In which Hank debates Hank on one of the most important debates in the United States today, whether to keep the internet open or to allow cable companies to open fast lanes (and slow lanes) for different parts of the internet to flow through.
Please make a public comment here!
Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense.
This is a public comment for the public record...official government stuff... so you'll have to include your actual name and address.
You can also email the FCC directly here: http://dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC
If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms, check out:
Save The Internet (from FreePress) http://www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
Public Knowledge: http://www.publicknowledge.org/
And contact your congress people: http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
There are new internet protocols out there that are trying to remove the middle man entirely, which should be our end goal. Total decentralization.
The weird thing is...this video just happened to pop up in my feed. When I clicked on it, a grey exclamation point came up and a message that said "The video requires payment to watch". I refreshed the page and a message said "We are currently having trouble with our servers". I think the internet might be trying to tell us something.
One minute in and its going precisely as i thought.
Fish face is giving a very disingenuous one sided debate about an issue he does not understand.
Unknown to him is the fact that content providers cause a burden to networks above and beyond what individual subscribers pay. The burden of ‘who pays’ between networks and content has been an issue around since the beginning of the Internet.
Netflix is simply poisoning the well of public opinion so that Comcast users will pay for this whether they use Netflix or not.
The real story is in the rent seeking of Netflix, not the anti competitive behavior of the ISPs.
This is clearly a biased argument. First of all it's not content (or a particular type of information) that is being throttled. It's BANDWIDTH, or the mass amount of raw data, regardless of who it is that's using it. If you soak up all the bandwidth you should pay more just like if you use a LOT of electricity KWH, you pay a higher rate per KWH. This is free market economics not government controlled economics. This is the way electricity is already being charged for, and NOT the first time in all history something like this has happened. Net neutrality is not really "net neutrality" it's government control and regulation of the internet which is bad.
Forgive me if this is a dumb thought. Ok so, we created the internet. We built it and it became more and more popular and accessible. If it changes into something we don’t like as big business wants to then why not build Internet 2.0. A separate system not connected to the internet but exactly the same as the internet and just start over. If enough people accessed this second internet then it would follow the same path the internet we use today took but at an accelerated rate. If we the people left and rebuilt our own system then it would destroy the original. Just a hypothetical, what do y’all think, is it feasible?
Internet service providers are now acting as the phone companies and post office used to: as common carriers. As such, they should not get to decide who gets what bandwidth. The post office is required to carry an envelope from any address in the United States to any other address in the United States for the price of a stamp. A letter is a letter, a kilobyte is a kilobyte. *drops mic*
You should have had both sides actually present their argument. The lawyer guy was purposely presenting strawmen of the net neutrality argument. More realistically, you should have had the lawyer argue that they own the service they provide to you, and you can neither force them to provide that service, nor prevent them from providing a service, because it is theirs, and that net neutrality is a violation of their right to their property, (the routers.) Instead he argued some incoherent nonsense about wanting give people a fast lane and the industry being mature.
The internet is just like how important water is to us; it's a necessity. We can't treat the internet like it's anyone's property, because it's provided around the world. It is open to anyone that can access it. We don't need net neutrality, a regulation for companies to treat all sources fairly, because they SHOULD be treating all sources fairly, otherwise they SHOULD get sued if they did tamper with their customer's access. God, the amount of legal technicalities that ISPs make up for fees, costs, and profits should already be a felony.
Why isn't there an amendment preventing people attempting loop-holes? This needs the people's voice so that they can stop legal tyranny.
"Great economies are built off competition - Not profit." Profit is mother of competition. To discard all economic arguments as irrelevant and then display such an under-developed understanding of the economics is an asinine rebuttal to arguments such as the efficiency of vertical integration, not to mention the absurdity of modern monopoly theory.
Most importantly, the real issue here is property rights. I.e. who owns the last mile infrastructure, the nodes, the content, etc. Fundamentally this is all solvable with addressing and enforcing property rights.
Check out Steven Crowder if you want a REAL debate on bloody Net Neutrality.
And just this isn't just a plug (though it's more a deferment because a video is easy to say to look at than tell people why they're wrong and not believe it no matter the source), just look at what companies are super PRO net neutrality, they would literally be the biggest ones in Facebook, Youtube, and Google. So, if you're going to play the "corporations are evil" bit, then maybe question why the biggest corporations are for it AND if you believe them to be beyond the proclivity for ANY form of corruption.
To be clear: "The people" means the contractors who are driving the tractors and litterally paving the highways. Like how the internet companies build the pipes. Telephone lines have more safeguards over this sort of crap than the internet.
To be fair maybe I’m wrong about this but wouldn’t slowing down torrent websites strengthen copyright laws. Surely there should be some middle ground where providers can slow down illegal content but they are subject to legislation preventing them from unfairly altering the market.
What is the point of debating yourself? You're totally biased and picked your side before you started. It would make more sense to actually talk to someone with an opposite opinion.
What a total waste of time.
But they billed Netflix... not us. The less than perfect big service companies will make way for smaller ones to rise and we'll see service improve and prices drop, just like mobile service. Verizon was forced to make a decent plan because of smaller carriers.
Literally taking two sides at the table was an amazing approach to argue two sides of a complicated issue. I sure wish Hank (or John) would do that with other complicated issues! Does anyone know if they do?
So I like this format for future debates, but you seem to have clearly left out the ISP's best points in order to make a clear winner. Why didn't you talk about the potential benefits of traffic prioritization and Quality of Service controls? It's an indisputable fact that neutral networks are not the optimum way to move traffic. There are prioritization schemes that will increase the speeds of time sensitive traffic (games, streams, etc) at the expense of non-time sensitive traffic (e-mail, most web pages, logging traffic, etc). That's why most companies and many home users enable QoS on their internal networks.
Other Hank would argue that although such good systems exist, ISPs are unlikely to implement them in the face of ones that make more money.
ISP Hank would then say that optimum routing saves him money on infrastructure purchases.
Etc etc etc. Why was this major point for the ISPs omitted in favor of pandering like "well we have more lawyers and lobbyists so screw you"?
Hmmm the intelectual version of Double impact , do this WWE style...Spice it up lol....oh also if your motive to serve is determined and is able to be expressed because of money, you are only a lessor and not so accomplished form of them.....just saying :) Why do you supose so many people like Trump , I hear it often "how can such a man be an idiot, hes got so much money". Arguably folks hate the goverment because they are at a level most feel they cant aspire to reach, though behaving like them sometimes helps.... monetarily, and often even more. Remember bardering began our fall in the case of freedom prior we simply gave and received what was needed and hording would have been considered a sickness of paranoia that seems to have turned in to a pandemic while the most unfortunate suffers are in charge of the lessor sufferers.
Just a Knight why don't you just admit you think net neutrality is good just because it has "neutrality" in the name! Get government out of the business of the internet. The minute they start regulating it, it will destroy all the small start up ISPs.
The person or institution who owns the pipes should decide what they want do with them, and that should be true to every single private property. It is not up to you or anyone to enforce or rule other people's possessions. If there is demand to some internet services, there will be people who will be financially incentivised to compete for this service supply.
The government intervention is the reason why there aren't many companies and significant innovation on this whole market. In a free market system, where demand exists, there is supply. I know that's I am about to say may sound too basic, but bear with me for a sec. People have to make a living, so they have to choose something lucrative to do. Do you need food? People will work hard to sell it to you. Need energy? That may require a big investment for companies that want to get into this sector, but if the less people are engaged on solving this problem, more lucrative and interesting it may gets, so a lot of investors will jump into that. Don't you know what else you need? People come up with great ideas like phones and computers so you can spend some money on. Why do you think that something with such high demand like internet service would not exist in a country without net neutrality?
There is no service that a company can provide that others don't with enough resources. We live in a world with A LOT of resources, so that's probably not the problem. There is huge demand for internet access, so that is not a problem at all too. The service these few companies in the market offer is also not so good as it could be for the price and current technology, so it clearly shows to the market that there is room for other players to provide the same service and get a portion of the demand. So why is the case we have so few internet related companies in the US and other countries? Why all I mentioned not enough to incentivise people to get into that business? What are we missing? The case is that... the internet sector is a mess! Most people and governments think is just common sense to interfere in the sector, immorally and stupidly controlling the companies and assuming that its private property is public! Who would want to invest in such a market? It's just too risky, even high demand and need for better services make people interested enough to play that game.
This artificial system made by the government incentivise companies of the sector to be corrupt. To stay in the game in be profitable this companies try to work with the government while they should be competing with other companies in order to provide the best internet service.
Furthermore, why is the problem that companies can choose how it provides their service? In what speed or how to run it? Who are you or anyone to decide what and they should do something?
"and should be regulated by a neutral body". Man, really? Neutral body? Have you already seen such thing somewhere? Just let me know if you did.
Sure, but there are already certain companies that hold a large portion of the market share, therefore making perfect competition as described by you difficult.
The internet has become too vastly significant to allow a profit motivated oligopoly to decide how to run it, and at what speeds. Like water and electricity, it's now almost a basic necessity in more developed countries and should be regulated by a neutral body.
Classic Straw-manning, none of this is true. Your service provider isn't going screw you because if does you will just get another server provider for your internet. Meanwhile, no big companies like netflix shouldn't have use little people paying for their INTERNET usage.
Netflix had a big brouhaha with service providers years ago. They have been paying for faster streaming service for at least a couple years now. They were actually one of the last big streamers to not pay for faster service. Lots of big companies like Apple don’t necessarily have to pay to ensure the fastest download speeds, but do anyways to ensure their customers receive the best services. It seems to me a moot point to discuss net neutrality when things have basically been decided already.
Someone please explain to me why the people we did not vote on to be in office get to make such a big decision. Yes I understand that the money going to the FCC come from congress which we do get a say on who's in or out; but what I do not understand is why Ajit Pied gets such a big say in this decision. He wasn't even elected. He was appointed! So why the hell is he legally capable to go against 90% of people and shut down net neutrality? Someone please explain.
Also side note I'm so sick of partisan politics. People need to be doing what's right for the people not what makes them look good to their party.
holy s***t ....it looks like stuff is about get real in usa :( it would be like great firewall of china but with little moneydoors to get thru... capitalism is kinda kickass but it seems like greed has no limits on some peoples :( :( hope you guys can win this one!!
If this bill is stopped by either congress or in court, there should be a law made to make it almost inpossible to repeal net neutraility in the future. And Ajit Pie should never again be put in a posission of leadership, he is not fit for it ever.
The companies should be allowed to control what's going through their "pipes" and monetize it because, well, those are their "pipes." They spend the money on the infrastructure, and we pay them to use it. Net neutrality is just removing the ISP's rights as a private business. They paid for the infrastructure they have and they should be allowed complete control without government intervention. Repealing net neutrality is not destroying a "free and open internet." The internet and the content on it will be the same regardless of what the outcome is.
Hoping my comment isn't too little too late, as this video only now popped up on my YouTube homepage, and hopefully there still is a way to quash the fcc's agenda to kill the internet in some way, but to put it plane lynado: I fight for the user!
someone remind me to get back to working on the AmpCom Project. I was supposed to be a low cost High-speed internet solution in regions where high-speed internet is just not economical to install for location reasons. But I'm thinking a high-speed internet that uses a "non-traditional infrastructure" might be useful now that Net Neutrality has hit the waist bin.
I agree with your message but you need to think through both sides of argument more, I mean if I buy 250gb of internet and they're offering 50mb per second on that then I should get that, if they want to slow down internet they can offer a slower package.
Cable companies are paying for network access that fewer people watch so they are losing revenue to Netflix. People are using more bandwidth for Internet access that is cheaper than cable. Wireless still needs a wired connection! Think of Netflix as HBO for free and you will see why companies are upset. Throttling is like censorship.
Public comments will not carry the same weight as industry lobbyists that represent big money donors, thanks to the Citizen's United Supreme Court precedence about money in politics. Soon, pay-per-view will have a whole new meaning. I think Netflix increased their price in anticipation of this repeal.
Strawman. The anti net neutrality argument is that they should be able to charge whatever they want for their services. Its their personal property. Even if literally everyone else wanted net neutrality it wouldnt matter because they arent hurting customers. Its a mutually beneficial transaction or people would cancel the service and the isp would be forced to change.
What they forgot to mention is that the so-called "Net Neutrality" was put into effect BEFORE Title II and perhaps even before the internet existed!
Seems like a bold statement?
All these articles and videos and NONE of them had mentioned the much older Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. They ensure that anticompetitive scenarios like price discrimination (i.e. "Internet Fast Lanes") violates the law because it is an Antitrust Violation. It is also important to remember that the term, Net Neutrality, doesn't have a legal definition. Removing Title II will also relieve many government regulations that will encourage investors that were lost in 2015 (over $150 billion lost).
I, too have been skeptical of the repeal of Title II before I stopped relying on articles and explanatory videos upon this subject and started researching.
Do you realize that the internet providers are not a utility right? They have a right to run their service the way they please, removing the internet from the FCC control can actually help set up smaller internet providers for local areas which would be able to supply unlimited data at much faster speed.
That debate started out good...and then you kind of turned the cable company into a strawman. If you were debating somebody that was actually anti-NN, you would have had a much harder time seeming like the winner.
Me cave man. But me remember way back when me little in time of the twenty one five. Me remember internet work and me find cavelady. Me think internet work even after 18 moon year past twenty. Me think you idiots just doomsday. Me hungry
Would be more accurate if the response to making the internet unlevel was to say that it's always been unlevel - it's entire history, and YOU are the one trying to change it - also the response to "you don't have the right" should have been - YOU don't have the right to demand how we run our business, because WE are the ones PROVIDING you with service - finally, instead of "with all that money we can afford lobbyists and lawyers" - the honest line would be "with all that money, we can provide service to more areas that lack it, and we can upgrade our currently covered areas to achieve greater speeds".
Man I was excited it started out like hey he's going to hit both sides of this argument in a non-biased way and then you went full of s*** train and and clearly showed your bias by demonizing the guy on the other side I learned little to nothing from this video