Net Neutrality
Vložit
- čas přidán 14. 07. 2017
- If you're interested in doing something about this, please check out this website:
www.battleforthenet.com/
The issue of net neutrality has again come to the forefront of our fight to maintain our digital rights.
In this video I give a very low level (non-techie) explanation of what Net Neutrality is and why it must be preserved. I do also provide some of my personal opinions gasp on how to truly address this problem.
We need to have this conversation outside of our any "techie" echo chamber - this issue effects everyone in the modern world, regardless of their technical savvy.
The internet has been an incredible tool for changing the world and it is teetering on a precipice that could turn it back into just another mechanism for the "old media". We can not let this occur.
More importantly, spread the message and ensure that everyone you know understands the magnitude of the risk, techie or not!
InRangeTV accepts no monetization from the old media. We are wholly viewer supported:
/ inrangetv
Of all the shooting channels Karl always tackles important issues beyond the 2nd amendment. This does leaps and bounds for disproving that shooters are a single issue, single minded sort of people. Well done.
What's that saying? "I want to live in an America where married lesbians can defend their pot farms with assault rifles." Something like that.
That goes without saying of course. To be free means to not require society's approval of your lifestyle so long as you don't hurt anyone else.
anything to stop InRangeTV from buffering.
Amen!
Or porn.
Stop watching porn. No one's climed to heaven with a dick in their hand.
For some people, having a dick in their hand *is* heaven.
That's gay and homosex. Be like Varg, Varg doesn't watch porn.
Imagine having to purchase bullshit packages from your cable company just for the internet. E.g. package A containing Netflix, Myspace, Altavista and Yahoo, package B containing CZcams, Fox news and Craigslist.
Theyll do this without netneutrality
Yea, I went to the gas station the other day and they charged me more to fill my 20 gallon tank than the guy next to me with a 10 gallon tank. Such bullshit. We need fuel neutrality.
airborneace That is a terrible comparison. It's more as if both of you got 20 gallons but you got charged more because you're on your way to Walmart.
you don't understand this issue at all..
danz1420 I understand that the government is inserting itself into the market, that's all I need to know to oppose it
Great vid karl, better explained than a lot of other channels have.
agreed, i didnt feel any cringe at all
Blandpepper he explained the basic thing that everybody should know, don't let ISPs buy shipping companies because if they do, the shipping companies will drive at 100+ mph speeds and if they get in a wreck everybody involved will die
I did...but I was expecting it. No, really I think he did a damn, damn good job. Better than I could have, I know for sure.
Yep that was exactly what he was going for Jay. (:
Actually, Comcast has actually fucking done that! They throttled Netflix and made them pay like millions of dollars!
Thank you, Karl. I will share this around. Many seem to forget about the "freedom from" aspects that our system of government is set up to protect, as it pertains to individual liberties, in contrast to the rule of the green backed dollar.
He'res another thing to consider: fast lanes are impossible. At least, impossible in the way many anti-net neutrality entities argue.
Continuing the highway analogy, you can't simply increase the speed limit. The speed limit is a physical limitation of the current infrastructure. Increasing the speed limit would be akin to upgrading all the physical lines within the US, and despite a particular large motivation given to ISPs to do that (see: large tax breaks in the 90's), they have avoided it because of the high costs associated.
Thus, prioritizing service isn't giving some packets more speed and other's less. All it is is giving some packets (those chosen via corporate agreements, etc) their normal speed, and actively slowing down everything else to lesser or greater degrees.
Without regulation ISPs basically have the potential to be price gouging monopolists and extortion rackets. "Oh, your business needs this traffic? You better pay up."
Fast lanes were already implemented and are positive contributors to everyone's connectivity, until the Obama-era FCC outlawed them.
That doesn't even make sense on a logical level. If someone is going faster, everyone else has to be throttled. Not to mention ISPs usually throttle people way slower than their networks are capable of handling.
but does it take glock mags?
moey nolala
Only with the Austrian DLC I think.
DrunkenAussie awesome ..im gona put one on layaway when I get paid next month
A point which I want to add here:
Net Neutrality _helps_ the free market. Only if you have net neutrality new startups and ideas can grow.
The next google/facebook/etc. will perish without NN.
How FCC having comcast being exempt from free market rules helps the free market?
If you have net neutrality, Comcast will still have monopoly and will not be allowed to not operate at a profit (ergo, can't have competition)
Actually it will not. What happens in a free market without net neutrality is this: ISPs will be faced with an accurate representation of demand for bandwidth. They will then be able to properly plan out their infrastructure investments to meet the need for bandwidth. What net neutrality does is hurt streaming services that use a lot of bandwidth for the sake of simple text sites like Wikipedia that have a lot of traffic but do not use nearly as much bandwidth. The only problem with eliminating it is that regional ISPs are still granted a monopoly on local areas because of the corrupt telecom pole exclusivity agreements found in every single US state. As usual what fucks over the free market is yet another pointless government contrivance compounding over another.
Flosus Jemand like dumping gasoline in a forest helps prevent wildfires.
No, I don't think that is how it will work. Net Neutrality guarantees that ISPs have to innnvest in infratstructure because the only way to increase speed and guarantee a certain level of quality for customers (both consumers and content provider) is to have enough bandwidth to prevent congestation.
However without Net Neutrality ISPs suddenly have a tool to shape the bandwidth by limiting certain traffic with the argument to prevent congestations. That's my fear that ISPs use the cheaper method which is shaping traffic instead of investing into infrastructure.
Not only is it cheaper but it could also mean that ISPs get more money by paying consumers AND content providers so that the traffic between is not throttled down meaning they make a killing by making both sides of the connection pay.
And who is the loser? Those who do not pay or cannot pay since the bandwidth in general is not increased. Just certain people get priority over others.
Besides that Netflix already has to pay a lot of money to connect their data centers to the big network companies like Level 3 for the bandwidth they need to use. But those companies also provide big network connection all over the world. They just do not provied the last mile meaning it is not their responsiblility to bring traffic to the consumers.
Also comparing Wikipedia which sends basically small text snippets to Netflix which sends high quality video information is in my opinion a bad comparision.
Filipe Amaral actually, controlled burns do
It's all about money. People are not buying TV cable packages anymore; their money goes Netflix, Hulu etc, instead. The providers miss their money and have come to the conclusion that they should charge people extra to access internet 'tv' media to recover their loses. It's all about greed.
Think of a "Netflix Package" $10 p/m, The "Adult Package" $30 p/m.
shhh not so loud about the orange juice
CthulhuInc
Never name the juice
@@ZturdfaceZ Das Juicen.
Don't drink the Pulp ! :))
"Trust the ISP providers to do the right thing" Yeah right, for sure, like you can depend on that. /s
Reputation does have an affect on companies
Look at sprint there shitty service led to them merging with t mobile
I understand this is primarily a firearms channel, but please keep these technology related videos coming! They're explained in a way that is clear to people that are not tech-oriented without making those of us that are tech-oriented cringing. It's crucial that people understand just how their technology works so they can keep it open and free of government intervention.
Any part of the economy that depends on large, costly, publicly accessible infrastructure is not suited to free market capitalism. Water, electricity, rail networks, the internet, it doesn't matter. As soon as you get rid of government oversight and regulation, quality of service generally decreases and costs go up, because of course they do. If you are in the position of those corporations, you would have to be mad not to use your (local) monopoly and make the most of it. Which means: cut costs, raise prices. It's not like a lot of people are going to move house only because the electricity bills get higher - or, in this case, because their ISP sucks.
*Someone* has to have control over the infrastructure and how it's run, I'd rather it be the government; I don't trust politicians any more than I do CEOs, but at least the politician stands to lose his job if everything goes to hell in his district.
I have to disagree with you.....think about this - it'a Lot faster and easier to remove a company's control over you by simply (voting) refusing to spend money with them, especially when done en mass!
Compared to unseating an incumbent politician that's being financially backed by multiple CEO's/ Wall Street Financiers.
@@Alan-in-Bama But how do you do that with things like internet, water, electricity, etc? you dont have a different option, and do you honestly believe the people will give up those services indefinitely in order to force companies to change? It just doesnt work because as Karl said when it comes to these services the idea of a free market is not real
Hello Karl. I really appreciate the work you do with these 'off topic' videos you produce from time to time. Keep it up, greetings from Germany.
+Jumper Harz Thank you! Greetings in return! ~Karl
Awesome video Karl! Its refreshing to find someone with more knowledge on tech but a similar view. Our online lives, whether individuals like it or not, is a part of our identity and imo personal property. Our rights in our cyber properties needs to be outlined and acknowledged sooner rather than later
Exactly! Much of the country does not have a free market when it comes to Internet access. That is the lynch pin of the argument. This is one of the areas that consumer protection actually works.
J C right, let the government force innovation and investment . the only place that actually produced anything was in Nazi Germany.
J C The issue then is that lack of free market, is it not? Passing regulations to help with the side effects of regulations doesn't turn out well
J C I live in a rural area and we have a telephone co-op, they also do Internet and they are a monopoly. 7 yrs ago, through a grant from the government, they put in fiber to the house. There is no competition, and I pay $100 per month for 50Mbps, for 25Mbps it's $60. With 2 sons of gaming age, myself, and all the other wireless devices /services connected we still aren't fast enough at times.
So you acknowledge that the government is causing a problem and instead of removing the government intervention you want to increase it? Why is LESS GOVERNMENT never the answer? Why do we always have to give them more power and control.
Doug Anderson Incorrect. I mean, even just at a surface level, corporations in their modern form are companies which have lobbied the government to pass laws to exempt them from certain things such as various liabilities; they are by their nature a creation of government cronyism, those things which seperate them from a normal company are those things which are government created.
Love the channel! A couple of comments from a retired minister:
1) Churches and information networks both do better when they are decentralized.
2) Churches should be very concerned about Net Neutrality. ISP are definitely not going to prioritize church websites (unless they have lots of money to spend - which 99.99999 percent of local churches don't).
As for what "the church" might do if "it" had control of the net, it really could not do anything because the world's 2 Billion Christians belong to literally thousands of different churches. There is no one monolithic "church". Even the Catholic Church has many factions. What I will say is that the vast majority of christians I know are in favor of free speech and the free flow of information. They would oppose censorship of any kind. My my current church is very supportive of the entire 1st Amendment as well as the 2nd Amendment.
Thank you Karl for explaining this as concisely as you did. I don't understand much about the technical side of computers but this made a lot of sense to me. Keep up the good work.
Now I'm wondering what you were apologizing for at the beginning of the video. You gave an excellent and easy to understand explanation of net neutrality. Very well done, Karl.
I've heard of Net Neutrality for years now but I've never understood the issue until now. Thanks Karl.
Great video Karl! Really enjoy these wider community/topic videos
Again, thank you Karl, for taking the time to explain Net Neutrality, in a way the less educated in such matters can easily grasp. You did a good job, and I for one appreciate your insights on these technical/political matters. I agree with your basic premise, and I believe you gave an explanation that was not overpowered by whatever biases you may have. What you have said gives one a great deal to ponder concerning the issues of Net Neutrality, and a well informed starting place for such thoughts. Also, well done to you and Ian on you performances at the latest Hard as Hell Two Gun Match.
Good Job! I"m a libertarian, and you outlined most of the issues involved very well. That said, the less regulatory involvement the better. This is a non issue in my view. Title 2 should never have been invoked, and it was done so for POLITICAL reasons which had nothing to do with any problems that were happening. There was no throttling occurring. The finding or rules that Everyone refers to as the Net Neutrality Act or law or whatever... allow for the last mile ISP to throttle. Reason foundation has several good articles on the matter. The Net Neutrality law is net neutral in name only... like "Affordable Health Care Act" . You guys are Awesome! Loved your review of your VW... it sent me down a rabbit hole for a week. Kindest Regards, Bud
Excellent summary Karl
Especially the historical precedence of power companies.
Thank you for the video! The more that know about this the better!
Excellent job covering the issue. Keep 'em coming!
Thanks Karl. I can use a computer, but not real tech savy. I appreciate that you took the time to explain this issue.
Thanks for the explanation Karl!
Fantastic video! Thanks for the info Karl!
Thank you for helping me understand this better.
Thanks for a good explanation. I hate that my activity is tracked to sell me stuff I neither want or need.
Karl i truly commend you for this video: this is a proper lesson in civics and politics, not just economics. From abroad I hope that you and other Web users can make sure that elected representatives are made well aware of political consequences if they bend over to monopolies ....
thanks for arming me with more knowledge.
Thanks Carl!! Very good.
Insightful and well thought through video. As someone living in the EU I often forget that it isn't necessarily universally common to trust your government, but I do believe regulation preventing corporate interests from interfering with how you can use your bandwidth is a good thing.
This is an excellent explanation of the importance of net neutrality. Thanks for producing and sharing this.
Thank you so much Sir. I will do whatever I can to make it a free Internet. If we loose this fight we can never get it back. It's a very near thing.
Thanks. Very insightful. I can think of yet another reason, why the concept of free market does not apply, at least not from the consumer´s perspective. Ironically, this gets worse for comsumers the closer the situation gets to free market among those companies who actually (in reality) run the show:
If you look where considerable chunks of the revenue is created in most internet media (excluding alternative systems as, e.g., patreon, which I as a consumer cherish), it is likely that the true competition is among providers over advertisers (--> your video on demonetization). So, we as consumers are completely out of the loop. Because we can not choose what advertisement we would like to see. This is not how advertisement works. And the question what content we would like to see gets irrelevant in comparison, as soon as we see, e.g., the same ad everywhere because some company on a big offensive move bought out all competition on all or most available channels. As you eloquently explained in the demonetization vid, this advertisement - provider game (they both need each other. The actual audience only counts as long as enough of it is somehow there) also already warps the content we get to see, or, including the creators point of view, the content that gets disseminated, thereby seriously interfering with the ability of free exchange of speech, opinion, information and so forth. Now just briefly try to imagine what kind of manipulations could and/or would soon become profitable if net neutrality was not guaranteed. *shudder *
So, my opinion is, that for the sake of the internet as one of the great leaps of humanity to actually advance (and, in my belief: grow together), we can not tolerate net neutrality to be violated by monopolist economic interests, because a free internet has at least as much cultural as economic importance. I personally would also go as far as to say that sometimes, governments have to enforce restrictions in order to make the benefits of actually free market come true, but that´s just me.
Corporations with ethical practices are few and far between. I don't think they can be trusted.
This is due to them being insulated from having to compete fairly with each other because of regulatory agencies like the FCC and due to what the government terms "necessary monopolies" or "natural monopolies" such as telecommunications, electricity, water, and other utilities. These types of corporations also tend to be the most corrupt. In reality however there is no such thing as a "natural monopoly" and without them ethics would be paramount to a corporation's success.
Joseph Ahner was it Obama who said the internet was a basic human right?
But the government can be trusted? LOL
scottb8907 Right, competition breeds excellence.
scottb8907 I honestly don't think so. I'm willing to bet the U.S. government is in cahoots with isp's to do this. The profit margins will soar at the cost of people's privacy.
Good info. Thank you!
To touch on Karl's example of Comcast, I can see them being even more nefarious than he does. Comcast owns NBC/Universal. As such, it would be in their own best interest for them to not only throttle the so-called "New Media" but also their competitors in the "Old Media". This would include Fox, ABC, CBS, and CNN. That would leave NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC as the only news sources that would be able to be viewed reliably on their network.
that is probably the most likely direction.
I agree completely. btw as a technical person, I think comparisons like yours are actually good and important, not cringey at all. Just a great video over all.
Also, I like to see Americans that can admit when free market capitalism just can't really work in certain situations, I can tell, Karl, that you have really thought about this.
Well done Karl.
I will never understand how some people are ready to lead a revolution against the gov which is a huge corporation but are willing to give up all their rights to private corporations.
Before anti-trust laws corporations actively sought to collude to create monopolies and fix prices. The free market hasn't been free for over a hundred years for a reason, something a lot of people seem to forget.
Good points Karl, but I have one thing to point out, for anyone that thinks that Net Neutrality proponents are just being paranoid thinking that ISPs will behave badly regarding traffic prioritization. Look at what happened with Comcast and Netflix in 2014.
In 2014 Netflix had internet connectivity through Cogent, but when the peering links between Cogent and Comcast got saturated, Comcast refused to upgrade those links, instead allowing their customers to have slow connections and a bad Netflix experience, in order to force Netflix to pay Comcast for a direct connection. Cogent even offered to pay Comcast's costs to do the upgrade, but for Comcast it wasn't about the cost, it was about setting a precedent of ISPs blackmailing internet companies. And it worked too; as soon as Netflix ponied up the money and signed the deal with Comcast, Verizon and AT&T jumped on the bandwagon and forced Netflix to pay them as well.
So while I understand the standpoint that Net Neutrality opponents have with a distaste for "government regulation" of the internet, the alternative is just as bad. Talking about "internet freedom" (the catchphrase for Net Neutrality opponents) sounds good, but the companies that benefit from it already have a track record of being viciously anti-consumer.
Sean Crocker recently, ATT started charging Netflix access privileges to their network. they know NN might die so they just don't care anymore
Karl-If only you were my congressman. I am serious. You speak so clearly and logically. Both you and Ian are a pleasure to listen to, hence your popularity. Run for office man. Your country needs you.
Great video Karl. But how can one know if the ISP is treating the packages in a neutral way? Or not?
King Rodi you can run a tracert to see if your isp is throttling packet movement, there are also web services that diagnose it for you
agreed, now we need someone to organize the push!
Spot on .. and I love the 2600 shirt!
Well done! great vid carl
I would love to see this on primary and secondary, I know it's not gun related but It would be fascinating to see what those guys think in contrast to your own points.
I didn't think the analogies and layman term descriptions were cringeworthy at all. Even tech people are sometimes hard pressed to explain things in their own words. (which I think is one good metric for checking if you have understood something)
It is an important discussion. As a sort of an insurance against data loss, I would suggest everyone consider publishing as much content as possible in text form also. It has low bandwidth and storage requirements, and is more resistant against file type and format obsolescence, and readily convertable into physical formats (printouts etc).
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org) might be another good source for info on net neutrality and related topics. I've seen them make good statements on various issues in the past.
Thank you sir.
Definitely an emergent issue, something that we can certainly plan to protect if we look at the past and learn from other instances of the same substance.
Very well explained.
I'm not comfortable giving my address at random. Someone please use my letter:
"The internet as it stands is one of the most powerful, useful, and informative tools that mankind has ever developed. It is knowledge and unity with a convenience never before seen. Prioritizing any web traffic over another does nothing more than hinder others. Making certain sites and information harder to access, even as a side effect, does nothing more than adversely affect our intellectual development as a world community and a species. And yes I do mean that. Future generations advance by standing on the shoulders of those before them. Net neutrality is an invaluable step up for those future generations, and even the generations of today. We can not afford to let that step up be compromised by the interests of internet service providers. With net neutrality, the internet is a clear and unobstructed window to the world itself and its people. Every last bit of it. To know the world you're living in is a divine knowledge. This window must remain clear.
Thank you."
Sketchy name checks out.
When You named the channel, was it a meant as a Python pun?
for i in range(10):
print( 'Cool video Karl!' )
Great video. Anyone who thinks that Net Neutrality is a bad thing is either ignorant of the situation, or has been played. As you said, Karl, the idea of the "free market" as it relates to the Internet just doesn't exist. Where I live, which is only about 15 minutes from the city, I only have ONE choice of ISP(outside of satellite and whatnot, which is garbage) so if my ISP made a deal with some corporation which made all the pro-2A sites and content I visit throttled to the point of it being unwatchable, I have absolutely no viable alternative ISP to switch to.
I'm all for the free market, but it just doesn't exist in the realm of ISPs right now. Giving them control over what content you can receive, how fast you can receive it, etc, is foolish. Conservatives never support anything that takes power and control away from the people and gives it to the government, or large corporations, etc, except when it comes to this issue.
Great video, Karl.
Good info!
Actually you make a great point about us not having free market environment.
"the internet, its a series of tubes!"
Tubes! With stuff stuck in them that sometimes you have to dislodge with a race horse. ~Karl
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. IT'S A SERIES OF TUBES! And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material ~Ted Stevens, former senator of Alaska
that's not even the worst analogy in that speech. hell it's actually not that bad
The problem is we are presuming those tubes are finite and there will never be expanded or have new ones added. Which the elimination of net neutrality will take steps towards. Net neutrality just lets you optimize existing infrastructure. The next step is to eliminate local ISP monopolies.
Eliminating those local monopolies is a physical impossibility. Thew cost of entering the market and creating new infrastructure alone is too much of a hindrance. You're asking to eliminate the local monopolies is about as possible as eliminating water and electricity monopolies and it's the same reason those are both utilities. The moment you think about it like that you realize that regulation is literally the only option. Imagine if your power company could do whatever it wanted, yeah that's simply insane.
Thank you Karl
The most convincing argument I can put forth as to why protecting net neutrality with strong Title II status is incredibly important is that the big telecom and media companies are pushing so hard to remove those restrictions. If they were totally ironclad on maintaining a neutral stance and upholding the best interests of the consumer, they would have absolutely no reason to fight so hard against net neutrality. In trying to get net neutrality overturned, they have tipped their hand and shown us their tell. Even if they respected the consumer's best interest for ten years, twenty years, thirty years, I believe they would eventually turn the lack of net neutrality to their benefit to the objective detriment of everyone who is not one of their customers (and, I would argue, the detriment of their own customers as well due the anti-competitive nature of huge, monolithic telecom companies).
The worst part is that, unless something revolutionary happens and suddenly there is a glut of competition in the telecom space, the average person has very little choice in who their internet-provider is. As long as net neutrality is in place, at the very least, big telecom cannot simply throttle their competitors' media services to make being a customer of the little guy a miserable experience.
The explanation was good tbh, good for explaining to laymen.
Nice video man, do you think future advances in wireless technology can get around the expensive infrastructure of fiber. After all the internet being a free and inexpensive source to move info around got around the expensive infrastructure of network/cable television.
What is called Wi-max is our best bet right now. Wi-max needs to be allowed more radio frequencies, with more powerful signals. There is no need for hard wire to your door.
Thanks for the information, i know have a decent understanding of the subject - the vast difference in cost of mobile data vs home broadband has got to be part of net neutrality argument as well , i would have thought.
wheelz1971 no, it's all one network and needs to be treated as such
Another analogy could have been a company town. Instead of company store their racket is the road network of that town. They charge you exorbitantly high monthly payment for using their roads and fight tooth and nails to keep any competition away. There is still a basic agreement that also your incoming traffic, deliveries and such is included for your charge and actually those deliveries are the most important part how you use their roads. Now your only fun in that company town is to order pizza from outside, in fact ordering pizza is quite common in that town and there are many lucrative pizza vendors outside who provide quality pizzas and make good money. That's something the company don't like because they have cronies who sell shitty pizzas with toppings like spam, pink slime and cheese substitute and those cronies are willing to pay if the company could make their competitors life harder. So the company decides that there is money to be made also with your incoming traffic. Unless also your pizza vendors agree to share their profits with the company, their trucks will be hobbled inside the town and the quality pizzas you ordered will turn cold, shaken in the box and inedible.
Finally I understand Net neutrality. Thank you.
At first I was for net neutrality because it sounded nice and I didn't really know anything about it. My mind was then changed by listening to libertarian and conservative arguments against net neutrality. My mind was changed again after watching this video. This made me realize what it was really about. I'm not afraid to admit that I was wrong about net neutrality.
Wonderful video. Could you do a video like this for bitcoin/block chain?
When you have the guy that invented the internet vehemently opposed to losing net neutrality I think that speaks for itself.
Well spoken.
What's that Deus Ex quote? A government will tend towards its founding principles and assumption?
A democracy is based upon winning over the lowest common denominator. A corporation is based upon gaining profit.
Neither is perfect... but only one has even a tangential interest in your benefit. Which would you rather place the restrictions?
James Kachman
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Democracy would be two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch.
@@tom7601 ... and "Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
If the government sets up rules, the companies will find a way around them (alwas was, always will be).
The only way around that is to get the government to provide the service also.
This public service only costs the amount of money needed to run the service well plus the money needed for future investments, repairs and such.
No money for shareholders, because there aren´t any.
This system should be spread to all the infrastructure, like electricity, roads, oil&gas, water, sewers etc.
Except for maybe food, clothes or housing every single person should be able to live without involvement of private companies.
Those public services should be run just like a private company, just without making revenues above the amount needed.
It may sound socialistic, yes, but it does not rule out private companies, no, it just forces them to think about the consumer, not the shareholders. If a company can provide better service and/or lower prices, fine, the customer has the right to choose.
The people in the US see their government as a necessary evil and value the free companies, but in reality the government is elected by the people, while the companies are not, so the latter can do what they want and squeeze money out of everything, more and more money, they have to report to no one.
The government on the other hand has to report to and serve the people, so why not serve them big time?
Love the channel Karl, and I appreciate your candid view on this. You put it more simply and honestly than most, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I actually like the analogy with the interstate highway system and use it quite often myself, but there is one huge difference. Our highways are very near 100% funded by taxes and therefore qualify as a public utility. Everyone's taxes funded them, so everyone gets equal access.The internet started out this way with Arpanet, and if it were still majority publicly funded I would agree with you, but it's not. The modern internet is a completely different animal and is the exact opposite of our highway system in that it is very near 100% privately funded. Comcast owns their network, Charter owns theirs, Cox, Rogers, Verizon, etc. To enforce net neutrality on what amounts to privately owned property is an affront to the basic rights enshrined in our constitution.On the other hand, I understand your argument that large corporations can only be trusted to do what is in their best interest. They have and will continue to make deals with other entities that are sometimes at odds with the interests of their user base. Completely unrestrained Capitalism always comes down to a simple cost/benefit analysis, morality never comes into the equation for a company such as Comcast or Verizon. You also correctly made the point that the normal free market solution to this is to simply not do business with those companies if you don't like how they prioritize network traffic. As you pointed out, the exception to this is when a very few companies hold a monopoly on the marketplace for a specific service. I agree there is a monopoly among the largest ISP's, but I disagree on the solution being net neutrality.In short, net neutrality will damage the private property rights of every single ISP, no matter how big or small. The solution to the reality of monopolies isn't more regulation on private property, it's the destruction of those monopolies. In effect, you are trying to kill a cancer with excessive doses of radiation. Sure, the cancer dies, but so does the host. The Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts have been law for over 100 years and are fully capable of solving this issue if the government would simply enforce them against the monopolistic companies. They have in the past (Ma Bell) and they can do it again without destroying everyone's right to do what they want with their private property. Net neutrality is a red herring and causes way more problems than it will solve.I would refer you to this article by Karl Denninger over at Market-Ticker.org. He used to run a small ISP in Chicago and has an excellent grasp of the issues: market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=3423775
The firearms community and the tech community are really a lot more alike and face many similar problems than most people realize. Nerds unit!
well done, this I will share! (professional geek here).
However I think the broad brush painted against the Church is a bit to broad,
yes it has been a bad thing but it has also been a good thing.
nearly every university and hospital in the US was a direct or indirect result of the Church,
so we have the horror of the Crusades and many, many other things on one side of the coin and the only hospital's and medical care all across the west, for hundreds of miles and for over a 100 years started by Nuns and much more on the other.
BUT back the point of the video it was generally right on!
Thank you.
Thanks!
Links to Orange Juice conspiracies? lol but in all seriousness, good on you for bringing this discussion to a wider audience and explaining the implications applicable to all of our lives. Freedom is something worth fighting for, and in the case of the internet is maybe something taken for granted by many. I appreciate the apolitical qualities on this channel, which should really serve to show how important and nonpartisan this issue is. It's beyond just a political issue in this age where the internet is a necessary tool for all walks of life, it's an issue of the freedom of ideas and the proliferation of all perspectives and the notion that all voices should be able to be heard equally. I don't want to live in an America where even mainstream media outlets could theoretically be silenced to entire geographical regions based on a corporations bias. I don't want underground newspapers to become a necessity in a country founded on the freedom of the press and equal representation. There's a lot of "I"s in my comment, but freedom is surely something that We the People can all agree on.
good analogies
Spot on man.
CZcams throttles speeds to any ISP that refuses to pay their "enhanced" fees (including mine, CenturyLink) which means at certain times of the day higher resolution playback of CZcams videos is almost impossible.
It should be important to anyone who uses the internet!
Actually, Comcast has actually fucking done that! They throttled Netflix and made them pay like millions of dollars!
Thanks Karl.
Great video.
Corporations have been doing this since the early days, and yet here we are. They've always been throttling, and yet our speeds still get faster over time. Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.
carl, thanks for this and fyi there was nothing cringey about your analogy :-) keep spreading the word, this shit is important!
I feel that a large part of the problem here is that there is no free market amongst ISPs. e.g. I have lived several places where only one provider would install service.
Nice summary, but it really boils down to whether the public network is also a public good, a common. A case may be made that the communication structure exists under licence of the state, and hence there is an interest by the state - e.g. the public at large - to enforce a certain terms of service, among which, net neutrality. Considering however how rural areas are treated in the US, which is a similar problem, I would not be optimististic ....
Laying cable is expensive enough without local governments tacking on millions in fees, taxes, delaying projects for years, and/or just outright selling franchise monopolies to ISPs. We would have many more choices in ISPs if not for these onerous regulations at the lowest levels of government. Not even Google could figure out a way to lay cable economically. If this could be corrected, there would be no need for the FCC to regulate ISPs, as market competition will do that better.
Federal regulation of ISPs is yet another example of government fixing a problem caused by government. However, in the current marketplace, where most of the country has only one ISP, this regulation is necessary. So long as governments create monopolies, governments will have to regulate them, and it's up to the people to regulate government. This doesn't work so well in practice, but it's the best thing available; that is, until enough of the public is informed of what really enables monopolies to exist to do something about it.
nothing beats Karl saying he's by no means a left-winger before making an argument that sounds very libertarian socialist. Great video as always, even more relevant in 2021 than it was when it was released
Well said, whatever your political views this is a fight we all need to take part in. For the better of everyone.
The most important point I feel is about halfway through, just in case anyone tuned out. The idea that they could directly choke out access to things the ISP doesn't agree with (or premium service packages you haven't paid more money for) is a horrifying anti consumer idea based entirely on greed.
This is terrifying. Especially with how badly big corporations and government seem to want to control how people think these days.
I spent some wasted time trying to figure out what the 32 bit word was for a code......did it have a meaning or was I right deciding that it was meaningless?
As a radical libertarian, you have me leaning towards regulation!
Side note: are you uploading 20 minute videos on cellular?
The problem is ISPs want to create different tiers of internet, not just different speeds but they want to limit the websites you can go to as if they're cable channels. they still think in terms of the older cable TV business where you had to upgrade to a higher tier subscription to get that one sports channel you want.
Imagine the cheapest internet subscription option only giving you Facebook, Twitter and CZcams and some smug asshole CEO telling you "Our market research indicates that 90% of the people visit these websites the most, and now we can offer that to customers at a lower price!"
And it gets even worse than that because some services like CZcams and Netflix that stream video consume more bandwidth than say Wikipedia or a news website, ISPs could demand more money to compensate for that, or throttle speeds for those services.
I'm in Eastern Europe and we have real free market competition among ISP, the speeds are great the internet is free and you have a choice among several ISPs even in small villages in the middle of nowhere.
What you've ended up with in the US is crony capitalism, and I'm almost hesitant to support government legislating net neutrality because you'll find a way to fuck that up too.
thank you, i finally have an analogy that i can use to explain this to my parents, lol.
10/10. loved this video.