra for mobile hotspot.
Internet is a problem that doesnt need fixing. In as little as 10 years we could have something that makes the internet look like a land line compared to a cell phone. Anyone remember using telephones? Yeah those were categorized as a utility, what ever happened with that?
Where can I find this YourFace thing?
Great video, again!
Lots of whining socialists in the comment section, once again!
3:10 ok now you have my attention.
I was playing minesweeper in my browser when I was watching this. STOP WATCHING ME!
Net neutrality has been around since 2010, 2015s regulations started including cellular companies. Now unlimited data is becoming the norm. I really don't know what side is right because there are good things to both sides
Where did all the funny go that disappeared from mainstream late night shows et cetera? Oh, here it is.
2:52
Not true - Verizon slowed / Blocked a payment service on Google while they gave their own payment service the best conditions - So this is bull shit. But that's what you get from a free market apologist / advokate. Facts obviously don't matter in this debate.
Source?
Damian www.businessinsider.com/verizon-blocking-google-wallet-2011-12?r=US&IR=T&IR=T
Also in India you can buy separate 'Whatsapp' and 'Facebook' packs. i.e. 125MB of Facebook, why won't the same thing happen in the US?
Market fundamentalism is the most dangerous religion to ever grace the Earth.
Ole Lund this is what you get with a free market. Walmart doesn't offer Target branded goods. if you bought an unlocked phone it would of worked but, if you bought it from Verizon they should have every right to offer whatever product they want.
Your minesweeper website was probably great, but I agree the internet itself had no business asking your name.
ya know the more I learn the more I don't want the government involved at all in almost anything. I was a big net neutrality supporter but now I just want government out of our lives. But the only reason I want rules for internet is because largely tax payers created it. More just want a Bill of Rights for the internet.
John Oliver is often wrong.
Correct!
If there isn't any abuses, then why does anyone want to get rid of the regulation. It would be like telling me I not allowed to kill people. And my response is, that is a silly law. I have never killed anyone. Lets get rid of that law. Why would I spend time getting rid of a law, that I know that I am not going to break. Unless.....
Because it protects large corporations from having to pay for fast lanes, which is a bullshit excuse for government intervention.
Elpeo Puru You are so uniformed. Net neutrality makes it so ISP can't play favorites. This means all sites are treated as equal and all get the fastest speed possible. Without net neutrality, ISP can slow down any site for any reason. They can basically black mail sites to make them pay a fee to retain fast speeds. Big sites like google will have no problem with that, but small sites will not be able to pay and thus speed to them will be slowed. Making them inaccessible The ISPs can also censor any sites they want by them slowing down.
It also protects new websites from large ones having fast lanes. Let's say you want to start a new streaming service, but Hulu and Netflix both are established and are now paying the largest ISPs for faster connections. Your new startup won't be able to compete.
You are clearly the uninformed one. His statement reflects the legislation. Your statement reflect the public relations effort that got the legislation passed. One of you lives in reality, the other is living someone elses lie. I have read the law. You havent. Game over.
Because the government loves offering solutions for problems that don't exist.
Amazing content, I like how he didn't flinch a single bit through the entire thing! Almost like a real anti-net neutrality advocate! This channel makes the best sarcastic content ever.
This video aged well this January
if you watched this, the government is now throttling your ISP.
I love for 4chan
The joke is that 4chan has a bad reputation. Even though if anyone went on there they would realize that it’s not that bad.
I am normally not a big gov person. But in a NN-free Internet, what specifically will protect consumer privacy from the ISP/telecom?
Companies like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T payed off congress to vote down NN and stated interest in selling customer data to advertisers. Since most ISPs operate in regional monopolies and telecom plans often involve penalties to exit, how is the consumer protected?
True, Google/Facebook sell eyeballs to advertisers, but every Internet user can elect not to use Facebook or Google. They cannot not use an ISP.
Please tell me how I am wrong about NN, seriously. I would love to be against NN, I would love to refine my stance on this and argue for Ajit Pai's "soft touch" governing by neutering FCC regs!
Please point me to a good source that explains in specific terms how ISP user's data will NOT be sold to advertisers and how tactics like "zero rating" and throttling will not occur in a NN-free FCC w/ Pai's vision of the Internet.
Sadly, the website domain has been suspended because they didn’t verify their email.
Yeah... charging premium rates and speeds is exactly whats wrong with the analogy.
Call it whacky, but I actually wouldn't mind paying a premium rate... because my only options are 3mb (400KB/30KB actual absolute max) DSL from Bell(Brick)south, paying in excess of 4 grand to Charter cable for an installation cost or going with Hughes(wretches)net. With the ISP's being classified as common carriers, they are actually being regulated by the arbitrary fiat of the five FCC chairmen as the 1937's framework has no language covering a whole host of issues that internet service that things like power, water, etc. do not one of the most important being online privacy, which before the reclassification was the responsibility of the FTC.
TwistedMe13 Lol do you expect a net neutrality supporter to engage in an honest and faithful debate with you? Think again lmao
I think smaller government is better let our free market be free and the consumers choose with thier wallet. Less laws the better
Sounds good until you find out they don’t want big companies like google to compete with companies like at&t and provide free WiFi
I went to the website and there was no minesweeper.
A pocket square without a tie is a sure sign of a cad.
Reason has not done there research here. You said that no one has ever blocked sites they don't like, but Comcast did this very thing with the bit torrent protocol. First they throttled, then they blocked, then they injected bad data in to packets to render the downloaded data useless. Comcast restricted access in one form or another to an application for 20% of wired internet users in the US for years before they finally worked with Bit Torrent on a better solution. Why did they do that? Because they knew regulations was coming and they wanted to prevent it. Without the pressure of regulation they never would have budged and inch.
I like how no one attacked this comment when they've been attacking every comment pointing out flaws in this video
Comcast was also throttling all Netflix traffic for a while a number of years ago. This was done similar to mob-tactics until Netflix reluctantly paid.
Further, I have heard that VoIP traffic was often blocked or throttled because it competed with ISP's side business (landline phones).
That's how Comcast lost ton of business and stopped doing it.... Because free market
@@modernwar2ghostrp Comcast lost a lot of business? When did that happen? Must have missed it.
Comcast owns the popular site speedtest.net after purchasing it from Ookla. They throttle connections on people who don't have Comcast. Tell me we don't need regulations for the web
Unless you're about to tell me that Comcast ALSO owns Time Warner, they most definitely don't throttle the connection.
Josh Patterson So, what, exactly? Why do any of us need speedtest.net to tell us how fast our internet connections are? Unless you have some good reason to believe the built-in speed measurement functions in Windows, or on the PS4, are somehow lying, I'd say it's an essentially worthless website. It isn't useful or even remotely important. That Comcast intends to use it to scam idiots is perhaps true, but it remains the case that they aren't somehow maliciously concealing the fact that you can check your connection speed elsewhere. Only an idiot would fall for that.
I think that he is saying that speedtest, and only speedtest, is accurate.. even though he is also saying that the owners of speedtest are fucking with it.
YamiShadow Kitty Many people rely on speed tests to determine how much speed they are actually getting as it does not always match what you're paying for
***** Why use a speed test to determine that though, considering that on your PC you can actually see the speed of incoming and outgoing data. On the PS4, you can see the incoming and outgoing speed using the "test network connection" function. Clearly, the need for a specific service does not imply that a specific website is the necessary and exclusive provider of that service. I'm not contesting the utility of testing your network speed. I'm contesting that it has to be speedtest.net where you do that test. Why them, particularly when you know they're unreliable? Find a different source. Heck, if you're actually testing network speed anyway, you probably should be doing multiple tests with different websites or tools so that you can compare data. Otherwise you're only pretending to care, but betraying that you just want to assume one single test has to be perfectly reliable. Test your data scientifically or don't test it at all. Account for factors that could affect network speed such as:
1. Usage on the whole ISP at different times of day.
2. Number of users and devices on your network.
These things will adversely affect network speed even if your provider is actually doing their utmost to provide what you're paying for. If the problem is the former, that's on them to fix and you can still use that as a consideration with going elsewhere. If it's the latter, that's frankly your problem. You're getting what you paid for, but you're distributing it over too many devices. Consider these factors and do multiple tests using different tools. Compile your data and come to your own conclusions. That one tool has lost its utility should not undermine your ability to do this.
The problem with the highway analogy is that there is a mechanical reason why some people need to be able to go faster in some lanes than others: to pass people. He never explains why it's important for some companies to be able to get better broadband service than others. Anyone want to explain this?
Great show. Keep it up!
Net Neutrality is a solution to theoretical problems mostly created by government intervention. Gotta love that single-seller(or damn near it) status for your ISP granted by backpocket politicians.
The potential to restrict information was created by government intervention?
Potential to restrict information? That's not what Net Neutrality is. NN in principle is to prevent giving priority to competing services. None of that restricts information and I'm sorry you are misled to believe that it does. Although some would argue that NN can not be done without deep packet inspection, which is used in countries that do have Net Neutrality to do what you said, actually restrict information through government censorship. You know, for the kids.
Huh? The potential to restrict information? Do you even know how the internet works?
If ISPs were given the ability to slow down websites that didn't pay the fast-lane fee, what would then stop them from slowing down websites with views the ISP owner disagrees with?
The unicorn fast-lane? I really don't think you understand how this all works in production, only some rhetoric on paper. So why hasn't it happened for 30 years of the internet? Heck, even if you find some obscure examples, it would be massively rare. The real problem isn't NN, the real issue is the government gives single seller status to ISPs, how come people don't rise up and fight that? It's a far greater problem, not a unicorn theory, and already happens and has happened for decades now. I know it's a lot to chew, but if you don't understand how the internet works, I don't expect you to understand the issues of single seller.
Not actually sure if that was a satire or not but I'm gonna assume not.
I disagree with basically everything said... big thumbs up for having the balls to release a video knowing full well it's an unpopular perspective.
hmmmm.......hmmmmm
He does know you don't have to pay to access the fast lane on a highway and that all the lanes have the same speed limit right?
I...I don't think he does.
Here's the thing net neutrality is necessary not because there was a problem, but because there is going to be one as the infrastructure grows. And ISP's will eventually charge those corporations you mentioned for use of their new infrastructure, while other smaller sites are stuck in the slow lane.
Think of it this way, it's the difference between taking the highway system now across the country in a little under two day trip and taking it before the highway system was implemented which for president Eisenhower was 67 days.
Kind of a big difference.
If you want a more local approach it would be like only these people can use the highways, while everyone else only gets to use poorly maintained city streets.
"has happened 0 times" except when netflix successfully sued verizon and won
If we had more options for Internet, then yes free market. But until we have three options for home internet I don't trust the cable companies. They are dying and something that is dying does what it can to survive. Including blocking or slowing streaming channels.
I would be in favor of government intervention to create more ISP competition, but I'm not in favor of protecting tech companies from having to pay for fast lanes.
So, what, go to ATT if your only choice is ATT? Yeah, sure.
Will getting rid of net neutrality make it easier for more companies to become ISPs? Right now in my area it's ATT or nothing, and where I use to live it was Comcast or nothing.
I live in small community where our broadband is limited and slow and we do not have choice in ISP so how would net neutrality be able to speed up some data when we can't get speed even now? Its not like ISP speed is same everywhere. Big cities have the optimum broadband but not in rural or outlying areas.
'ISPs have never throttled or blocked access to services'
You should really do a little research BEFORE making an argument. Also, it's annoying how you constantly go off-topic to squeeze in unfunny jokes.
Tyklay Do you have proof that something like that has ever happened?
@ Connor Hoagland ever heard Netflix slowed down by comcast?
Google it as long as google is not in the black list of comcast
he's parodying john oliver. it's supposed to be unfunny. that's the joke. get it?
Connor Hoagland hey... someone gave you evidence. Got anything to say in return?
You guys are funny
This!
Charging extra for hotspot data is a violation of net neutrality. The repeal made this extra charge legal again.
Just think about it, your ISP, who is not the creator of the data, is looking into every packet of data you consume to determine whether it was consumed on your phone, or your laptop (other devices) through hotspot.
ISPs in other countries which have good net neutrality laws don't charge extra for mobile hotspot.
3 years later… still aged well.
Google 8 chan. Whats that? Its delisted? Shocking!! According to this video companies never take it upon themselves to censor sites. Oh my gosh! What is going on?!?
"4chan-the internet's greatest advocate of free speech-is bad, especially in regards to this topic!" Christ, no wonder this is an extremely rare YT video with a higher number of dislikes than likes. You truly have no idea what you're talking about.
In the new era we live in, the EPA is here to protect the fossil fuel industry interest and the FCC to protect ISP interests, and we, the tax payers, are paying for it...
Well the internet already had two 'departments' policing it. The FTC and the DoJ.
Ioannis Nousias How the fuck does the FCC protect ISP interests?! They're the ones who regulate them!
cristi1990an look up "regulatory capture", which the FCC suffers from big time. Even if they brought in net neutrality, it would be on the big ISP's terms, not the public's.
Evan Robertson That's such nonsense
The FCC staying out of ISP interest and the market isn't costing you a dime. Staying out isn't protection.
You make an extremely valid argument, however, Comcast did pull some nonsense with Netflix, and then there's the fact that only 3 major companies control the distribution of most of the internet in the country. I don't like regulations either, but there is a certain point where even the private sector has to be held accountable.
You website it broken, I could not find the minesweeper you promised
Can we replace Oliver with Heaton, already???
Yes it's true this isn't a big deal... if we lived in a country where people had options for internet providers.
But we live in the US where there is usually one corporation that provides t.v. and internet in the area. Where our internet speeds are shittier than some 3rd world countries.
If there was actually competition for the best internet service in the us marketplace then yes this wouldn't be such a big deal.
Being a libertarian is fucking embarrassing these days
Flockerz Wow, you're stupid. Care to guess why there are monopolies in this case and little competition? Hmm...maybe it's the benevolent government?! Un-fucking-believeable that people who can't understand this can somehow learn to bang their hands ago the keypad to leave a half-witted comment.
Blankity Blank Blank That’s a totally different issue separate from net neutrality. Not all government intervention is bad anyway.
The reason there isn't any competition in the ISP market is because of Net Neutrality. Under Net Neutrality, ISPs have to comply with extensive government regulations and need federal licenses. All of this is incredibly expensive and it killed smaller ISPs and prevented any new ones from starting up. Why do you think Comcast supports Net Neutrality? Because it allows them to have legal monopolies over certain areas by regulating their competition out of business. They can afford federal licensing and town-sized ISPs can't. And then the quality suffers because Comcast doesn't have to improve their services because they're the only choice for internet. If you look at the numbers, the amount of money Comcast spent on improving their infrastructure from 2015-2017 was basically zero. Other countries will have upwards of 200 different ISPs to choose from, some of which are only the size of a single neighborhood and other that provide Comcast-level coverage. The big companies have to constantly improve their services and keep prices fair because they can be dropped for a smaller, more local ISP if they don't. Net Neutrality kills that entire market and nobody seems to be talking about it. The fight isn't over having certain sites blocked, it's about who controls the bandwidth. FYI, the reason Google doesn't want Net Neutrality is because it forces them to treat all clients the same, regardless of how much bandwidth they use. This means the entire service of Netflix has to be treated like it uses the same bandwidth as my gmail account. It costs Google a lot of money and it isn't fair to them.
Before claiming that nobody was affected before Net Neutrality rules went into effect, you may want to ask NetFlix about their buffering issues with Comcast in 2014.
There has been examples of companies throttling traffic to other companies. A good example of this is Comcast throttling Netflix back in 2014 according to technically Philly.
I DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT
I don't either. But the alternative is to trust corporations, and corporations answer to no one but profit. Do you remember when Ford chose to let people keep dying in their cars because it was cheaper to settle the death lawsuits than fix their shitty cars? The government is incompetent, but at least they never *try* to hurt us.
Cartoonishly Inept
You don't have to trust anybody, you can sue corporations, you can't sue the government or corporations protected by the government, which are all in cahuts with at the moment, they have no choice under statism. So yours is not a choice, mine it is:
Some of us realize the self-evident truth that no election, no constitution, no legislation, and no other pseudo-religious political ritual can bestow upon anyone the right to rule another. Nothing can make a man into a rightful master; nothing can make a man into a rightful slave.
Larken Rose, The Iron Web
If you personally advocate that I be caged if I don't pay for whatever "government" things YOU want, please don't pretend to be tolerant, or non-violent, or enlightened, or compassionate. Don't pretend you believe in "live and let live," and don't pretend you want peace, freedom or harmony. It's a simple truism that the only people in the world who are willing to "live and let live" are voluntaryists. So you can either PRETEND to care about and respect your fellow man while continuing to advocate widespread authoritarian violence, or you can embrace the concepts of self-ownership and peaceful coexistence, and become an anarchist.
Larken Rose
In truth, the belief in "government" is a religion, made up of a set of dogmatic teachings, irrational doctrines which fly in the face of both evidence and logic, and which are methodically memorized and repeated by the faithful. Like other religions, the gospel of "government" describes a superhuman, supernatural entity, above mere mortals, which issues commandments to the peasantry, for whom unquestioning obedience is a moral imperative.
Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition
Cartoonishly Inept
You just said that the government never try to hurt us? What planet are you from?
I want lo live there!!!!
Corporations answer to the people who voluntarily purchase their goods and services.
+Fast N Bulbous _"Corporations answer to the people who voluntarily purchase their goods and services."_
The tobacco industry knowingly killed millions of its own customers for decades while spending millions of dollars paying for fake science and bribing politicians to cover it up. But they did finally answer to the people like you say... just joking, Phillip Morris made $20 billion dollars in 2012 by selling the exact same product.
Corporations answer to the people... what world do you live in? The banks destroyed millions of people's lives in 2007 (everyone but the Wall Street execs) because they were _too big to fail._ And now those banks are bigger than they were in 2007.
here is your highway analogy
i pay to get on the toll roadway (my isp $x /month)
then the speed limit on all lanes is the same (net neutral)
and gm ford porsche
don't get or have to make side deals
that for a kick back their cars
to have a higher or force a slower
max speed then i paid for
i pay my isp for 60 mph but my carmaker don't pay up so
i can only do 40 on a road capable of the 60 i paid for
Someone else opens up a new roadway that allows you to drive however the fast you fucking want.
Broke your analogy in a market without government intervention.
Sadly not possible with broadband due to the ISP oligopoly in the US:
www.broadbandmap.gov/number-of-providers
This map gives you and idea of it, though it's a bit outdated. Set the maximum to one or two.
Very valid analogy. The Autobahn has no speed limit so the traffic flow is some of the best in the world. People with faster cars are allowed to do what they want while the people in slower cars can still chill back without damaging their engines.
Poor analogy. This one is more apt...
I pay to get on the toll roadway (my isp $x/month).
A company operating 1,000 semi trucks pays the same unit cost to get on the roadway.
There is bad traffic and the road needs repairs.
1. Tollway decides to raise the price for all toll users equally in order to pay for road repairs and new lanes to speed up traffic (net neutral).
2. Tollway charges company semi trucks more for toll than a sedan (not net neutral).
Which is more fair?
I’m getting lost in those analogies...
The fact is if I want 30 mb/s I’m going to pay for this. If I want 5 mb/s I’m going to pay a different price for that. However if I’m going to pay for 30 mb/s I expect the closest to the fair amount across the board for what I paid for. I don’t want to pay for 30 mb/s and get 3 mb/s because it’s Netflix or 8 mb/s because the ISP doesn’t like the website I use.
Its not like delivery service - you pay extra for more security or you need it faster (you need more workers, machines, ....) - the internet at the moment has speed x and you cannot argue that an ISP (which benefits extremely from this) should be allowed to decide which content is slower or faster - you pay for having internet - thats all they do - everything after that is how the costumer wants it to be
Aged like fine wine.
Google Tim Berners-lee he contributed a lot in order to make the internet what it is today.
Also:
He is a proponent of Net Neutrality. Well isn't that funny. One of the important contributers in making the internet is a Net Neutrality advocate.
Wonder why...?
Ole Lund the issue is less about NN, but more about who controls it: the consumers, or the bought-and-paid-for by big cable FCC of the Trump administration. All I can say is: _2003 wasn't that long ago, y'know_
There is no guarantee that consumers will be the ones in control if we give ISP's totalt control. Also: ISP's are bought as well. It's currently legal for ISP's to survail your internet traffik and sell the informations + give informations to the government. So you are not really getting a better deal.
Ole Lund Because he's an idiot maybe? lol
That's a logical fallacy on every level.
Please make this a regular video.
New Subscriber, love what y'all do.
I heard these words a lot but being from the UK never much looked into what the law was. Now I do and I realise that its something perfectly normal - in the UK of course you can pay for premium internet speeds and so on...
This isn't what NN is and this video is one of the very few that are bad from Reason.
NN was never about whether you could pay for faster speeds or bigger data caps. It was about whether your ISP could offer you incentives to use one service over another.
Example: in the Phillippines, ISPs are rather restrictive with their data caps, especially due to the massive divide between the rich (expats who have a ~few mil USD and live like local billionaires) and the locals (super poor living in literal ramshackle huts, look at it on google street view yourself I'm not making shit up). As a result, poor people can generally only get the rather restrictive packages. That is not a violation of NN so far.
However, Facebook cut a deal with their ISP's so that WhatsApp traffic is not counted as data usage. As a result, virtually every fucking person there uses WhatsApp. Want to make a competitor? Tough titties - you can't - because it will literally cost people money to use your site that it won't cost them to use Facebook's.
This is a perfect example of how corporatism can overtake grassroots free market capitalism. Anyone who thinks that NN was about "different rates" or the "highway" analogy literally do not understand the subject. It's not about whether you can drive faster on the highway. It's more like if only Toyotas could drive in the fast lane and everyone else had to go in the other lanes, and how that would negatively impact people who wish to compete with Toyota.
sure...whatever you say...
Well this was a waste of time.
Poor mans last week tonight with john oliver
How did we survive with the internet unregulated for so long? The world is over
Wow, i never thought i'd see Reason displaying no reason. Of course net neutrality was needed. It was being threatened by several large companies exactly what goofy in the video said wasn't happening. The regulation was needed because of what the ISP's were threatening to do, not what they were doing at the time. It was one of the few instances where gov't interference was able to get out ahead of a problem. And it would be a huge problem when ISP's can charge different rates for different speeds in accessing the same internet.
The "highway" analogy is really bad. On a highway, each individual controls their own speed. On the information highway without net neutrality, everybody's car has a governor attached and cannot go faster than the gov't physically allows and you'd have to pay extra to go as fast as you want.
smokert5555, your argument has merit and should have been said and remembered, but I’m happy the sky still hasn’t fallen.
Without net neutrality, govt. interference is curbed, isn’t it? And so you can only go as fast as your ISP allows. With net neutrality, you pay the same for high and low usage of bandwidth I think. Idk, but net neutrality is govt. interference
@@leoostigaard120 Net neutrality is not government interference.
Net neutrality basically says "you can't let individual companies buy you into acting against the best interests of your customers." That sounds pretty fucking customer-friendly, BECAUSE IT IS.
Just cause you don't murder people doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law against murdering people
Throttling is not an inherent wrong. Regulation raises burdens and stifles innovation. I'd recommend googling malum in se vs. malum prohibitum.
*Regulation raises burderns and stifles innovation* That is a generic meme. Are you arguing for anarcho-capitalism? Should company's be able to put lead in tap water? Of course some regulations are just useless red tape, but being against regulations in principle is an extreme ideology denying the complexities of reality. What is the inherent wrong with creating a separate street in the city for old people. Old people are slower and less productive for society, so it makes sense they should have a slower, longer street to walk down, since the contribute less to the city. If not for the state and corporations, we would all be living in caves, so how much we contribute to society is how much we should get back right. Why does the city we live in owe us anything more? We are more happy and productive as a society/culture when we cooperate and share. We need to find the right balance. Allowing elites to have a monopoly on physical or virtual spaces is not humanitarian. The internet is a virtual world and it seems to me the same rights should be extended there as we have in physical space. Instead of just repeating left or right wing memes, we should look at the details and effects of these systems. To me it is obvious that allowing ISPs to have a monopoly on how traffic works will lead to more elitism/corruption/authoritarianism.
+Ilya S Yes throttling is an inherent wrong
In anarcho-capitalism, if a company put lead in tap water, the company would be sued in multiple private courts and would effectively be locked inside their own property without access to food nor water until they appeared in the courts and went along with being prosecuted. Why would you think that ancaps would want to live in a community that allowed poisoning of water? Are you really so naive to believe that ancaps haven't considered these angles?
When a monopoly presents itself, show it to a judge and get it broken up. Until then, your point is moot.
Actually internet companies HAVE filtered/blocked sites they didn't like, in China where the govt regulates the internet.
after watching this and reading the comments i'm more confused than ever
I bet you'll change your mind when you're FORCED TO USE BING!!!
NNnnoooouuuuu, THE HUMANITY!?!
Forced...until I switch ISPs to a better service.
Brandon Vonk He won't be forced to do anything you fucking idiot. That's the whole point of net neutrality, to FORCE people not to enter into certain contracts
Nick M damn you’re lucky to have multiple ISPs to choose from!
Brandon Vonk Microsoft pays me to use Bing. It's like being a communist spy... But with Bing and Microsoft
So we have to choose between cable corporations that actively slow down my Internet and streaming companies that want their content to come out unthrottled? Your arguments are disastrously constructed. Regulate it. Why should I have to pay more for the same Internet I'm getting right now?
***** They don't do that? Are you trying to say that corporations have never acted in a manner that wasn't in the interest of the customer? And more that they've never slowed down access to certain sites? Hell Kyle just made a video on the ceo of the company that makes Epipens increased the price to 600 dollars solely to increase a profit margin. When his advisors told him otherwise, he told everyone who disagreed to go fuck themselves, and that's just one example. Verizons been caught throttling traffic towards Netflix. Don't believe that markets or governments have this naturally embedded desire to solely cater to our interest.
Adolf Hitler "no company have done that" Umm Comcast said hello.
Piranha Plus eventually you won't. Because the isps Will realize that they need to charge less for people to use their service. Eventually they will lower their prices and make it the same price again. And as for different speeds. If the company wants to make Netflix faster but not UA-cam, their gonna loose money from people leaving them for another service. Eventually one company will have all websites at the same speed and then we'll be back to normal.
Piranha Plus actually they do. If enough people leave them they will need to cater towards our interest or else they will go our of buissnes. It's common sense
You realize how much data these streaming companies use? They're throttling everyone else and don't have to pay for it.
The issue I have with his argument are these ISP have monopolies in cities. If the lines were open to other companies leasing it then I wouldn't have any issues. Then you could have companies that could use net neutrality as a feature. Otherwise these companies act like utilities and should be treated like one.
The start up cost for cable companies is gigantic keeping any new market competition from rising and leaving us with the shittiest choices conceivably possible for internet. Somehow, in someway, we need to make it where Comcast, AT&T, Charter, and other uncompetitive cable companies compete or die.
For competition to work, fundamentally, addinging more competitors should dramatically increase the cost. For example, there are probably 40-60 restaurants within a 15 minute walk of my office. Adding or taking away one, doesn't dramatically change the cost of operation of any individual restaurant.
40-60% of the cost of a cable network providing service to a new area is the initial infrastructure buildout to every home, running the wires all underground or along the polls. If you have a neighborhood of 100 homes with 1 provider, and internet service broke even at $100/month. Two competitors.... then each would need to charge $150 per month to cover the buildout cost. Three competitors... $200 per month to compete...
That is an oversimplification, but the fact remains that only a handful of companies can compete in wired broadband before costs are dramatically driven up by waste.
is this sarcasttic? "quit fiddeling with it" is exactly what net neutrality proposes.
Johann Wesemann in net neutrality, the government prevents internet service providers from fiddling. net neutrality means the Government fiddles with it instead.
Johann Wesemann no. it doesn't. net neutrality says "regulate it".
are you saying the government is fiddeling by preventing fiddeling? Sorry if I sound daft, but in what way is the government fiddeling with the net with net neutrality intact? @joseph simone
Google Tim Berners-lee he contributed a lot in order to make the internet what it is today.
Also:
He is a proponent of Net Neutrality. Well isn't that funny. One of the important contributers in making the internet is a Net Neutrality advocate.
Wonder why...?
Government doesn't need net-neutrality to fiddle with the internet, just think: copyright or NSA.
your reasoning "ISPs slowing down stuff or blocking stuff never happened, so this is a non-existent problem" is wrong for 2 reasons:
1) Because it didn't happen before doesn't mean it won't happen. The reason it didn't happen before is in part because monitoring all traffic ans shaping it was simply impossible until the early 2000s: the hardware simply wasn't there yet. Also, in the past, there was more competition exactly because of government intervention: until line sharing requirements were scrapped, people could chose dozens of ISPs. That competition is now gone, so ISPs can actually screw over consumers without the fear of losing them.
2) It's simply false that there haven't been issues with ISPs blocking or throttling services. A list stolen from Reddit:
2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.
2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.
2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones.
2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)
2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace
2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)
2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.
2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.
....So, reason.com, please put more effort into researching a topic before making a smug video on said topic.
There's only two ways to keep the internet healthy and prevent users from being denied access to the services they want:
1) Net neutrality legislation
2) make sure each household at least has access to 5 different ISPs
If you absolutely hate option 1, at least start working on making option 2 a reality: if we have real competition, the free market can do its job and consumers won't need as much protection.
well looks like you were wrong huh?
@@Doosteroni nope
I'm not seeing as much amazing competition as I was promised.
What happened to EconPop? This is the guy.
it's dead...
I need reason to make fun of John Oliver every day.
Joseph Simone what are you 12? Are you even old enough to be in the internet?
George Bozin what are you 9 Grow up
Holy fuck, I expect blatant dishonesty like this from the left.
My confidence in ReasonTV just went down by about 1000%.
Nice argument net neutrality shill.
Dude Elpeo Puru stop projecting.
+Elpeo Puru It wasn't an argument, it was a comment. If you don't understand all the nuances that this video skipped over, mischaracterized or just outright lied about, then you don't have a very good understanding of how the internet and the world really works.
+Elpeo Puru
He is a shill for defending the pennyless consumer against billion dollar corporate interests? You're the shill, go fuck yourself.
Thank You! The Right should be on this opposition of the FCC and Ajit Pai 100%. This is one of the only things the Right and Left agree on. The only people that don't oppose it are morons who don't understand it and just believe everything they hear from Ajit Pai and this pathetic weasel in the video.
2:52 - Net Neutrality wouldn't have stopped what happened to Parler, would it?
No, it only effected ISPs and web access, not web hosting.
The best solution is competiton. Instead of regulating the internet, govts should help competitors join the industry. If your current ISP is slowing down your favorite website or service, switch to another that doesnt.