Net Neutrality in the US: Now What?
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2024
- Comprehensive info. From 2014 when we narrowly avoided losing net neutrality, but they just keep trying, don't they? 2017 version of this video would be almost identical.
Much links and fun times below:
We've stopped things like this before! You have power if you bother to take it.
Video script and better formatted version of the links below can be found on my blog: vihart.com/net-...
Politicians love when you personally contact them! It is a fact. If you're not in the US, make sure your local government considers this state of affairs an embarrassment for the US, not something to model your own rules on.
List of FCC commissioners and their twitters, emails, blogs, instagrams, etc: www.fcc.gov/lea...
Don't know how to contact your representative? Find out who they are and let them know you're watching them! whoismyrepresen...
List of all proceedings available for comment: apps.fcc.gov/ec...
Learn more about all this stuffs:
Court case ruling cable internet as an "information service" rather than "telecommunications service": en.wikipedia.or...
Communications act of 1934, describing common carriers under title II: en.wikipedia.or...
Telecommunications act of 1996, including Title V, the CDA: en.wikipedia.or...
Communications Decency Act, part of the Telecommunications act of 1996, which protected ISPs from liability: en.wikipedia.or...
The FCC's Open Internet Order 2010:
en.wikipedia.or...
Verizon had the above overturned in 2014 as not applying to non-common carriers:
en.wikipedia.or...)
A couple other attempts at net neutrality things:
en.wikipedia.or...
en.wikipedia.or...
Data on internet speed from study "The Cost of Connectivity": oti.newamerica....
Terms to know
Antitrust law: en.wikipedia.or...
Cartel: en.wikipedia.or...
Common carrier: en.wikipedia.or...
DMCA: en.wikipedia.or...
FCC: en.wikipedia.or...
Game theory: en.wikipedia.or...
ISP: en.wikipedia.or...
Monopoly: en.wikipedia.or...
Net neutrality: en.wikipedia.or...
Oligopoly: en.wikipedia.or...
Telecommunication: en.wikipedia.or...
Also see these other videos on the topic:
BlinkPopShift: • Net Neutrality is Dead...
CGPGrey: • Internet Citizens: Def...
Extra Credits: • Net Neutrality - What ...
Hank Green: • Hank vs. Hank: The Net...
Thankyou Emily Eifler and Christopher Hart for their advice!
This video is Creative Commons non-commercial share-alike.
This is the best breakdown of Net Neutrality i've seen. Use the internet as much as we do? You should watch this.
ISP: "That's some awfully nice data you have there. It'd be a real... shame.., if something were to happen to it."
lol
losthor1zon lol
oh shit... i've been blaming netflix when Verizon is wrong?
D: im sry netflix.
Netflix is what someone I know uses smartphones doe you love pet rabbits repeatedly read all comments.
Austin Hauvasko
no, i kick kale and rocks while i skip the Sun on the water National Bank.
Love rabbits there living organisms doe love rabbits doe you love rabbits doe love rabbits you loves otherwise your waste of earth!
Austin Hauvasko
you're*
+Nick Already took a screenshot!
I was watching you "How to draw a perfect circle" video and I thought, "Man, she is super funny." Now I'm watching this and I think "Man, She's super smart!"
In other words, your super good at everything.
She's also super pretty, super good at singing and playing instruments and super good at drawing, she's basically perfect
48 special spices and you choose salt... bravo *slow claps*
she shows her face in one video and she is absolubtely beautifull as well
Micah Buzan agreed
I'm basically a libertarian, I so hate that the right-wing political parties don't understand that this is about individual freedom, not about harming businesses
ditto
+Rational Raven Well it's pretty common knowledge that 99% of both political parties take from corporate donors, including the telecommunications business. I would say that 99% of the right's argument is formulated around what their donors tell them, and this was almost 100% proven when Ted Cruz said that he had no idea what Net Neutrality even was, even after calling it "Obamacare for the Internet".
I'm a libertarian too, so it ticks me off that some people (*cough you) don't understand that this is about property and business rights and that it has nothing to do with individual liberty. You don't have a right to the internet. People have to pay money to set it up for you. It's a good. That's like saying "I'm a libertarian, which is why I believe in socialism. It's about individual liberty to have free stuff".
@@owlblocksdavid4955 It's about the right for ISPs to overcharge for an existing service that requires little investment to keep running. :)
You just explained in 11 minutes a subject that took my professor 180 minutes to teach... and you did it better.
Bravo.
Thanks for making things so clear for me. From now on, I'm using FedEx for all my shipping!
I hope you're joking...
Explain? ;o
*****
um, i think he was just trying to be FUNNY
Brad Carter I laughed. Nicely done
I send all my cactus through FedEx.
Vi, I just used this video to show my students why they should be informed about current events and that they will need to register to vote if they want to have a say in what's happening in the world around them. Thanks for being awesome!
Vi, this is perfect. You are the only person giving legal precedent, rather than emotional "save our internet" spiel . You are top tier for this. This is the best net neutrality video and everyone needs to see it.
Hello 2014, this is 2017 checking in to let you know the villains have won.
Hello 2017 this is 2022, yikes...
@@EdbertWeisly hello 2022 this is 2026
2024 called... Says 'no big deal... No worries..'
Life goes on as usual.
2024 called, it wants to tell you that the villains have finally lost
Just wanted to take the time and say I found this video to be exceptionally well thought-out and presented, the information thought (and action)-provoking. Keep up the good work!
OMG Vi Hart, thank you so much for posting this!
..
Oh, and I'm a math and computer science student at University of Illinois and I just emailed the FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, telling him that it is the duty of his office to ensure that the internet is protected under the communications act by classifying ISP's as common carriers.
Notch said this was a pretty dadgum good video, so by golly I'm about to watch it and learn a thing. *serious face*
If only Notch could make a 2nd game worth a god damn maybe what he thinks would mean something... But alas, he's an arcade game maker.
liquidthex
As opposed to ... what? Single-handedly creating a gaming sensation isn't enough, so he's gotta do it twice?
You should find something else to do.
liquidthex Notch already made his millions. He doesn't have to do anything anymore. Not unless he wants to anyways. Notch isn't as concerned about making tons of cash anymore.
if only he wasn't an enormous blistering racist.
Tzadik Not going to suck the dick of a one-trick pony. I will drink the milk of a true genius, though.
Meanwhile in the EU:"The European Parliament has voted to restrict internet service providers' (ISPs) ability to charge data-hungry services for faster network access." BBC News April 3
Wonderful explanation.
"T-mobile cant purposely drop your call when your trying to order a pizza if Domino's wont pay them a cut of the order"
That line particularly sums it up.
You know, this is another good exaple of the fact that people are selfish. That´s natural, but with common sense and the knowlegde that to be selfish is not very good you should understand that this can't keep on working like this, and I hope that the next generation of people sees this and at least tries to stop it.
preach it!!
Vi Hart brings her usual insight to an unusual topic: Internet politics. Well worth watching if you care about the Net.
Thank you for this and all your information videos. I am glad to finally have some time today to address as many of these links that you have provided. Everlasting gratitude to your gift of artistic explanation.
Living in Romania.
No such bullshit, and 100mbs for 10$ a month.
Hey, Vi, Can I just copy and paste this script from your website and use it for my official comment, It words the issue way better than I ever could
Wowzers... watched this 7 years after you created... oh my goodness... to be unaware of this entire situation when it was occurring is fascinating to me. Thank you for creating this information. Hugs! 🌈🚀❤️🎶
It's nice to see this video getting more attention with the whole net neutrality debate getting heated. People need to understand what they speak of prior to engaging in a "civilized" conversation with others about this issue.
"Email the FCC" yeah like they will give a shit what us peasants think. Seems like it's time to grab our pitchforks.
Netflix should have artificially slowed themselves down for a month and offered their customers that month for free with a constant message saying "this is how slow it will be if they're allowed to do this." I bet most people would still pay their bill.
...and here we go again.
This is by far the best explanation I've had on the subject. Everyone NEEDS to follow through and speak their mind out. It's the only way you can be heard and the only way we can stop from these big monopolies taking over our choice of providers.
This is the clearest and most comprehensive explanation of Net Neutrality ever! Thank you so much!
I fully agree with your message, but I have to take a bit of an issue with your book analogy. I'm not making an argument for internet providers here.
When you buy a book you pay a delivery fee for every package, so as you say, more books is more business. But for internet you pay for a theoretical maximum usage, not for the amount of data. Which would be like paying the a delivery man a set amount to get up to 10 books/week or something like that.
The thing is, the vast majority of people don't use their maximum internet speed 24 hours a day. So it's a great deal for the provider when you pay for X amount of service but only use like 5% of that. Maybe you only use the full speed of your internet an hour every day or maybe you only order a book every week when you are paying for 10.
This is a problem the internet providers have put them self in to. They have sold internet speed, expecting people to only use a tiny fraction of it, but when things like streaming hd video is becoming more and more popular, people are using their internet way more.
So Netflix haven't really given the ISP more business as you say in the video, rather Netflix have made people use more of their internet capacity without paying any more for it. It's like if the book delivery man have been use to people only getting 1 book every week, and now all of a sudden people want him to deliver the full 10. The book deliverer will have more work while not getting any more money. Not putting the blame on the customer here, the provider offered the deal and should now have to live with it.
If anything this is the internet providers wanting to be payed extra because of a miscalculation on their part of the increase of traffic.
If the ISPs miscalculate, then it's their problem, no?
frustbox Exactly what I said. My point was that the book analogy doesn't really fit as it is a different payment model.
She could of used something like Amazon Prime's mailing model but why further complicate the issue? the point of this video is to explain a complex issue in as simple a manner as possible.
Your argument is based on your own theory that it costs more for ISP's to deliver more data per megabyte. You are essentially turning this into a resource problem, that ISP's don't have enough resources to provide what they have promised.
It cost the same for an ISP for the customer to use 1mb a month as 12mb or even 30mb a month. Upgrading also hardly costs them anything, the city runs the line either too your house or within 10 feet of it, and if it is more than 10 feet away they charge you anyways.
This is not a resource problem as much as it is a greed problem, ISP's see the quick cash grab potential of this and are jumping on it.
it is different but also realise they add extra crap to their contracts with internet access. Like a fixed term, 12 , 24 months. If you want to cancel within that time you pay a ridiculous fee. They advertise their packages as unlimited but there is a bandwidth limit that if you exceed you get charged extra.
it may not be a perfect analogy but the part of that analogy that matters is still correct. You are paying for a service, if you use that service more, no one should have to pay extra, you or the seller in order to get what was promised.
if they ever do get classified as common carries i can see them doing everything possible to change contracts so everyone pays per bandwidth amount and not speed. then it becomes exactly like the delivery analogy
Brennen Sprimont Well it is a resource problem when it comes down to it. The internet can not take unlimited traffic. And at some point they need to upgrade their lines to be able to keep up with the traffic, especially if they want to keep their promise of the speed they sold the customer.
Just like the book deal in my example, if people suddenly started using their maximum capacity, the books wouldn't fit it the delivery van. Which is a fault of the ISP, it's their responsibility to get a bigger van. But they have instead chosen to exploit this to sell premium spots in their van, that book stores can buy to make sure their books will have a spot in the van and not be late.
$100 for 10 Mbytes a second? WOW!
I live in Sweden and pay about $30 for 100Mbytes.
Canada is over here, trying our butts off to get fibre to the homes.
Mbits/s, you mean. ISPs usually denote speeds in bits/s. 8 bits = 1 byte.
100 Mbits/s for $15 a month, and 1000 Mbits/s for $35
Yes, but the prices for 1Gbit/s can be twice or three times as much depending on where you live, although they're getting overall cheaper everywhere. I personally never needed more than 100Mbit/s.
Here's the thing:Why is Comcast the only choice? How did they become a monopoly? Cable, a public utility, is heavily regulated. If the government let more companies compete we wouldn't have this issue. By making the internet a public utility the government is transferring the Comcast problems you outline to the internet. So in short, the answer is less government, not more.
Cable is not a public utility....that's part of the issue the video is trying to explain.
Encourage everyone to sign the petition. It's relevant to everyone in the country. We'll lose the internet as we know it!
no. no you wont. the internet as you know it right now is the bad kind. it wont get worse.
Ohad Balash In what way is this worse than what is proposed?
she didnt propose anything. she stated things as they are. this isnt a possible future. its the present.
this is the present. And if not stopped, it will get worse. I'm not sure why you think this is the bottom.
rest assured. it wont be stopped. this is america we are talking about. greed is good and all that jazz.
Great video. Part of your analogy between the shipping company and ISPs kind of breaks down however when you consider that ISPs are a subscription business. They get paid every month regardless of how much bandwidth you use, so if Netflix is taking up 30% of their line that isn't an opportunity for growth; that's a burden.
I don't think there's anything I can do... right?
I'm not a citizen from the USA, I don't even live there... although I'm pretty sure these use monopolies will effect other people too.
Alex Marsh Thanks, I will think about how to do this :3
I'm afraid it won't work/matter though...
Meanwhile, in Australia, we're still waiting for the second half of this video to load...
If you switch to the HTML5 player, it magically works faster. I don't know why...
David Wales Probably because your ISP is slowing down CZcams content delivery traffic, and haven't gotten to the HTML5 formats yet.
David Wales Ya :) I'm on the HTML5 player as it is; I was sort of more making a joke about Australia internet speeds (which are a joke on the international scale).
I am studying 12 tones in my Electronic music class at ODU and found your 12 tone video helpful! Subscribed and found this! Love what you are doing! Just found you today so this is only the 3rd video i have watched of yours so far but... WOW!!! -Lizzy-
Video just stopped playing... Damn you Comcast
WE WON WOOHOOOOOO!
Xidnaf???? Fancy seeing you here!
Sadly, the TÅP ):
Ummm just not yet
Xidnaf ha you would have thought.
eye roll emoji you guys will win anyway, it's still getting to court and 17 stated already want to sue the FCC
Terrifying. I am thankful at times like these I don't live in the USA...Google fiber can't lobby fast enough.
I have to do a persuasive essay for my seventh grade language arts final and we have to include evidence from many sides and both sides of the argument. My persuasive essay is on "Should the FCC allow fast lane internet?" This really gave me some good evidence and gave me a deeper understanding of the topic. Thank you!
Yay for not living in the US
amsd1231 Europe has net neutrality laws in place to prevent ISP's from doing what they're doing in the US :3
ಠ_ృ And that won't save you though. Do people not realize how the infrastructure of the internet is set up in the first place? ALL data, even if it's not bound or from the US, goes through the US. It's stupid it's still like that, but that's how it was built since the US invented and built the internet. It's also why the NSA spies as it does. Yes, it's spying on US citizens, but those same avenues it spies on US citizens are also spying on Chinese, Korean, Russian, British, Mexican, etc governments and people of the world. It does so because of the way the infrastructure is set up.
So ya, even if you aren't in the US, this would be disastrous for you as well.
Lucky >:(
The God Emperor
It won't always be that way. Many amazing things began in the US, but that progress of innovation ins't what it used to be. The rest of the world has caught up, and the way I see it at it's current state, the US is a sinking ship *(._.)*
ಠ_ృ Maybe, but that is if the rest of the world wants to invest in changing the infrastructure. Right now, it's still all going through the US. And IPs are given out by the US.
The irony is that government intervention is responsible for CREATING the monopolistic state of current ISPs through their own regulations, such as zoning regulations. The solution: More government regulations, eliminating any kind of niche competition to counteract possible ISP refusal of service. This is NOT the way to go...
It seems that you know what is "NOT the way to go", but have no idea what IS the way to go. When monopoly is created, government needs to step in. I don't know if you are old enough to know that back in the 70's, there were very few kinds of telephone. Everyone rented phones from ATT. After government broke ATT monopoly, we now have million kinds of phones, including your smartphones. Internet services must be classified as utility. It is essential to the citizens.
In THIS case, the monopoly is solely due to the government's regulation. Companies like Comcast have established their "turf" and the government keeps the walls VERY high for any break-in competition. Lower the walls and Comcast's monopoly ends. MORE regulation, i.e. raising the walls is NOT the way to go.
Pometown, obviously, if I'm saying what the WRONG thing to do is, in this case disallowing competition, then I know what the right way is.... more competition/less regulation. Derp.
Philip McCorkle When you propose something, it needs to be practical. The "last mile" of our internet connect is owned by those monopoly companies. I don't know how your proposed more competition is going to work. No company is big enough to build a separate line around the country to establish formidable competition with Comcast. Be real! This is NOT the time to discuss ideology. We must deal with our current crisis now.
Right. Think short-term and quick-fix ideas. Gotchya...
I don't know what planet you're from if you think that other big companies don't want to expand their market share. Your kind of thinking is what leads to the current state. "Oh, crap - we've got a problem! Let's get the government to step in and apply these very specific rules that are put in place due to lobbyists for the companies involved. Yeah, that'll fix it!"
Any time you give the government more control over regulating the winners and losers, you are INVITING lobbyists in. That isn't how you make law. You make law based on ideology and philosophy, NOT short-term/quick-fix/band-aid kind of thinking... which is exactly what "net neutrality" proposes.
Philip McCorkle I hope you are NOT a doctor. If you were, most of your patients would die because you would be busy explaining why they got sick in the first place instead of treating them.
I got the slowest connection(on a fiber infrastructure) here, and i pay 14 a month(includes all other costs too like hardware renting and cabeling and so on).
10-12mbit/s (up and down) real life speeds with unlimited data (i mean it never falls under 10mbit/s eighter way).
Last month alone i had more than 3000 GB or 3 terabites of traffic with this slow connection (planning for the 500/500 mbit/s connection with static IP for the server so the traffic will be atleast 50 times more than it corrently is).
PS we have pings of 0 ms internal and ~15-25ms to neighbouring countries(as usually they do not have that good infrastructure) and i live in a small town.
So, I am really impressed with this video, it explains it in a very well thought out and neutral manor! Kudos!
But the main thing I am concerned with are the ramifications of the classification of ISPs becoming common carriers as far as network upgrades go. If they are told they will now be regulated like other common carriers, will they simply halt upgrades and cause the United States to fall even further behind the rest of the world? Also, should ISPs that provide commercial services, a la level 3, the data center ISPs that get Netflix to the internet, also be classified as common carriers? These companies are already incentived to constantly upgrade their pipes because they charge on bandwidth used.
Lastly, I wanted to address a slight misconception with the video, you basically indicated that Comcast should want to improve their lines because it will add more business, but this isn't nearly as impactful as it would be for a delivery service, since the bulk of upgrades are to existing customers, and we refuse to pay more for our Internet. So when comcast offers a new 100 Mb service, if they charge 150 dollars instead of 100, no one will buy it. So the only reason to upgrade their pipes is to compete with other providers in the area... which doesn't happen and brings us back to needing government intervention.
I guess the point of this comment is two fold, A) great video! I think you did a wonderful job presenting the argument without too much, "But it's the Internet!"
And B) it's still an insanely complex issue with so many moving parts that a huge amount of detailed thought needs to go into it.
Isn't there a law against monopolies?
In many sectors yes, but not in those that run cable or pipe to your home
Jeremy Crow Thats unfortunate, Thanks by the way.
MrNick00713 No problem, and monopoly isn't bad by necessity, but it does have to be heavily regulated to create social optimal conditions. It'd be a rather long post to explain why this is the case, but the term is "natural monopoly" if you want to read up on the theory.
Jeremy Crow great info. Thank!
Laws are against single monopilies like the old "Ma'Bell" phone companies as one entity = AT&T. or what the railroads had established way back when..
now the monopolies are smaller entities all related to make a whole..
Sure we can break them up but in 10 years they will reform again as something else.
Thank you! This is extemely helpful. I have used all of your links to let my opinion known to my representatives.
A very well done video. I'm Canadian so we haven't faced these problems yet but I'm sure these ruling will affect us as well.
I just want to play video games online with out it lagging that is all I really care about... I hate telporting back to some random place that I was at a few seconds ago.
Net neutrality rule just came down couple minutes ago. They will be classified common carriers and no fast lanes. U might just get your wish bro! Cheers!
SuperBzerker hope so because it would be nice.
I actually sent in a comment supporting classifying the ISPs as common carriers to the FCC, and I'm a Canadian!
While this is a great explanation of what the issues with Net Neutrality are, the Netflix-Comcast issue is not related to Net Neutrality. The Netflix-Comcast deal was for direct peering to Comcast, not for priority transportation across the Comcast network like many news agencies have reported. Direct peering is nothing new on the internet and ISP's and businesses have been doing it for many years, because sometimes it is preferable to have direct connections to the networks that your clients are on. We do this in my company where we have connections to 2 ISPs (for redundancy), as well as several peering connections to other networks we do lots of traffic to, but aren't used for general internet traffic. As network engineers, this is how we have been trained to manage and expand our networks.
With Netflix, the problem that they were experiencing was they were hitting congestion periods with Comcast's peering to the rest of the internet, and they didn't want to worry about how quickly Comcast could (or possibly would) respond to congestion issues at the edge of their network. To avoid this, Netflix is purchasing peering from Comcast with their network so that they are not put into the general pool of other traffic that is coming into Comcast's network. This is not a net neutrality issue, this was a simple network engineering and business decision on Netflix's part.
Lol its not a win win for comcast cuz if netflix isnt working; imma pirate the sheet out of everything.
haha good idea.. but, that would be more of a stab at netflix wouldn't it? you's still be using the concast internet to download those pirates...
So Netflix pays Comcast to be able to provide a good service, and you pay Comcast to pirate stuff instead of paying Netflix. I still don't see where Comcast loses.
sloan1209 I wouldnt care about them, as long as im the one winning.
Your 'pirate the sheet out of everything' threat sounds great, til they throttle and shape your torrent traffic. If they aren't stopped they will steamroll your connection.
Thank you so much for sharing this! It is important for people to realise what is going on with Net Neutrality
Beautifully put, and your analogies are very helpful. Thanks!
While in Australia our internet is only around 2mb fast, You guys take too much for granted basically.
You have to realize EXACTLY what this will allow. I would rather have a 2mb internet than an internet that is censored or throttled. Censorship is a huge part of this that isn't talked about enough. For example, if I say something negative about a big company or ISP they can't legally delete any complaints that I post to social networks. HOWEVER, they can block the outgoing/ingoing traffic that allows other users to see my posts/videos. What make's this concept worse is on my side it will appear I posted successfully and everyone is seeing my post, while on everyone else's end they will see nothing.
JoeMikeGent Damn i never knew that at all. But there's a simple solution for that, Just use proxies.
StaticzAvenger Considering that most people don't even know what a proxy is, it's probably not a simple solution.
John Silva I was just going to mention that. And knowing ISP"s, don't be shocked if they require, on some devices, an app/program that tracks our habit to allow even more censoring.
StaticzAvenger Using a proxy won't help. The choke is been done by an IXP, not the ISP.
The "delivery company" should be free, to make, or NOT MAKE whatever promises they like. No one should force them to provide a service, because you don't have a right to man-made things. The Net Neutrality issue is not about "the cable companies breaking their promises" but rather about BINDING and CONTROLLING the types of services they are allowed to offer ("You're not allowed to throttle your customers! Everybody's needs are equal!"). The VALUE of those different promises/services is what the market responds to. The most important part of the "do Capitalism to it" side of the equation, is RESPECTING THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE COMPANIES WHO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE, and not dis-incentivising them to expand by trying to use government force to seize control of the networks that they built.
Very eye opening video that takes a peek into what is going on behind the scenes of internet service providers.
lol i love how the whole video is a fast paced,confident and up beat pitch on the situation...
And then the last line is just a limp, " I hope this video makes things clearer... for... you..."
okay, /end nitpicking
good video.
Welp, I hate comcast now XD is this sponsored by Sprint?
watched a lot of net neutrality videos. this one by far is better than even CGP. Subscribing to you after hearing about you on Hello Internet Podcast and seeing this awesome video.
CRONY capitalism is what doesn't work. A large, top down government doesn't work in our modern small, individual, decentralized economy. It's not the ISP's fault (most of the time). So many rules and regulations for expanding your cable prevents them from wanting to go through to paper work to do it. If we didn't have the outrageous regulations or net neutrality, then the ISP could expand and dedicate the new expansion to popular websites their costomers use more. Let's use your metaphor with mailing things. Say company A sends quick, light, easy to transport letters, and company B sends heavy, awkward 5lb weights. With net neutrality, the letter can get there no faster than the 5lb weight, thus slowing down the internet access. Now the small town with only 1 ISP argument I can understand, but why doesn't the small town government make the law? Why do we have to go straight to the top of the government?
Of course they would rather deliver light weight letters to you, even though you are paying for a dump truck to deliver them. So they tell you that you get 60 or 100Mb for this price but then they would like you to download 300Kb of data at a time. I live in large city and the internet options are AT&T and Comcast. So please stop pretending that this is some small town issue. Get your head out of your libertarian ass and stop acting like it would be in best interest of the internet provider to care about the customer only if this heavy top down government was not forcing them to do otherwise. Show me just one example of a country in the world that has better/faster internet because they have less regulation. Didn't think so. So go back to your free market fairyland.
I am afraid you don't understand how the Internet works and your letter example is pure rubbish. You pay your ISP to provide a network connection, as stream of one and zero's at a set speed. A more suitable example of what the ISP's are trying to do is to charge you more if you said certain words a telephone conversation. Why do you no longer have long distance charges in the US? Due to regulation put in place by the FCC to break the AT&T Ma Bell monopoly.
The US ISP have already build an impressive monopoly though the use of corrupting lobbyists. AT&T were split up into 7 subsidiaries which have now been effectively re-merged. It is partly about making more money for Internet services but also about preventing innovating companies like Netflix from destroying their lucrative cable TV subscription service.
Netflix provides more choice, better service, at a cheaper price that traditional cable TV bundles and so in a free market they should succeed and kill off the incumbent cable TV subscription model. It is crazy that your government can be bought off to prevent this from happening
To me, this is only putting a band-aid over the bigger problems afoot. I haven't made up my mind on this specific issue yet, because I'm not totally convinced that the government should be intervening with any of this (which they already are in the first place, which is part of the problem).
For starters, the notion of a 'natural monopoly' is an ahistorical one. Even (especially) in perfectly free markets have these never existed. The main bit of the problem that more people should be focusing on is that laws can essentially be made by these lobbyists in the first place. But the lobbyists are not necessarily to blame either, as they are a natural consequence of people/corporations having the ability to get laws passed in the first place for the interest of businesses.
Secondly the ISP's aren't completely independent from government, and much like the power companies, they can (and have) had laws passed that essentially make them more like unnatural monopolies and less like completely free enterprise.
So this act would be a response to the problem that was created by our same imperfect system in the first place. And as a temporary measure it might be a better idea than not, but ONLY TEMPORARILY.
These businesses SHOULD be able to do all of these 'sleazy' tactics and the their competitors should be able to compete against them offering a more 'fair' internet, this doesn't happen now because of the laws surrounding the telecommunications industry.
Corinn Heathers
I wasn't saying that perfectly free market was possible.... What do you mean? I didn't even say whether or not I would even want that...
And grow up... to what? Your implied better ideas? I'm always open to good ideas, so instead of being condescending, why don't you give me some ideas then?
If a company doesn't offer terms you like, then don't buy their service. Do we live in a free country or not?
So... you're going to move then to get better internet? They own the cables going to your home. You CAN'T change that. Re-watch. She explains that part.
Sometimes people dont have a choice because of monopolys, not everyone has a choice on which sevice they want because there is only one service and since there's only one you have no other choice but to abide by it or else no internet
imagine if the government decide to charge a toll for all roads, what are you going to do? build your own road so you don't have to pay for their unfair toll? same thing what are you going to do lay down your own cables?
The gas tax is already a toll on all roads. Getting away from the monopoly on cables is exactly what we need to do.
MavenCree
Come to think the monopoly on internet has already begun to vanish over the past few years, with the takeover of internet phones. How long until capitol starts flowing to city-wide 'cell' hubs that purely sell to the data-oriented market.
Great explanation.. it's not just explanation people need though it's the kick in the ass to get people moving also.
THIS!
Well Done!
I especially like the plethora of links in the description.
Good Job
I'm all for NN but a delivery company faced with increased business due to a book store's success would profit directly because they get paid for each delivery by either the customer or the bookstore for using their service. In the case of cable providers, they do not see the same profit increase due to a website demanding increased traffic. A better analogy would be: A company is in charge of maintaining a bridge (the cable provider), they spend a lot of money filling potholes and making sure the foundation is safe and reliable. Therefore, it charges people for crossing the bridge (customers). The bridge is really popular and is always crowded. One day the maintenance company discovers that 30% of the people crossing are going to a pub on the other side of the river - they now go to the pub owner saying: Hey buddy, we're gonna have to have everyone trying to cross the bridge to visit your pub take a ferry instead. the ferry, naturally, is way slower. The pub owner is devastated, because he knows his business will be impacted due to people not wanting to take the ferry, he says: But the people pay to cross your bridge! They reply: Oh they still can and go anywhere they want, just that if they want to get to your pub they have to take the ferry. But hey, let's make a deal, if you pay us $10 per person crossing, then we let them take the bridge.
"n the case of cable providers, they do not see the same profit increase due to a website demanding increased traffic."
Not directly (unless they are the ISP is also for the uploaders isp - in which case, yes, as upload bandwidth is also paid for). But even with "the last mile" I think you can fairly say, on average, the more people use the Internet the higher bandwidth they require, so the more they will pay.
I guess thats pretty close to your bridge analogy, but with people already paying different amounts for the number of crossing they can do of the bridge in a month?
Neither example is 100% perfect and I'd actually say Vi's example is closer/easier to understand. The problem is that you as a user pay ISPs for a certain amount of bandwidth, normally rated in Mbps. It shouldn't matter where that traffic comes from. When they artificially restrict bandwidth from certain sources because they either don't have enough capacity or they just want more money, that's greed.
In your example users would be paying the bridge owner to travel across the bridge a certain number of times a day with the idea that surely not every user will use all their trips every day so we'll sell more trips than are actually possible due to bridge capacity. Eventually the pub gets popular and more people want to visit it everyday so much so that they have exceeded the bridges capacity and it needs an upgrade. But that costs money and they are greedy so instead of owning up and increasing they bridge size to make up for the trips they oversold, they try to get the pub owner to help them pay for it. In reality the pub owner has no responsibility to help pay for the bridge traffic. In the case of the internet, companies shouldn't have to pay ISPs because they were greedy and oversold what their actual capacity is. If they hadn't oversold there would be no need to restrict bandwidth.
Yes thank you this helped me know much more of what problems we have in our internet. I'm going to join the cause now. Onward people.
Do we Canadians, who are also intimately affected by this system, have a say in this?
Well done! Thanks for taking the time to explain the issues so clearly.
Great Vid! Glad to know there are great people like you spreading the word!
1:45 is a callback to "we can do algebra to it!" In soup conspiracy.
The problem in America is the lack of broadband competition. Companies can make life harder for their competitors, but strangling the competition takes government. It’s really our local governments and public utilities that impose the most significant barriers to entry. The sad truth is, most Americans don't have a choice of cable providers. Sure, there are a lot of cable companies out there, but odds are there's only one you can use in your neighborhood.
Just a remark (or question for clarification) : an issue with the comparison with the delivery truck is that delivery as we know it is paid per package, or at least per weight - customers generally pay a fixed amount for an unlimited (though sometimes capped) "delivery". So customers actually don't pay more for more delivered. I don't like the bill, but isn't there indeed some issue with abusing bandwidth ?
It's happening already. I just watched two CZcams videos without any pause. But when I started watching this one, the feed would buffer every 3 seconds.
Very good and informative video! Please, everyone, call your reps and advocate for ISPs to be Title 2 common carriers!
It makes me so sad as an IT student... I feel like I have no power, even after doing all these things. My wife fights in the Air Force every day for all of our freedom, and these people take it away because they have more money.
Tom Wheeler, the former lobbyist for Comcast, Verizon etc who is now overseeing the FCC.
I'm all for Net Neutrality, but people misunderstand what the latest Netflix -> ISP deals actually are.
Imagine you have a router with several ports out to the internet, only one of which is plugged in. All your traffic, in and out, goes over that port. This is similar to what an ISP has at a peering center. They have a few physical ports over which the main bulk of their traffic to other networks travels. Netflix came by and said "we want to improve our customers' experience on your network. We want our own dedicated port."
(These ports cost tens of thousands of dollars for both parties, plus they have to pay support personnel at the peering center to install and maintain the fiber optics, plus they have to establish SLAs with the ISP to keep that connection running when something goes wrong. It ain't cheap.)
So that's what Netflix did. They removed their traffic from the default port and set up direct connectivity, so traffic to and from Netflix goes over it's own dedicated port, freeing up a tremendous amount of bandwidth for everyone else (including small independent video streaming services).
This is not new. This is how the internet is SUPPOSED to work (a network of networks cannot be a network of networks without networks connecting networks). It's only bad when the ISP refuses to make more connections and throttles people on main uplinks without expanding .
Seems to me the root of the problem is the monopoly that has formed and that making them common carriers might make the symptoms of it more bearable but further entrench the disease.
For the first part, you said that netflix eventually did pay up, but that would mean that small tiny sites would never be able to afford those same fees. But you still showed that the indie book B was still delivered
Great Video! if only my country's people saw this earlier maybe the government wouldn't have been able to own the Major ISP in my Province
I filed a comment with the FCC for BOTH proceedings. I am fully for blocking these businesses (and others) from being able to monopolize the internet.
Anyway you could use the youtube video features to make your CTA at the end of the video clickable (such as a direct link to the FCC comment area)?
Excellent!!! The only issue I heard was that she said 10 megabytes when it's actually 10 megabits which is way slower. There are 8bits to a byte. I see the cable companies use the capital B (byte) instead of the lowercase b (bit) all the time. It's a misrepresentation in my opinion, but that's not the point of the video, so...
The main thing to remember about Net Neutrality is that American ISP's literally lobbied, quite aggressively, and subsequently sued for the right to block and throttle any site they wished. Verizon's lawyers even argued that blocking websites should be a protected form of free speech. For a portion of self proclaimed free speech advocates to think that there is some sort of grey area in regards to Net Neutrality is tragic to say the least.
Even though this is an old video, it’s still relevant in 2018.
Where this analogy fails (by lying to us about the infrastructure) is by telling us that the internet owns all the roads up to my driveway. It would be more accurate to say the interstate highways are the internet and all of the local roads that give me access to the highways were built and now maintained by Comcast or any other ISP.
Great video! It really explains it well!
I think you missed one thing on Net-Neutrality. It is a matter of changing the gate keeper. There is a good chance Net-Neutrality could have the same effects as SOPA would have because all they have to do is same a site is "illegal" and it isn't allowed. For example lets say the government was monitoring what you did on the internet. There was a site they told you how to avoid this monitoring. The government could say it is illegal and not let your ISP let you see that site. This would be decided by the FCC which isn't an elected.
This is a great explanation - unless you're like me... someone who is in the rural area and NO ONE wants to serve (they don't want to run a cable down my driveway.) In this case we actually have a couple of great service providers... who will get crushed as soon as the cable/telcom people deem it worth their while to come into the area.
Brilliant, persuasive, changed my mind, thank you
this was so clear and concise, and your doodles were cute too! thank you.
This basically explained net neutrality for me because I've seen posts about it but not a good explanation (emphasis on good). Also is it weird that as soon as I could on pi day, I looked for the next Vihart video?
1:18 "The Deliever says"
De-liiver
lol
We have the same problem with monopolies in Australia. I can't wait to travel and find a culture that doesn't nauseate me.
So are mobile phone companies (the other way to get an internet signal) considered common carriers? Not the best alternative, but mobile hotspots coupled with mesh networks might be a way to unplug from the cables en masse and hit them in the pocketbook where it will knock some sense into them (Comcast et al). Just a thought and don't even know if it would work ...
Here I am, a day before the vote to repeal Net Neutrality, seeing one of the most sensible videos about this.
And the scary part is that it's no different now than it was before.
It makes me happy to know you are a person.
This is such a great explanation!
Felicia Day This other VIDEO is also an EXCELLENT explanation... "fake" but BRILLIANT… plus.google.com/u/0/110811729614009320896/posts/4iY3GA7aNp8 ... Don't forget to make your voice heard in the "official" FCC comments feedback system for "GN Docket No. 14-28": apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=14-28&filedFrom=X ...from this page there with list of issues: www.fcc.gov/comments
منظور از این تصاویر چیه
Her _doodles in math class_ are also loads of fun to watch!
Yes..because the solution to 'fallout' from government regulation is more government regulation... /eyeroll.
And please don't use 'capitalism' w/re to any discussion today...we haven't had 'capitalism' in this country since the early 20th century. We've had 'corporatism'...regulation established to create barriers-to-entry, happily put into effect by government officials looking for their next handout.
John Brown (I may regret feeding the trolls, but…) When private businesses subvert the free market with monopolies, we have two options: make it illegal, or march on corporate headquarters with torches and pitchforks. I, for one, refuse to roll over and get screwed by selfish jerks in the name of liberty.
Hopefully this reaches the masses.
Excellent video... I hadn't understood this issue enough.
Geoff Collins you still haven"t, and neither has vi
AnarchistMetalhead So I've seen you a couple times now stating that Vihart has yet to understand what the issue here really is, but you don't seem to want to explain it yourself. Care to at least explain why you cant be bothered to explain it yourself since you seem to be the only one that knows what the problem is?
Micheal Currier this is what i posted a a standalone message:
>
Logan!
Thanks Vihart, for offering the solution… (Unlike other CZcamsrs who makes us freak about this without explaining what we should do!)
CGP Grey made it super easy too!
That's a lesson for anybody who wants to impact change: include in your message all the information to turn it into an actionable item. Then people will act.
yeah heaven forbid you'd have to think for yourself!
EntrE01 It is not always obvious to figure what you can do in such context… It is not really about "thinking by myself," but knowing what are the options… Especially in similar cases, where you are presented with a [probably unknown] problem where you also probably don't know what you can do about it…
Also, in most cases people won't do anything but be freaked by the situation while doing nothing about it… If you take the time to convince somebody that something is problematic, you should probably also propose a solution.
Talking about problems without offering any solution is usually worst than not talking about it… And it is annoying!
that is nonsense! spreading awareness of a problem promotes the discovery of a solution. combining the resources and ideas of many by spreading the knowledge of a problem leads to a solution. if everyone just kept problems to themselves because they don't have a solution, nothing will get done. also the fact that you find it annoying is your problem and you should deal with it, not the people actually trying to spread awareness!
EntrE01 Are you are trying to Troll me? I am pretty sure you understand what I meant… Or maybe is it your thing to contradict people?
If you'd like to do more than contact the FCC or your representative, remember that there's an election coming up in November, and congress has the authority to change the law.
It frustrates me when people don't vote, yet complain policy doesn't reflect their interests.
It's not like it would make a difference for me, a minor. I can't really have a legal say in the matter until I turn 18. So I just have to sit by and fume about how stupid people are and about how annoying the government is...
ellock1998 You can still influence how your parents or other people vote. Help spread information about things like this at least.
There's a problem with your case, you think the people still have power over our government. You're wrong. Corporations and the rich do. It's all thanks to the fuckwads in the Supreme Court voting the way the did in cases like Buckley v Valeo, Citizen's United, and McCutcheon vs FEC. These supreme court fucks are bought off just as much as our congressmen and so they have voted and become activist judges in ways to give corporations and the rich more power.
Hell, we don't even really get a real election. Do you know there are two elections in every election cycle? There's the general election everyone votes in, but there's another election months before where the rich choose who even runs for office. We have to fix this. The best way is to support
www.wolf-pac.com/the_plan
and see this through. Though, personally, I'd prefer we killed every single lobbyist and corrupt government official. Fuck them all. They're useless selfih assholes who have ruined our country for their own prosperity.
Still, I'd urge people to support wolf pac or groups like wolf pac that are pushing for an emendment to remove corporate personhood and the ability to buy off our politicians.
ellock1998 You could always volunteer for a campaign by knocking doors, or making calls.
ybra Oh my dad is an advocate for Netflix's argument and completely agrees with Vi, my mom does as well. We actually talk about politics a lot. as with things like that there will not be a 100% right or 100% wrong answer.