Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 05. 2014
- In which Hank debates Hank on one of the most important debates in the United States today, whether to keep the internet open or to allow cable companies to open fast lanes (and slow lanes) for different parts of the internet to flow through.
Please make a public comment here!
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin...
Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense.
This is a public comment for the public record...official government stuff... so you'll have to include your actual name and address.
You can also email the FCC directly here: dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC
If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms, check out:
Save The Internet (from FreePress) www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
Public Knowledge: www.publicknowledge.org/
And contact your congress people: www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Hm, this seemed a little one-sided. Hank is just a weak debater when compared to Hank, so I think Hank purposely chose to debate Hank so that Hank could get Hank's point across without worrying about Hank.
Hanks points are really selfish and don't help anyone but himself, but Hanks points are also really selfish except that they help everyone. Literally, they help the whole world. Creating competition is awesome, ISPs are and always have been, leaches that need to be burned off. They are more like parasites that however much they hurt us we need them to stay alive. The best thing we can do is hope that our Doctor, FCC M.D., can control the parasite and get it to the point where it does minimal damage so some symbiotic organism can sweep in and replace it. I side strongly with Hank, and it is one-sided but somethings really are black and white no matter how much you sugar coat it.
sstaph.. staapphhh
Hank.
I debated myself about this, and I think I won. So it definitely counts as a debate.
What
Hank won.
I personally think hank's argument was better, but hank was too frustrated, so I would agree with you.
Sorry guys but I think both of you are forgetting the true winner here, Hank.
Hank was the winner End. Of. Story.
wouldn't that mean there's a draw? o.0
no, hank won hands down.
As an Australian, this worries me. Because once America does this, either they'll force us to do the same (as has been done before), or one of our stupid politicians will copy you.
Stopping this doesn't just help America, it helps every country America has diplomatic power over.
Its already happened here in Australia to some extent and thats part of the issue regarding our NBN project.
I was thinking the same thing. I live in Canada and we fold fast.
You think you've got it bad. I live in Canada, and we tend to follow the US faster than anyone else, especially with the current government.
Mrpapayaheadrulesall Which is a pity. Canada does legitimately have some stuff more figured out, like healthcare or at least so it seems.
Tell me about it. I live in the UK, and three out of the four potential prime ministers who have any chance of winning in 2015 are directly responsible for American companies- and two of them are conservative. add that to the fact that we are basically the American state of europe...
I think the biggest problem here is that the debate here is excluded to entertainment, but the internet is way more than just an entertainment platform. There's news, communication, job applications, and so much more. The internet is not an entertainment platform like cable tv. It is a massive telecommunications technology that is essential to everyday life in the 21st century. And THAT is why net neutrality is so important.
Yup. Without net neutrality, my job's website would most probably disappear. It's a small company and it wouldn't be able to pay a multi million dollar bribe to be available in any kind of "package". A lot less clients would contact us, we would get less work, I would have a lot harder time keeping track of the work that is asigned to me, how we organize, where we travel and when and most importantly my paychecks.
Who cares? As long as it doesn't mess with MY paycheck you can go bankrupt for all I care! Just don't stop paying your internet and phone bill or we WILL sue you until you die, then target your next of kin.
Love, Verizon.
@@jorgeferdenav 4 years later. Net Neutrality is still gone. How's that job doing?
Hank is hotter!
Who's Hank?
Fred Bednarski A binary Quantum Entangled advocate fueled by corn-dogs?
Hey it's this guy!
Who the F is Hank?!
LOL, you!!
Man, this is much more relevant now than it was then. 2017 man.
THEY WON THIS TIME
Fhaegg Ggidd
We won. The internet will be better and cost us less.
...I know what you are going to say....so stop right there
Do you remember all that scary stuff you were told about happening in 2014? No? Did you know net neutrality wasn't a thing until 2015?
This simply allows the big hitters of the internet to pay to increase their speed and provide you a better product.
With it being more profitable for the provider- they will build up the infrastructure and create an event better system.
Let's look at Verizon, Verizon has always led the way with the fastest internet: first to do 4G , 4GLTE, and now they are putting in 5G. Because they are the most profitable company they can implement these changes .
fun fact: Verizon is forced to share it's Towers with all the other carriers because they own 90% of the air waves that cell phones are allowed to you. This is why most coverage is the same everywhere no matter what provider you have .
2287rna Sure and the small guys bite the dust
Bryan Leong did they eat the dust in 2014?
2287rna you sweet summer child. Either you work for Verizon or you are extemely ingnorant. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T will try to make a much money as they can, and probably make internet packages at different prices where you have fast access to a select few sites. If you want access to the whole internet you will probably have to pay a fortune, if that is really an option. All of the ips's have in the past been cought throtteling traffic to sites they dissagree with or compete with and if there is no law preventing them from doing it what will happen?
It kind of sucks that this is relevant again
In which Hank debates Hank on one of the most important debates in the United States today, whether to keep the internet open or to allow cable companies to open fast lanes (and slow lanes) for different parts of the internet to flow through.
Please make a public comment here!
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin;jsessionid=TFmyTjMJKDBVQnXrFWl2rhv2ytzklrNdtXdfVL8J1l2B2DB2QRLD!1675925370!1281169505?procName=14-28&filedFrom=X
Tell the FCC that they should reclassify broadband internet as a telecommunications (or "Common carrier") service. Right now broadband is regulated like TV or radio, which doesn't make sense.
This is a public comment for the public record...official government stuff... so you'll have to include your actual name and address.
You can also email the FCC directly here: dft.ba/-tell_the_FCC
If you want to help some organizations that work their butts off trying to fight the telecoms, check out:
Save The Internet (from FreePress) www.savetheinternet.com/sti-home
Public Knowledge: www.publicknowledge.org/
And contact your congress people: www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes
Happy birthday Hank!
HAPPY HANKO DE MAYO! Hope your birthday is great Hank, and filled with anglerfish and corn dogs!
internet
Happy Hanko-de-Mayo Hank!
Happy hanko de mayo
just watched a man talk to himself for 3 minutes
You obviously haven't seen Cinemasins Jeremy.
Sanket Dange lol
He obviously chose the most intelligent person in the area to talk to.
Relevant three years ago, relevant today.
2017, and this is more relevant than ever
You understand that Net neutrality started in 2015...
Remember how the internet sucked then? Yeah...me either
the internet has changed so much since then
i dont want greedy companies going against the principles of the founding fathers of the internet . They should be worried about making faster internet not fucking their customers
2287rna Its cause of the mainstream media streaching the truth and common people not doing any research for themselves, there puppets.
Kreepy4 oh yeah? Do tell me how much research you have done? What's your own acceptable p value? What's your EBSCOHOST annual fee?
Please enlighten me about this "research" you do.
2287rna What are you talking about, i was agreeing with you.
I wish all debates were like this. Both Hanks get to the point and no one gets interrupted. :)
Sunny Bear Yes but it is one sided with clear bias.
What its feels like bias, its that he made the representative of the providers speak truthfully, not that he pointed the discussion or defended more one side. So its not actual bias, just your feeling, probably after watching many times the lies of these responsible for damaging our decisions to improve, and change in small steps the internet by our accord, not by the accord of companies! if they get this power, those that fought and argued to be allowed to compete, improve, change will not have any defense!
Connor Price It only makes sense for ISPs to raise prices on bandwidth hogs to manage finite infrastructure. Net Neutrality is a pitch by Netflix (a large company) to blame Comcast (another large company) for their problem. Not having it actually benefits new entries into the market who do not use as much bandwidth.
except they talk past each other, and the 'ISP' is a straw man.
Connor Price Matt Baron except for the fact that that already existed. Why do you think that when you're subscribing to internet, you pay based on what you use that Internet for. For example, if you only use Internet for email and facebook, why would you need the 60 mbps? You wouldnt. Plain and simple. That's why if you only use email and facebook, you should really only have to pay for 5 mbps speeds. Which is exactly what has been happening for a long time. Net neutrality never existed
I found this educational and more importantly, adorable.
I couldn't agree more, Anna.
Woah, never thought I'd find one of my favorite content creators while doing research for a debate. Small world huh
I had to go back and watch this back a second time because the first time I was to distracted by how adorable Hank was being.
To: The Commissioners of the FCC
Hello,
As a software engineer, my entire career is built around the use of the internet. It is vital to EVERYTHING I do.
Imagine if companies were allowed to buy roads then charge our truck drivers and companies to use those very roads. It would be a monumental disruption of our economic stability. Driving up prices across the board. The internet is the highway of today and the future.
It is the internet that gives America its advantage in this day and age. It is what gives our small businesses a fighting chance when starting out. If tiered internet use becomes commonplace, then it is nothing but another roadblock in the way of a growing economy.
If the US is to be the pioneer then we must maintain net neutrality!
I hope to one day start my own business. Of course, it will be based around the internet in either the product itself, or it's distribution. Thinking of it in that matter, this is a zero benefit, high cost situation. By the decision to end net neutrality, no value would be added to the economy. In fact, it would take value away.
I ask you, please do not shoot this country in the foot.
The only argument against comparing the internet to any of the highly regulated utilities is that the internet somehow isn't important. Your argent definitely fixes that.
It's impossible to explain that to some people that "just go with someone else!" doesn't work when most cable companies have built their own fiefdoms where no competitor dares enter.
***** I don't see why you think decisions made "politically" and "by the market" are any different. The market is political. That's why they call it the "political economy". In our society, consumption decides production and the direction of society. Every dollar you have is a vote. The rich have more votes than you. They use those votes to solidify their future voting power and to direct society in a way that benefits them often to your detriment.
Political decisions are market decisions and vice versa in a capitalist political economy.
***** I'm not sure what you think is non-violent about market actions. Coca Cola hired a terrorist group to kill union organizers in Colombia. The state exists in order to protect the private property in the market. That's why it's there. That's why they bailed out the banks and not the homeowners. Absent the state, some megacompany would create the state.
It's just a bunch of property owners getting together and claiming legitimacy while hiring thugs to enforce their claims.
Occasionally "the market" forces them to throw a bone to the workers because unrest, if left unchecked, would mean they lose everything whereas universal healthcare means they get paid less.
Every political action is a market action and vice versa.
I am so sad that this is happening again
Richard Lazarus you understand net neutrality didn't start until 2015...
Remember how the internet sucked then?
Yeah ...me either
Connor Price
It is cheaper to outsource the police to a third company instead of letting the government run everything. I believe its now 90% private in America and thus response times have cut dowm to a faction and at a third of the cost.
it's cheaper and better quality by getting removing the government from the equation.
Maybe you would prefer a state ran Internet. Something equivalent to North Korea or China. Sounds like the best product out there righ?
Connor Price
I mean. If we want to go full blown 100% deregulation it would be a paradise. An Ayn Rand Utopia....
Connor Price however communism has failed every time. A true free market has never been tried .
Capitalism doesnt fail, it just stops existing. But capitalism is very different then a free market. Plus, a free market moves very slow - socialists like band aids not a 100 year once and for all solution
Hank wins
As much as I agree with you Hank, if you do a debate yourself, you need to provide a more neutral viewpoint, for the sake of fairness and balance, which is what you're arguing for in the first place. What they are doing IS wrong, but the arguments on either side shouldn't be misrepresented, or exaggerated, or have social/emotional slants put on them.
Wait... so what they're doing IS wrong but he should still argue for that in a debate? I'm confused.
That is an interesting idea, but I wasn't actually going for a legitimate debate. I was intentionally creating a straw man to try and activate people to learn about this issue and act on it, because I am really not excited about a non-neutral internet.
It's possible that I should be better than that. And it is also possible that arguing with yourself legtimately and on good terms would be a really effective way for people to come to understand both sides of an argument, which might be a force for improving the quality of discourse in America...which would be nice.
thelonelydirector You should always be able to see, and appreciate some one else's viewpoint and argument, even if you don't agree with it.
***** Fair enough, it is something that needs people to take action over, and making an exaggeration is a good way to expose how ridiculous some points are.
And you hit the nail on the head with how to improve discourse.
***** However, if one side is more right than the other side is it not biased to present them as equal?
If we had a debate where one side had 100 pros and 1 con vs. the other side that had 100 cons and 1 pro is it not biased and unfair to present only 1 pro and 1 con for each side so that it is "fair and balanced?"
Doing so would be the exact opposite of fair and balanced and not neutral in the slightest. Presenting an equal amount of good and bad for two opposing sides is not inherently neutral. You have to consider all the good and bad that is being left so that you can present the equal arguments. If I have to ignore 99 bad things for one side and 99 good things for the other side so that I can present 1 good and 1 bad for both then I am not being neutral.
***** ***** While I agree that the other side's arguments shouldn't be misrepresented, trying to get rid of any bias or emotional appeal is contrary to the point of a persuasive argument. "Objectivity" is highly prized in our society, but I don't think it's either achievable or especially praiseworthy. We can't get rid of our biases or emotions, we can only hide them. And they matter! Those are the very things that let us make value judgments at all, why should we omit them from a debate?
An appearance of objectivity doesn't mean you have a neutral point of view, it means you haven't told us the point where you're standing to see that view.
Great video, Hank. You make a timely and much-needed point: the internet must be kept fair and open.
Aaaaand now this video's relevant again
***** This is brilliant
Hank's shirt keeps making me think my screen has a glitch.
THAT SHIRT IS KILLING MY BRAIN! >.
StickyTank I know right xD
StickyTank ikr
8 years later and I am viewing this video for my college hw right now. Good content remains good content throughout the years :)
It's about time the little guys, and not unbridled corporate profits, won a battle or two.
You can tell a legal system is horribly corrupt if a massive fundraising campaign is needed to stand a chance against 1 corporation's malevolent wishes.
Problem is, it is not only one company with their hands in the undermine/destroy net neutrality pie - Comcast is just one of the more visible companies. There are others (potentially many others) who either contribute money, man-power, or their existing influence to move things in the direction that they want it to go.
On a personal note: this scares the crap out me, because it will kill the independent news/products/streaming/communites online, and I don't know what I would do without them...
Love this debate concept. What confuses me is the end user already pays for that bandwidth regardless if they use it or now. Why is it ISPs are proposing to BOTH collect service fees from the end user AND the streaming service? Isn't that double dipping the chip? George Costanza learned a hard lesson there.
More like triple-dipping. Right now users in the US pay unreasonable fees for substandard broadband service. If the ISPs get their way (and I don't see anyone stopping them any time soon), they will get to charge customers even higher fees for "premium packages" that give faster access to sites like CZcams, while at the same time charging the content providers like CZcams for the "privilege" of using their data lines at the same speeds they do today.
If it is their service, what's the problem? Netflix, youtube, etc.. these sites use massive, nearly unimaginable amounts of bandwidth. Why on earth shouldn't they be charged more? I have no problems with ISPs doing so.
UnknownXV Well the problem is that most ISPs do these things with guile. People who have bad bandwidth on CZcams don't think "Hey this is my ISP's fault," they think "I hate how slow CZcams is." To top it off if someone like Netflix says that a company is doing this, they get a cease and desist order.
Mark Corum Both thoughts can cross their mind, but the end point is who owns the lines? Whoever owns it, controls it. How can it be any other way? Unless you don't value the concept of private property.
UnknownXV The problem is that when I pay my ISP, I pay them to provide a service, access to the internet at the speed that I pay for, with all content coming at that speed. The ISP's however don't like this because internet speeds are becoming faster, or are supposed to be as they are in other countries, but they don't want to invest in upgrading the infrastructure because that would cost money and cut into their massive profits. So instead they try to introduce systems like this pay to play model where companies that can and do pay get preferential treatment, while companies that don't or cant afford to are left in the dust. This is not the service I agreed to when I signed my contract. I agreed to pay for a connection to the internet to use for whatever I choose, not a connection to whatever company's paid the monthly protection money to companies using criminal tactics to enforce their wishes. Tactics like dividing up areas like a drug cartel to reduce competition, keeping their prices the same so If I choose to leave comcast (I live in one of the few places in america where there is more than one internet service provider) I am guaranteed no better choice because they all operate the same, have the same low quality of service and cost the same.
Companies arent doing this because they want to provide a better quality of service, their doing this so they can maintain their monopoly on internet service and lower bandwith usage by targeting the companies creating it. They could easily build better infrastructure to handle the load, they have the money and means, but they'd rather sabatoge the service and extort an unjust fee from online companies. America is 12th in internet speeds and we pay some of the highest prices for internet in the world by far. The quality of service is kept very low and the price is kept very high because the ISPs of america use tactics like price fixing and territory mapping to keep competition low. This isn't just anti consumer and anti capitalist, this is against the law and constitutes a monopoly.
This is what I posted in to that thing:
Internet connectivity in all forms should be reclassified as telecommunications or "common carrier".
I am against internet providers having the power to control access speeds arbitrarily against the interests of the public which provide payment and running costs for the service.
If internet connectivity could ever be considered a public utility, I would support that above it being primarily offered as a private resource.
Very nice!
sirdeadlock -... yes, then companies will stop investing in their infrastructure and we can fall even further behind in both connectivity and speed.
If you owned an internet provider and you had sank BILLIONS of dollars into creating a network only to have the government come along to tell you that now you had to allow me to use that network for free, oh and I am going to use it to provide a service that is in direct competition with you, then would you feel like investing more money into that network knowing that it would be benefiting me without me paying a dime? I highly doubt it.
Please add the proceeding number (14-28) to the description.
Thank youuu
So does the power company get to tell me what appliance I use my electricity on? Or the water company how much water I can use for showering or laundry or brushing my teeth? Or the cable company which channels I can watch the most and for how long? Is Comedy Central going to be all staticy and low def while AMC is high def and glorious because they paid my cable company more money?
Yes, they will. Welcome to a totalitarian state!
Seriously though, this might seem silly to you, but this sort of thing has happened and is happening right now throughout the world. And it will happen in your country too, unless you people do something about it. I'm not from the States, and as such I have no voice in your government's system, but if you are then you should go and do something about it!
This is so relevant right now
Can't believe we're STILL trying to fight this argument.
Yet again, the US federal government seems to be showing itself not as a government "for the people, by the people" as it was originally intended, but a government "for those who have the most money"....which is not the vast majority of the voting public. We seriously need to do away with corporate personhood and lobbying.
The wrong Hank was a jerk, but the right Hank was amazing. I don't understand why this is so tough.
Holy shit. This was published in 2014. I think it's time you made a new one.
petlahk agreed
Brilliantly executed! Thanks Hank!
Or should I say, Hanks....
I just filed my comment into the FCC proceedings. I think you should do the same. Yes YOU. Make your voice heard.
Me too!
ME too
I was already sad about the Net Neutrality fight not going well...aaaand this video just made me feel _really_ sad and significantly diminished in the hope department. :-/
it is not that net neutrality is impossible, its just that within the capitalist economic system where competition is the way of maximizing social benefit, net neutrality simply does not make sense to legislators.
(I am not american so this is from my Canadian perspective)
this is a country where healthcare and education, as well as virtually all other parts of the welfare state are driven through the market. Why should the net be any different?
In countries that have this social precedence (i.e. places like the Netherlands or Denmark) the government as well as civil society at large has more power of influence on the services that citizens receive, and the privacy they are allotted.
The only way that the US can achieve net neutrality is to have government mandates that explicitly lay out the rules and regulations of the customer-ISP relationship and the services they provide.
Other than that, its pretty much still the wild west, and whoever dominates the market will have control.
This article (though slightly bias) provides some information:
business.financialpost.com/2014/04/25/net-neutralitys-demise-in-u-s-and-canada-regulators-look-at-changing-rules/?__lsa=b5ac-a53b
Erich Schmidt This is actually the fight taking place right now, and the FCC (the US government agency responsible for putting the rules and regulations of the consumer-provider relationship in place) seems to be (on the surface anyway) in favor of net neutrality, but seems to be confused over how to find a balance that maximizes profits for providers without sacrificing true neutrality (which may or may not be impossible).
It's unfortunate that our regulatory bodies seem to be slowly drifting further and further away from neutrality, but given that our government as a whole places far more emphasis on corporate interests rather than giving a damn about the average citizen, the odds of the United States coming up with regulations that secure net neutrality are somewhere in between "never going to happen" and "why the hell would you think we care about you?"
The issue is far more complicated than it seems on face value, thanks to our horribly convoluted legal system, so it's difficult to see a solution to the net neutrality issue any time soon. But until the US government remembers the whole "of the people, by the people, for the people" thing wasn't intended to apply to business interests, it's incredibly unlikely that we will see true net neutrality.
There is a reason that the Internet is often referred to as the "electronic highway."
The United States Interstate Highway system is a means of mass distribution of people and resources for the general public, with higher concentrations in heavily populated areas, that also has military applications.
The Internet is a means of mass distribution of information to the general public, with higher concentrations in heavily populated areas, that also has military applications.
Just like there are speed limits on the highway, there are maximum download/upload speeds on the Internet, and both are there for a balance of convenience and safety. But the speed limits on the highway are the same for everyone. They do not change based on how important the driver is, nor how much tax revenue they generate for the state. The toll roads (or "expressways," if you prefer that term) do cost money each time you use them, but are there not sections of the internet that are "pay-per-access?"
You might say that there are no "Highway Service Providers" in the physical world, even though we have Internet Service Providers. But then what would you call the construction industries, and Department of Transportation, that build and maintain the Interstate system?
The Internet mimics the behavior of, and is operated in the same way as, any Highway system. Since it is just as important to the infrastructure of our nation, why should it be regulated any differently?
_TL;DR_: The internet looks and smells like an interstate system, why not treat it like one?
Fredrick Everson Agreed.
Fredrick Everson
Just had a discussion with my wife and I explained it as a public library. your description is much more eloquent. Much Approved.
Yosaj Solomon Nice way of viewing it too.
Yosaj Solomon I tend to see the internet as more akin to a public library as well. But I find that the highway metaphor is far more effective in discussions with those who see the Internet as a business model or a product, rather than a utility.
It's comforting for me to know that the same man who helped me through chemistry in high school can still help me in my 4th-year university courses
An open letter to Hank Green:
Dear Hank,
I really, really didn't like this. Like, I love net neutrality, and I think it sucks that you don't have it anymore, but the style of you debating yourself bothers me a lot. You're coming up with the "arguments" for the other side, which you do not agree with, and unlike a real debate, the "Hank" on the other side isn't really trying to win the argument. You're just using this other "Hank" as set up for your arguments.
I don't expect you to get some huge opposer of net neutrality to debate you, but it would be nice if you could at least be honest enough to give your arguments to the audience, not trying to double "prove" them by having the other side say stuff like "no offense, but there's nothing you can do about it" to make them look like assholes. Yes, many of them are, but that's a really poor way to try to prove your point.
I'm really just very disappointed in this video and, to a degree, with you for making it. With vital issues like this, everyone always seems to argue by trying to make the other side look bad and/or get angry (both of which you did in this video). Both sides do it, and it frustrates me to no end. I really expected that when you or John did a video on this, it would be a fair portrayal. You would give a list of the arguments the other side has and one by one explain why you believe these to invalid, like you and John have many times (for example the video about excuses not to vote).
Honestly, I feel like you could have made these exact same arguments (preferably without getting outwardly mad and ranting, but even with would be an improvement) in another format and I likely would have been fine with it, but the fake "debate" style just seems really phony. And actually, in a way, kind of sad. People debating against themselves almost feels as if they don't believe they could hold their own in a real debate. Like when Clint Eastwood debated Chair Obama. (I'm really sorry for comparing you to that, but this is what it feels like.)
I love and respect your viewpoints generally, and I am a huge supported of net neutrality, but I just feel very let down by this video.
All the Best in the Future,
A Slightly Deflated Nerdfighter
See, maybe it's just me, but I don't see the "debate" style as more approachable.
I disagree. He was just trying to give the gist of the arguments for both sides in order to raise awareness and basic understanding about it. He could have just sat there telling us what the different viewpoints are, but to make it more entertaining he played both characters. It probably didn't cross his mind that people would take it seriously as an actual debate rather than a teaching tool. Tbh the OP's complaint actually irritated me, given how much work John and Hank put into this channel. If you didn't like the format, fine say that, but don't go on for 50 lines about how you're disappointed in him and can't trust him anymore. You could always do your own damn research instead of relying on vlogbrothers.
I agree with OP on pretty much every point. The pro-Neutrality argument is strong enough to stand up to an equitable discussion. Ad hominem attacks (which, in my opinion, your portrayal of the executive amounts to) undermines your own credibility.
Sure, this method was funny and highly illustrative, but it was hardly fair.
Steph Smith "I dislike this thing and it's unimportant why so I'm just going to leave unhelpful comments saying I don't like it rather than try to say why it should change or not be continued."
I don't think that's actually what you wanted. We're nerdfighters. We feel passionately about certain things, we care about fairness, and we use our words (sometimes a lot of them) in order to articulate our points in the best way we know how.
John and Hank are great. The OP even said he thinks so normally. You exaggerated his disappointment that he made clear was in regards to this video specifically. It's also important to understand that the quality and care put into this channel typically has nothing to do with the quality of this video in particular. It's also irrelevant that he could do his own research, as he was critiquing how this video presents its information not to himself, but to others.
As for giving the gist of the arguments for both sides, he was trying to make no real argument for the other side. He was promoting his own argument using a straw-man. Straw men are not good teaching tools. 111q222p333m444z above you made a good case for why this is.
I too am for net neutrality.
My thumbs up wasn't strong enough. I need a comment to say how much I am firmly agreeing with this letter.
So I live in Canada which has ups and downs in this. The good thing is that America revoking their net neutrality laws doesn't apply to Canadian ISP's but the downside is that I'm still going to be affected by this. If America makes it impossible for small online businesses to compete with people like netflix in America, those businesses lose a lot of income and will likely go bankrupt or have to change things to squeeze every penny out of their customers. This will in turn affect me in Canada and the rest of the world for something that another countries government is doing to get more money out of its corporations and into politicians pockets. That is what I would call a giant steamy pile of bullshit.
That Pizza John shirt looks like it's supposed to be 3d but isn't, and therefore hurts my eyeballs.
Can I punch Internet Service Provider Hank in the face?
HAIL LORD GABEN
+Lord GabeN I wish that was legal.
hahahahaha I'm dying xD
*headdesk*
I'm an Olympic weightlifting coach and repair computers during the day. While repairing pc's I've stopped listening to music and just have your videos play all day. Keep up the informative and fun videos!
I believe the Internet should be treated as a public utility like water, or sanitation, or electricity and should be operated in the public interest. Not having net neutrality would be like phone companies charging you for the subject of your conversations.
The Internet is like a library! Do the libraries charge you more for one book than another to borrow and bring back on time? I surly hope they don't.
P.S. I do realize the Internet IS a literal library of information but I am talking about media center king of libraries.
You actually tried to give your opponent a reasonable arguement. Not sure how well you did it, but good job trying.
Adam Sherman He completely strawmanned it.
Hank, thanks for this. It's so necessary to say! You know, your CZcams channel has reached overseas because of the quality and relevance of its content. I deeply respect your discussion about your country, USA. I do not pretend to engage you in a debate about world wide access to the internet, but for the rest of the world it is a bit complicated the fact that the physical hard drives that hold our information about google accounts and Microsoft accounts and so on are stored at USA, where laws might determine and affect the access to such private information. It is just an open opinion, I do not intend to offend any USA citizen, I am an Ecuadorian citizen but I'm also a world citizen and this issue should matter to all of us.
Honestly, valid points on both sides. BUT I do agree with not-suited Hank. Personally, I think in order to get ahead in anything, you have to understand where both sides are coming from. Which is what I think this video did pretty well.
Netflix... 30%? My high guess would've been 10%.. 30% is just absolutely nuts
The reason why is because of Hd video being so large compaired to a song on Itunes, or pic on face. Because of that Netflix does use a of bandwidth to broadcast. So that a part of the reason that number is so high. Also house of cards is awesome.
Netflix, together with youtube make up around 50% of internet traffic apparently!
If they can buy a lawyer can't we kickstart a legal battle?
... It's possible... I'm not sure that I'd RELY on it, but it's completely possible.
It's not only about bandwitdh and speed, it's a lot about latency as well. So if for example you put the skype traffic ahead of torrents traffic in the ISP's queue, you'll get smoother VoIP calls, without actually slowing down the torrents, because torrents aren't sensitive to latency or speed, they only require bandwitdh. But net nutrality prevents this. There are good parts in net nutrality that should be preserved, but from thechnical reasons, most of it should be thrown away.
Balderdash. If NN is thrown out then Verizon could throttle back Netflix to the point that their customers cannot use it, then simultaneously offer Verizonflix. So competition goes out the window. And then soon freedom goes out the window as Verizon then throttles back all web sources it does not like, for political or other reasons.
ISP mean Internet Service Provider. Learn it, Love it.
I doubt your Skype example has any merit because they all have the same bandwidth, some have higher priorities than others.
I know what ISP stands for, I've worked in the field of networking. But much like your home network, it has a limited bandwidth, which at peak times, might become congested.
Your Netflix example is not untrue, and as I said, some of NN laws should be preserved. But throttling down is not the only thing NN porhibits.
Lets try to discuss it from the other side. What NN DOES NOT porhibit.
Today CZcams is a popular service, and thereby, it takes a lot of bandwidth from your ISP's outer line bandwidth (The inner line connects to the subscribers), so it is the ISP's best intereset to install a caching server on their side. By doing so they achieved two things:
1) They have saved bandwidth from they outer line, and by extention, saved money.
2) They have improved the service coming from CZcams to their subscribers.
By doing that globally, CZcams service is improved to almost everyone, with CZcams not having to put any of their own dollars into it. While if I had a small video service, I will have to be responsible for installing caching servers on various networks. Net Nutrality DOES NOT pohibit ISPs from installing caching servers.
Tom Klinorain Ok. Not sure why you oppose NN then.
Mainly because it prohibits the use of QoS in large scale networks (ISPs and such), and that's where it's needed the most.
I'll try to give another example (these are getting long, maybe I'll turn it into a blog someday).
As I mentioned, bandwidth is not the only issue. Depending on the type of service going over the network, it can be jitter-sensitive, or latency-sensitive, or both.
Everything on the network is sent by packets (we can think of them as little packages of data). To reach its destination, a packet passes through routers, some of which belong to your ISP and/or a higher tier network provider (your ISP's ISP if you will). Every time a packet reaches a router, there are (mainly) 3 possible outcomes:
A) It can be forwarded immediately to the next router in its way.
B) It can be queued (up to a few seconds) and then sent on its way (causing latency).
C) It can be discarded (causing jitter).
Obviously, if we are receiving or sending something over the network, we want case A. So it helps to understand why B and C might occur.
A packet can be queued because the ISP's bandwidth is fully used at the moment. And a packet can be dismissed because the ISP's packet queue is fully used at the moment.
Again, sorry it's so long, I'm getting to the point soon.
A file transfer is not latency or jitter sensitive. It's not latency sensitive because in most cases you can't use the file anyway until the last packet arrives, and since most file transfer protocols send a few packets at once, queuing a few packets in the middle rarely actually effects the end. It's not jitter sensitive because its packets are numbered, so one side can know that it missed a packed if after 10 seconds it did not arrive (request timeout), and can request it again.
CZcams, for that matter, is also not jitter sensitive because it has a long buffer, about 60 seconds, in which time it can detect missing packets, and request them again without the user feeling the difference.
Now, finally, to our example.
Let say I'm a game developer, and I've developed a car racing game with multiplayer. Obviously, packets have to go over quickly to give the user a good experience. The human preception can detect latency starting from 80ms, so I am latency sensitive. I'm also jitter sensitive since I can't allow myself to wait 10 seconds for a request timeout to detect a packet drop. If all the way accross my packet's route, no router is actully congested (using over 100% of its bandwidth), then I'm okay (In most 1st world countries, this is the case ~95% of the time). My problems start occuring when there is congestion.
Now game packets usually don't take a lot of bandwidth, so my game didn't contribute very much to that congestion. File transfers are usually the ones at fault. In the real world, 5% of users take 95% of the bandwidth (I'm not throwing random statistics in the air, this is verified). The thing is, everyone suffers from congestion, but jitter and latency sensitive service become impossible to use, while file transfers, who caused the problem in the first place, just slow down.
So what can we do about it?
QoS lets us manipulate packets that wait in queue. In the default state, without QoS, a packet arriving at a full queue will be dropped, regardless of what type of service it serves. With QoS, we can check whether the packet is jitter or latency sensitive, and if it arrives at a full queue, we can drop a non jitter sensitive packet from the queue instead, and push up the sensitive one to the front.
By doing that in large scale networks, file transfer users will hardly feel the difference, and multiplayer games will still be playable.
Please try not to think of the packet queue as a people queue. I can see how to push a person out of the line to make way for another one will be upsetting, but the people aren't there, they are on the far-ends of the network, using their internet differently from one another.
Last thing, I promise (and thank your for reading so far).
Notice how Blizzard have their US game servers and Europe game servers separate? I can't say for sure but IMO it's because you can't prioritize packets in the US, so games might not play smoothly between players of both sides. (The physical restrictions allows a packet to travel from Europe to the US in ~67ms)
Tom Klinorain I completely agree that ISP's should be able to prioritize traffic based on the type of packet, but the previous net neutrality rules did make an allowance for this. Specifically, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006 "“Permits a provider to take reasonable and nondiscriminatory measures to … (6) prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of a particular type without imposing a surcharge or other consideration.”
How is it that this video is 3 years old and it is still so relevant today? Hank, hats off to you!
Hank, you image the LOBBYIST LEADER OF THE FCC is going to listen to us? No, it's time for the American people to get more active and more angry. We need to have protests in the street, larger than Occupy and everywhere. We need to start pushing harder for money out of politics through ways like
www.wolf-pac.com
is pushing. We need to show them our passion in this or nothing will change. Mere petitions or e-mails or letters won't do enough. Sure, do those too, but do MORE!!
Scary what can happen when you have a country that's too big for its population. I hope these ideas fade into a distant memory, for the sake of Americans and those of us in the rest of the world who fear people trying to follow Comcast's lead.
I love your videos and style of presentation. I really hope this one helps the cause.
it's sad that this is still an issue almost 4 years later.
On one hand I understand where the ISPs are coming from on this one. Netflix and their ilk have dramatically increased bandwidth usage than most, why shouldn't they pay more for a bigger connection to that internet? Oh wait... they do when they purchase their servers and their connection to the internet.
The ISPs seem to be relying on everyone forgetting that Netflix has its own ISP bill to pay. Simply being a "server" doesn't grant you free access to the internet.
Love how you're always trying something new and different Hank, awesome as usual.
One of your best videos Hank, very original and creative in getting the point across. Thank you for explaining this, didn't even know it was an issue.
It makes me so frustrated and sad that this is still an issue three and a half years later
The U.S. needs more ISP's not government regulation.
Thing is, government regulation is the only thing at this point which will provide the opportunity for competition to spring up. Sometimes government has to intervene in order to prevent monopolies.
No. Government regulation of electricity and phone are both good things, why should internet be any different? Making it so there is no preferential treatment of websites, services, users or other products of the internet is the proper way to do things. Redefining all internet service providers as telecommunications providers so they fall under common carrier regulations would make it so they could only charge by bandwidth usage and give the same levels of service to all is the proper course.
Right because collusion never ever happens.
Mesh internet : /watch?v=Eovg0zNHehQ
Sahdirah Yeah Progressive era Teddy Roosevelt style economics!
They're getting paid 3 times actually. I think you've forgot about the 1996 telecommunications act that gave HUGE amounts of government money to ISPs to set up the internet and continually provides them with tax breaks and subsidies for running their middleman service.
I like that you were able to make Cable!Hank's arguments at least somewhat logical, which is important. If you make your opponents arguments a complete parody of what they actually are, that's a dirty trick and I believe it's a logical fallacy. You did a great job of defying that. Keep being awesome!
that's what's happening in Morocco right now ..the telecoms companies are shutting down all service of calling through whatsApp or Skype n also Facebook messenger for their own benefits ...n eventually pple are protesting again that coz everyone has the right to access to all Internet's options that pple around the world r having ...
I'm just hoping fiber will save the day before it's too late.
I'm a big supporter of net neutrality, it's just a shame I can't add to the comments because this is an American issue, but this is bound to spread worldwide to the UK and other countries soon. I'm worried, this has been a problem for a long time now and still so many people don't know about, thanks for this video Hank.
There are not enough dialogue style arguments like this that give realistic and somewhat strong arguments from both sides. This is satisfactory
Thank you for providing the link to the FCC form page. Made things much easier. Hopefully people do the right thing.
This'll set a precident everywhere. Is there a way for people outside the US to comment?
Actually, Brazil has voted its ''Marco Civil" of the internet, which is a set of laws and regulations, and one of its main points was that in Brazil, the internet connections must be absolutely neutral
the best thing you can do if outside the US is lobby to get ICANN out of US control. They are the chief regulatory body of the internet. Their leaders already say that they want an end to internet spying and packet prioritization. It just will never go beyond rhetoric as long as they can only enforce things through the US (which is run by companies who have a vested interest in stopping those laws from going into place).
Tijana Jesse some countries had either enough competition or legal precedent set so this doesn't happen. That's why korea has ridiculous internet speed
2014.... back when europe still had net neutrality... Now providers start blocking sites because the law can now dictate what we are allowed to see and what we dont and providers can mess with the speed of data trafic. Im glad that there are soooo many providers in austria that it would be impossible to do that...
Thanks for the awesome video! Please do more like it:)!
It is 3 years old but it is more relatable than ever
So many hand movements.
Not to mention, I pay for x gigabits per second, plus an overage for any total data per month that goes over my personal "allowance". So, no, they don't owe netflix 10 gbps, but they do owe *me* the 10 gbps I paid for. Should my gas company next be allowed to drop the pressure right before dinner because I bake too much? We pay for bandwidth monthly whether we use it or not. When we use it, we expect the correct amount delivered.
Definitely one of the most important debates today. And this video makes it so easy to understand!
Ik zag dat je naar de DYTG9 komt en zal spreken, ben heel benieuwd naar je verhaal!
Quite Interesting and a little revealing
Thanks for clearing this up Hank and giving us actionable steps. Just made a public comment and contacted my congressmen. - Sarah
Everyone should just move to South Korea O_o
Or even better... North Korea!
Chingis Enkhbaatar The thing is, their non neutral internet that limits access is still 10x faster than US internet.
Tartar Who gives a shit if it's faster than the speed of light if it's restricted?
SpaceTurkey40000 there is no internet at all (aka no worry for the type of internet) :D
Lvn Okay I did some research and there is an internet in North Korea but people can access only few websites.
Question for John on question tuesday or friday or whatever day: Why arent you president already? I whould vote for you!!!
Well, he doesn't *look* 35...
you shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can spell
mason sharman You shouldn't be allowed to vote until you can capitalize and punctuate.
Anthony Khodanian
i cant vote anyway you fucker
The weird thing is...this video just happened to pop up in my feed. When I clicked on it, a grey exclamation point came up and a message that said "The video requires payment to watch". I refreshed the page and a message said "We are currently having trouble with our servers". I think the internet might be trying to tell us something.
This barely covers 10 percent of all of the different scenarios, situations, and arguments that are being addressed (in lighter terms) by various, random people to owners of large companies about this topic. This is definitely a very well-done video and explains a lot about whats going on, but to participate, we need a lot more information. Hopefully we can all find various articles about this subject to inform us more about what is happening, and what can be done. Thanks for the video.
Occupy the internet.
Already am.
timinimification
Why occupy when you can take what is rightfully yours with fire and blood?
Hadrian Augustus That's a better way of thinking of it, actually. Nobody can own the wind, but it still belongs to all that which over it brushes.
Well stated and I could go on for days about the wrongs and the inevitables....but I am reminded of a conversation I had LITERALLY 20 years ago by a man who worked in bandwidth accessibility back when modems still went "weeeeoooowahahahhhh". He said, back then, that we could easily be uploading several terrabytes per second; that the technology already existed, there just wasn't a market for it yet. To which my mouth hung agape. How about we skip ahead to a time when bandwidth is not an issue! I think the market exists!
the software exsisted but the hardware at the time didn't exsist, and even today it is expensive most cities have commercial fiber lines that we could use but more rural areas would have to have new line be bought and but inplace
.
Colton Morey Right. And I get that. I just don't understand why we crawl toward it instead of leaping forward. The technology and the market exist. It IS expensive - but we are paying a fortune for it now and it is not the best product available. I want us to LEAP. Think bigger and move faster. Stop THIS before it even happens. Move toward a bandwidth that doesn't even consider speeds worth bartering over.
When you understand what the internet backbone is, there is no way the broadband providers aren't being two-faced.
This video was recommended to me on the most recent vlogbrothers video. So, I rewatched it. How did you get here?
Sexy scientist same! It’s kinda creepy and sad how we’re at the exact same place 3 yrs later
U.S.
$50/month for 30Mbps
Japan/South Korea etc.
$30/month for 1Gbps
its disgusting that this is even a thing.
Thank you for posting the FCC link. I couldn't find it.
MORE, PLEASE!
MORE OF THESE VIDEOS, PLEASE!
I can't tell if you seriously tried your best to play the other side, or if you were just so pissed you made them look like idiots
For the first half, I was wondering the same thing. Then I recalled the independent research I've already done on this issue from both pro-ISP and pro-user perspectives. There has yet to be an argument by the pro-ISP crowd that didn't scream slimeball.
He didn't really try to balance it but in his defence, it's a pretty indefensible position. There really is no upside to this for anyone but the cable companies.
I guess it's hard for him to look at it in the perspective of the businessman... When he isen't as greedy, rich guy lol
Is any consumer even _on_ the side of the ISPs?
The arguments he used are literally the exact same thing the ISPs use in these kinds of discussions. Sure, he added a certain tone to it, but that's probably his inner voice screaming that what he is saying is just so god damned unconscionable that his body is repulsed by it.
Hank totally won the debate.
And here we are - 3 years later - again....
More Hank vs. Hank debates, please!!!
2017 AND THIS IS REALLY HAPPENING AGAIN!
Zoe Harpole I KNOW. NOTHING WAS WRONG WITH THE INTERNET PRIOR TO 2015, SO THE GOVERNMENT IS GETTING RID OF THE POINTLESS REGULATIONS INTRODUCED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.
That's when Netflix goes and gets into own serves, like when Rockefeller built a pipeline because he didn't want to pay for train service lol
That's exactly why Google has started offering an internet service
Chris Seltzer seriously?
Daan Dekker Yea but in VERY few location, google "Google Fiber"
Daan Dekker yep, Google fiber. 1gb up 1 gb down.
Netflix has its own servers, but what you are implying is that Netflix gets its on internet pipelines, and that is impossible. The cost of building a nationwide ISP is astronomical and falls into the natural monopoly category. Google said its estimated cost for bringing Google Fiber to the nation is about 60 billion dollars. Netflix does not have anywhere near that money to do such a project and for them it would be even higher because they don't have the type of people that Google employs to setup a system like that.
(Side note, forgot to mention this: imagine how much deeper the gap would be between the educated and the uneducated if the uneducated had no means to get to the information. The Internet has done some absolutely amazing things, allowing people who otherwise would never have heard of a town outside their own, let alone a country, learn about the entire world. It would be terrible to allow the rich and educated to control the information. Literally.)
"I feel a little bit like an elephant, who has been asked to speak to a group of elephants, on the subject of why killing elephants is a bad idea." - John Green