Net Neutrality - What a Closed Internet Means - Extra Credits
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2024
- The debate about net neutrality rages on, but the meaning of "open internet" vs. "closed internet" is seldom explained. Without an open or neutral internet, corporations like AT&T or Comcast can restrict bandwidth and charge people extra for faster connections or limit access to their competitors' services altogether. (---More below)
In the United States, a January 2014 ruling from the DC Circuit Court determined that the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) had no authority to enforce its previous rules about net neutrality. This opened the decision about how to govern the internet's future up to law makers in the US Congress.
Whatever your opinion about net neutrality, we encourage you to petition your representatives for action!
Find your US representatives here:
whoismyrepresen...
Find your UK representatives here:
www.writetothem...
EU: The European Parliament defined and protected net neutrality in a vote on April 3 (2014). This bill has several more votes to go before it becomes law, but you can learn about it here: savetheinternet...
Subscribe for new episodes every Wednesday! bit.ly/SubToEC
_______
Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! bit.ly/ExtraStore
Play games with us on Extra Play! bit.ly/WatchEXP
Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! bit.ly/2ssxjla
Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: www.youtube.com...
Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): bit.ly/ECTweet
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/ECFBPage
Get our list of recommended games on Steam: bit.ly/ECCurator
_________
Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net
_________
♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM
bit.ly/1eIHTDS
♪ Outro Music: "Network is Searching" by Rukunetsu
bit.ly/1fpMhuT
The European Parliament is scheduled to vote on net neutrality on April 3. If you live in the EU, contact your MEP here: savetheinternet.eu/
I love the look of the new intro :D
What about Canada? Is this a global phenomenon or only based in the US and EU atm? And if this does pass in America and it ends up affecting customers in Canada, what can we do about it?
Thanks very much for this!
However...I live in the UK, and was getting worried about not having any say on an "American" issue that, due to the high proportion of US Internet content, is really more of an international issue.
Then again, I'm not sure how much an EU ruling will affect the US-based parts of the Internet...
YossarianVanDriver If you don't have an ISP stationed in the US then you're probably fine unless the EU ISPs start restricting access to their customers. ISPs (To my knowledge) can't just straight up kill a website for everyone, they can only reduce the service to their customers.
Tyler van de Ven Ah, thanks. I think I was getting ISPs and actual websites confused. So even if the site is American, if the European ISP doesn't charge extra for it then it doesn't matter what the American law is? Cool.
(Note: I use "doesn't matter" not in a general sense; obviously it matters a great deal to all the people in America what the American law is...)
when ur three year old vid gets popular again because history repeats itself
The only difference this time is that some portion of people are actually arguing this is a good thing.
Yeah...
Alex Russell for example Myles Power on his nerd base.
i literally just noticed that
Now it's 4 years old.
comcast actually is actively slowing netflix speeds in a lot of areas right now. The only way netflix got them to stop was to pay them a large sum of money, and the speeds still aren't back to what they were a year ago.
The crazy conspiracies aren't conspiracies if they're real.
Liking this because its true. Someone less lazy than I should probably dig up an article on the lawsuit that got involved. (Actually, was it Comcast or AT&T? I can't even remember now..)
Internet providers already try to nickel and dime you for absolute crap, at least where I live. Can you imagine if they had the leverage to do it even more?
Yeah the Internet and streaming services/gaming is the "payola" scheme for the 21st century.
I think they are doing it with amazon too because I keep getting "loading" in the middle of watching tv shows.
HashSl1ng1ngSlasher Actually they are still conspiracies, just not conspiracy theories.
Shadow Ranger Well no one is saying it was THAT bad. Anyway it wasn’t needed before because the net was still in its infancy. NN came about precisely because ISP’s began to employ shady business practices to stifle competition. There are many instances of this. So rules were written.
The free market is based on consumer choice, on the merit of the product/service a company can provide. Not on a company’s ability to mess with their competitors. The consumer doesn’t choose who wins there. That’s not a free market. That’s why it’s important to keep it.
I’d these ISP’s hadn’t done what they did. NN would’ve never come about. Pretty much the genesis of most laws.
And here we are again,3 years later... :(
DarkAion actually here its sort of like that, pay more you get more speed but there's this difference,govt (i think)owns part of the private company which provides internet
WE LOST
DarkAion WERE SCREWED
Well, at Least Mia Khalifa called Ajit ugly.
Aaaand that's why I like these guys.
Explanations.
I had always heard the term "Net Neutrality" and dismissed it as a terminology that nobody _really_ knows the meaning of.
Since they described it, I now know *infinitely* more than I _did._ And, likewise, now I can finally gain a standpoint on the matter.
Thank you, everybody, at Extra Credits.
They only analyze the arguments, not the contents. So no, they didn't explain the meaning.
Shadow Ranger look at the date this was published
Shadow Ranger it was a miracle that companies didn't think of doing this before Obama pass that kind of legislation, but now they've heard rumors about and about it and how it will be going away and what they can use to squeeze more money out of people oh, you can be sure that they're going to do that.
It's so saddening that this video is relevant again in 2017.
Don't say magically, that's not how this works. Why in the hell would big ISPs lobby with millions of dollars to have the ability to slow down or block if they say they won't do it, right? Major corporations have never lied through their teeth in order to get the best bottom line. Ajit Pai has never worked for Verizon before either. The internet wasn't a "steaming pile of shit". It was about to be. ISPs had started to block and slow down other sites that they competed with. That's why laws and regulations come about. Who in their right mind thinks giving ISPs this much power is a good idea. ISPs should be what they say they are, Internet Service Providers, not censorship services. In addition, I thought this country was a representative democracy. Polls show over 83% of people support Net Neutrality, the FCC should serve the people not ISPs. Actually, I talked to my local ISP and they said that they have had little interference from the FCC about how they provide the Internet.
+Shadow Ranger did you not watch the beginning of the video? Net neutrality was a thing long before 2015.
Aaaand...This video is relevant again. And it never should have.
all thanks to A Shit Pie.
Such is the world we live in
Net Neutrality *was* a thing before then. It was just ruled outside of the FCC's jurisdiction unless they made the internet Title II. It wasn't about establishing net neutrality it was about maintaining it.
its scary how relevant this still is
I been noticing my isp Bravado Wireless charging me more I live in rural Oklahoma I have pay $83 a month
My internet goes slow no reason 😒
Net neutrality is a must, there is no reason to not have and. the supreme court needs to let the FCC do its job and back off of matters they dont understand.
Gamers' Ascent Are you saying a court filled with old men aged 70+, does not understand the internet? That's ridiculous.
Ironic because now they are the last option to save it from the FCC.
I think the question at this current moment is "is there a chance EA would *not* try to take advantage of this somehow."
You are right, there is no chance EA would not try to take advantage of this.
I would hope everyone would take advantage of this. It's that very thing that makes life better for everyone. If you could by a car with a 100 miles to the gallon carburetor would you not drive it. By freeing up entrepreneurship we would have that very thing.
It's 2017 now, and this is happening again!
2:26 I love how people act like Valve is some bastion of kindness and honesty.
In a non-net neutral world, I have no doubts that Valve would use this vacuum to monopolize digital distribution.
Thenextworldwar Well as of far they have never felt toxic to me and I've always enjoyed their services as a Steam user since 2011.
Irrelevant.
Any rich company in a non net neutral would probably use that money to benefit themselves by screwing over others so yeah I'll agree with you on that
But we're net neutral which is a ok
they almost are a monopoly for their market already.
"Almost". They do have a tiny bit of competition (that I hope expands massively in the coming years).
Very good analysis by Extra Credits of Net Neutrality! Some small additions: While it would look very slimy and anticompetitive for a large company to literally demand "Slow down our competing service in exchange for money", what's much more realistic is the opposite; ISPs establish a lazy, slow baseline of service that keeps most connection points under poor maintenance. Then, when their own service, or a paying service, demands it, put them right on top of the dogpile and give their connection points whatever they need.
Also, this is not a threat that might happen soon. It IS happening NOW. Netflix already pays Comcast a premium to get a better peering agreement with their own ISP. Otherwise, any Netflix user on Comcast would get poor quality, and eventually just switch to XFinity. More ISPs are queuing up for similar donations! Currently, I think ISPs like Comcast realize that this debate is better fought away from the public eye; a "CZcams package" like the EC video suggests would simply mean 99% of the world population joining the debate, and everyone against NN being voted out of office overnight.
The advances towards online streaming in Netflix, downloadable games in Steam, downloadable music in iTunes, and whatever high-bandwidth business models come of the future, could NEVER have happened back when those companies were smaller and had meager budgets to pay ISPs. Please make sure you do your part to recognize the severity of the issue at hand.
Maybe Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon will build their own ISP to piss off Verizon, Comcast, AT-T
Shadow Ranger Because Net Neutrality was established specifically to prevent companies from beginning this shit. We attempted to safeguard against the future, and were told NO by the FCC (More accurately, the corporations controlling the FCC).
But Google, Facebook have enough power to build up their own ISP Right.
I believe that as long as WE, the consumers, are paying for Internet access, then I should get access to all content equally.
If i got FREE Internet from a provider, go ahead, shape things.
you know.. I love that concept, you get free lets say 10mbps but it can be tracked. monitored. spammed with ads, etc and whatever... or go ahead and pay $20+ for 20mbps or more for, what is basically how the internet is now.
Too bad a most companies aren't that reasonable..
That's an idea!
first time ever commenting on a brony's post/comment/ihateyousometimesgoogle but your right
Hey, I'm an IT guy first, brony later :P
But this is a discussion we are having in Australia, as well as a discussion about infrastructure and what does the nation need.
I could see a model where your Internet access is paid through the services you use, and the agreements in place pay for the final run to the home. Would only work if ALL major on-line businesses (Netflix, Microsoft, Google, facebook, etc. etc.) were in on it.
Wouldn't use the model for business access to the Internet though, not worthwhile.
Server Brony I think a much better idea would be a peer to peer network, where you have your own connection but.. you share a little bit with everyone else in order to help make everyone else load pages as well, so say if you watched this video, it would be downloaded into a cache and then a small amount of your bandwidth would be used to share that video with the rest of us, which not only solves bandwidth issues but also makes browsing more private, of course the biggest problem with that system would be security, because I doubt you want the login page to be cached, although that could be solved by some sort of server only connection similar to how it works now for specific pages that request it.
3 years later and this is still relevant.
It’s quite remarkable how stable this issue and its ramifications have remained in an area as volatile as the internet and media service in general. It makes it all the more evident to me that there were officials in the FCC and ISPs keeping the Steed of Repeal locked up in the back, feeding it and keeping it alive until the right person came along who could tame it and ride it back into battle.
You keep mispronouncing "Comcrap" as "Comcast".
Yes
TheManWithTheFlan U are wrong
@@elinelson7822 no u
@The legend NO YOU
I bet that's where mirrors edge got the name "allcom"
I think the biggest problem, is that most law makers can barely log into Facebook let alone know how the internet works.
So True
The thought of internet becoming like cable makes me nearly throw up in my mouth.
I can't believe they're trying to do this again.
The cost of freedom *is* constant vigilance.
Ken Smith mad eye moody said it first
This is our generations fight, and we're going to lose unfortunately. The big corporations have their dirty fingers too deeply entrenched in everyone's pockets.
This video is 3 years old, yet here we are. Fighting for the same thing as back then. It feels like it will become a tradition soon
Whos watching this thanksgiving November 2017
A horror movie with us in it.
yep
Me
We need to save the internet again
i think you mean no nut november
I hate when people just use the "argument" of free market, as if it was something universally good. Companies need regulation (some people say lots of it, some others like less) to prevent them from swallowing personal freedom, which is way more important than the rest.
i couldn't agree with you more.
A free market based on the quality and quantity of products gerenarated by competition and innovation for consumers to select from is ideal. However, we have seen where certain companies and institutions tip the balance with laws to garner more market share without actually increasing product and service quality. They disguise such practices as free market but in reality are monopolies that can control regions of the world. The free market doesn't exist when there are lack of options. The arguments can get complex when physical locations and the logistics of maintaining hardware, software, and the connections both wireless and ground lines. As for the internet itself it is a free market of ideas, products, and services. The neutral ground that many of us enjoy in nations not restricting content creates that free market. Should net neutrality die so does its free market and the monopolies walk in to take over and fleece consumers. Prices rise as quality stagnates then falls.
Actually, free market (even an utopic one) falls off just from the existence of propaganda, which wasn't taken in account when the term started to see some use. Not to mention this particular case, where (as you said) there is lack of options... oh, and corruption. F*cking humans, so corrupt (?)
The Free Market is an ideal. Now I don't know what you have been reading but you have yet to offer an alternative to a Free Market that is governed by laws. Only repeating the same line that the Free Market is propaganda. When I mentioned the lack of options I was agreeing with the video about the lack of internet providers in a lot of parts of the country. Some options like satellite internet are barely faster than the old dial systems. Not ideal for my usage of the internet. Over regulating the market can be just as damaging to selection and quality of products and services as an monopoly. Potentially more corrupt as pay to play becomes come practice. It's what happened to Detroit under former Mayor Kilpatrick.
IdleDrifter
It's kinda obvious that overdoing any policy can be very harmful, but "ideal" free market also falls in that category. That's why I said the part about different people liking different levels of regulation, because I don't have a definitive idea of when it's enough.
That said, I guess we're agreeing in the rest of this stuff, mainly in the whole thing about having few options and how to handle this particular case.
In case you still don't get why this is such a big issue, just imagine EA Games was your internet service provider, and they named their service package "Battlefront II."
So... A piece of crap with even more crap that should've come with it to begin with being marketed as additions?
Net neutrality shines light on the biggest issue with cable and ISPs in the US. Lack of competition. It's too difficult to muddle through the bureaucracy of setting up a new ISP, so there's virtually no competition. That's the real problem.
I figured this was worth sharing. The reason net neutrality isn't against a free market is that you can't just build a new internet if the old one goes to hell. PC manufacturer starts making bad computers, go build new ones and sell em. but you can't do that with the internet and ISP's. The startup alone is monstrous. And since most ISP's have tentative monopolies over regions there is no competition to go to if they start limiting. As always, loved the video.
There isn't much in the way of competition in america when it comes to isps. Where I live it's either verizon or comcast. That's it.
I wish I could have either of those. I'm paying out the ass to get the same thing as comcasts cheapest package, because I live in a rural area with no options. My in-laws have verizon, they pay the same as I do, and on internet speed tests their internet is literally 10 times faster.
Venraef Why?
and they both suck ass
And here we are again.
Also a thing happening here in germany. Telekom, one of the bigger providers wanted to have two types of paying customers those with a flatrate and those without and a maximum you can use up.
They wanted to exclude their own video service on demand...dunno how it'll go out(as it has been quite around those parts here) but I'm all for net neutrality as I don't want the internet to be regulated by higher ups.
3:25
This argument is _almost_ valid...but what its missing is that ISPs actually cooperate with each other to make sure that every area has only one real ISP option. They do this so that they can monopolize each area for maximum profits, and so that they don't have to burn more money on hardware for supporting an area that another ISP already serves.
So yeah, Dan, you aren't alone. NOBODY can shop around. For me, it's either Comcast, or I can go screw myself.
Once more, it's an issue.
Shadow Ranger Nwt Neutrality wouldn't and hasn't made anything bad, eliminating it and giving it to these companies is just a disaster waiting to happen. With corporate greed rapidly making it too expensive to even go on CZcams
Not to mention he's actually lying about it too. And that we're set to go even further back. 2015 is not where we're going to be put back to.
Thank you for keeping the conversation on this issue going and helping to raise awareness of this ongoing issue.
I did contact my representative, and his response was basically "I'm trying to reduce the scope of an already out-of-control, too-big-for-irs-own-good government. I'm not going to give the FCC, a body that is technically part of the executive branch, and therefore under Obama's control, more power. Unless these ISPs actually do start acting in an anti-consumer manner, I'm not getting involved."
I can see where he's coming from, but still...
Sound's like he isn't interested in working for your interest and well being, which is the exact opposite of what he's supposed to be doing. If enough people tell him they want net neutrality preserved, it behooves him as their representative to try and make that happen. Unilaterally deciding that he knows better and going against what his constituents want is some unethical bullshit.
Your representative is a jerk.
Also, is that true about the FCC being under direct control of the Executive Branch? The response from the White House petition seemed to indicate that wasn't the case:
"The petition asked that the President direct the FCC to reclassify Internet service providers as "common carriers" which, if upheld, would give the FCC a distinct set of regulatory tools to promote net neutrality. The FCC is an independent agency. Chairman Wheeler has publicly pledged to use the full authority granted by Congress to maintain a robust, free and open Internet -- a principle that this White House vigorously supports."
So either the White House is lying or your representative is trying to avoid the issue. Frankly, either one seems very likely.
The best you can do as an individual is to make sure you're rep/senators at least know the issue. It sounds like you're in a conservative state, and most conservatives would be against neutrality for just the reason you gave. In that case it would take a large group of people to change his mind. And even then it wouldn't be a guarantee.
But its still always a good idea to write these people so you know their stance. Makes elections alot easier.
CeeDeeWai I wouldn't go so far as unethical. There's a reason that we have representative democracy instead of direct democracy for every issue, and the main reason is that the job of the representative is to research, consider, examine unexpected consequences, etc. as a full time job, and ideally make a decision that the constituents would as a whole make if they could actually take the time and effort to gather all the relevant information.
Of course, I think most legislators don't do that either. So I'm not saying that the legislator is behaving /well/ here, but I am saying that "doing what the majority of your constituents tell you to" is an equally bad set of guiding principles for a legislator.
Are you old enough to vote? Tell him you'll vote for someone who listens to you and values your input.
3 years, 8 months, and 17 days later, this video is still relevant
The FCC has Internet control
And here we are again, 3 years later...
As someone who did an oral presentation/research paper on this topic because of how strongly I feel for it, I'm so happy to see this episode. Thank you EC!
"Tell your representatives about this!"
A sweet but nearly useless gesture. Didn't do SHIT when he had SOPA on our hands. Nor CISPA.
Even if that's true, so what? You're just not gonna do anything? Is writing an email too much for an issue as big as this? Of course it isn't. You've got to account for the possibility that you're wrong when it comes to a decision like this.
Not acting has a chance (albeit a very slim one) of being harmful, but acting cannot be harmful. You're not too busy to write an email since you're not too busy to watch a video and write a comment. So why wouldn't you act?
VectorGambiteer I never said I wasn't gonna do anything. I've spread the word about this issue when the news first broke. And I encourage you to do the same. Just get the word out. That will do more good.
I'm a busy artist, and an email would be a waste of time. Since I've seen what happens. They get a nice and safely worded pre-written reply and not a single mind is changed as a result.
To quote the Bene Gesserit witch, "What can be done has been done."
GreenGearMood By what I have learned they tally the emails, you just need to say "I'm part of your district of apart of Maryland and I'm against this new law or act." they will tally it and move to the next letter. I'm a CG Artist and am also busy, so is a lot of other people. By telling people this useful piece of info, they don't have to worry about what their going to say. they can just write it and send it.
Pass it on.
Umm sopa and cispa didn't pass.
skintstudios Right. SOPA didn't pass because Google and Wikipedia blacked out to make damn sure EVERYONE was aware of it.
They didn't do the same with CISPA, and do you have any idea how close we came to that being made a reality? It was at the finish line when it was ruled poor legislation. It should've been killed much sooner than that.
Looks like this video is coming back into importance...
Riley Kass yep
WAIT. THIS IS A 2 YEARS VIDEO.
3 years later and this topic is still relevant, even more so right now.
We could probably have a non-net neutral environment if (1) on the back end we ruled any ownership relationships between content creators and ISPs as violating trust laws and (2) vigorously investigated and punished all price fixing and collusion. Honestly, this won't happen so I support side-stepping this debate by turning internet into a municipal utility (like water, gas, and electricity).
I've just forwarded this to all of my friends and family, as this is the clearest explanation of net neutrality I've yet to see, and EVERYone who uses the internet in America needs to be aware of it.
To those of you watching and reading this, I'd advise doing the same, and also to write - with pen and paper, to emphasize that email is a form of web traffic - to your congress person that you either want the FCC to regulate the internet in a net neutral manner or that you want the government to create comprehensive net neutrality laws.
I feel Net Neutrality is EXTREMELY important! ISPs already overcharge for bandwidth, and businesses will do everything in their power to get as much money out of you as legally possible... that's what businesses do. Giving business the right to choose which sites get more bandwidth will destroy the Internet as we know it.
When the FCC started, that agency's sole intended jurisdiction was to prevent different radio stations from using overlapping transmission frequencies.
They chose to do it by limiting the total number of radio bands available for licensing far, far below what was technologically feasible for the time, and charging fees and imposing censorship.
The original problem which the agency was first created to solve, has now long since disappeared. Modern technology allows us to simultaneously broadcast a virtually unlimited number of radio stations to the same area.
But not only do the fees and the censorship and the now completely arbitrary and superfluous limit on the number of stations persist - it's been extended to other technologies, which never suffered from scarcity or overlapping bands in the first place.
Whatever the Net Neutrality law will say, it's going to have consequences which reach far beyond anything that any of us can understand today.
That's not to say that nothing ought to be done. But, this one proposed solution is simply too dangerous.
Improbabilities Rather, it USED to be a problem, but since that video science has marched on and we've got exponentially more bandwidth to use than we did.
Gendreavus
As I understand it, the issue wasn't bandwidth per sé, but how wide a range of frequencies is required to reliably send and receive transmissions.
Because when the bands of frequency of two different transmissions overlap, and those two transmissions are sent into the same area, then in the area where they overlap, they'll interfere with eachother. It's kind of the same phenomenon as radar jamming.
Even back then, the technology was such that the FCC could have granted orders of magnitude more licenses than they did. And today, improved technology allows us to send and receive transmissions on a band so narrow, that every person on the planet could pretty much have their own, unique radio frequency, with no frequency overlap.
And of course, cable TV never had that problem in the first place, but the FCC decided that their censorship should apply to it anyway.
My point is that a law is going to have far-reaching consequences down the line, which the authors of the law have little incentive and still less ability to do anything about.
If our objective is a free, neutral Internet (which I think is a good idea in general, if not in every specific circumstance,) then this law is a really bad idea.
0:48 I know I'm taking this picture way too literally, but that has the be the most useless place for a lock I've ever seen.
Here in Brazil, few days ago, the government and sectors of the society were successful in vote a civil framework which will now regulates many aspects of the internet, including the net neutrality, a great victory if you consider the power of the communication enterprises, the political environment in election year, and the opposition campaign who tried to associate the "Net Neutrality" with "Censorship".
Also, happy to see Extra Credits with Portuguese Subtitles, thank you for the excellent show!
3 years laters and nothing chances.
I really do love you guys at extra credits. Bringing forth and pointing out topics that is nice for the average consumer to know exist.
Couldn't they just make a law putting Net Neutrality under the FCC jurisdiction and they can keep the good job they have been doing.
nothing should ever be restricted on the internet, there should just be warnings like: "this site might have viruses, are you sure you want to load this site" OR
"this site might have spam, are you sure you want to load this site"
2:17 If I could get a megabyte a second, that would be amazing, I'm happy when I get at least 300 Kb a second... Yeah my internet sucks...
I have 100kbps
3l H4ck3r C0mf0r7 Jeez... you got this...
+Hagakure Imata (CaptaiNaught) IT SUCKS SO BAD TBH, IM LOOKING FOR A NEW ISP WITH 600.
I get 2.3 megabytes a second
GamingBacon97 I get 70mbs, but I used to have 20mbs :P
The ability to switch ISPs is not an excuse. Many places, at least in the US, only have one or two ISPs which isn't enough choices for a non-net neutral environment.
Yeah, the "you can change your ISP" thing is ridiculous. Where I live? There's one. I either have "blazing fast DSL" at a wonderful 2mb/s or I don't have internet. That isn't a choice of providers.
This may have been the only video I have ever seen that clearly explained the basis of net neutrality. Great job guys! :D
LOOK IT'S RELEVANT AGAIN
o shit
Relevant today!
The real problem is the corporatism that goes on between the ISP providers and the government. It's not fairly competitive. There's all sorts of horror story where big wig ISP companies abuse laws to eliminate emerging competition. Sure, we can enact net netreulity and that may help temporarily, but it's like trying to get rid of weeds without pulling out the roots. It'll just require constant maintainence and government resources where as...If we eliminate the unfair advantages the current, dominant ISP providers have, then we pull out the roots and eliminate the weed forever.
So greed is crapping all over a good thing as always.
For some reason, the image at 3:43 just totally made my day.
This was made 2014 and still hold up in 2017
There's a much deeper problem behind net neutrality and free markets etc. For infrastructure the free market isn't really working in my opinion. Let's take public transport as a further example: Are you really able to choose the train or bus you're using based on comfort, prize or reliability? No! You choose it because of its route. And for a route there is mostly only one carrier. For ISPs, medical care, streets, electricity, water and similar ones it's basically the same: You choose them beacause they are already there.
Im not living in America, but here in Germany we had a similar debate not too long ago. Our largest internet provider, the Telekom, suddenly wanted to start offering connections with a limited transfer volume, on landline connections. You probably know similar stuff from mobile ISPs, youre allowed to download 5Gb with full speed, and then it gets slowed down to snail speed. They wanted to put the same thing into their contracts for normal DSL connections.
You would be allowed to freely download 50GB for example (considering DSL is way faster than mobile connections its really not much) in one month and once you overstepped that limit your connection would be cut down to 384 kbit/s, or 48kb/s, download speed. Of course you could buy additional transfer volume for full speed, but you see, this would basically transform any fool stupid enough to buy that into a cash cow.
Since there wouldnt be enough people stupid enough for that they didnt just OFFER this feature in newly made connections. They planned to enforce it on already existing connections their costumers had been running for years. So anyone being even a bit unobservant would get this junk forced on them and not even know it.
This entire plan got turned down though by some politic mumbo-jumbo because, and thats where the relevance to this video comes in, because of net neutrality.
It wouldve meant that packets of people who would buy extra volume would be preferred over packets by people who expended that volume. It also opened the door to companies buying high-speed connections that would stay high speed, even if the user had expended his volume, and that the traffic generated by that companies site would not count towards the volume limit, thus essentially even grabbing money from services like CZcams.
i read about the verdict t-online got, and soon after read about them trying again by rephrasing their new contracts, got me kinda worried but i can't find the source atm :s
as far as i can see though, this is actually not the worst of ideas, 50GB is a lot for somebody who doesnt use the net to download games or torrenting, you pay a more if you use more water, electricity, etc. too, i dont really see the logic in having flatrates for internet only
this is assuming the prices are actually reasonable if they would simply go "20 gigs a month for what you pay for a flatrate right now" i'd probably go on the barricades as well
the other side, however, where services can buy themselves out of the throttling, is something i am definitely against, as that is just plain monopolizing on the ISPs side
But it really gets problematic for youtube videos, there are lots of people who watch enough youtube videos to easily fill up that limit. 1080p youtube videos, which atm make up the majority, use a bitrate of 5.000kbit/s or more, that is 625kb/s. Going from the 50Gb limit you could watch a maximum of 22.2 hours per montch, or roughly 45 minutes per day.
suddenly seems a lot less, doesnt it? Nevermind downloading games. If you used up the maximum of a 16k connection you could download stuff for around 7 hours per month. That really is very little.
And by changing that payment concept they would offer less for the same price, even if you constantly bought additional volume you would end up paying more for getting just about the same in some cases, because the per month price would remain the same. That is an unacceptable business practice in itself, especially doing such changes behind the costumers back.
I dont know what you do with your connection, but ill see if I can find some software with which I can measure my traffic over a week or so and average it up to a month and lets see then how realistic this limit is, and how much money Id have to pay because I went over that limit.
1997, wow the internet in the future will be amazing
12/14/17 bye bye internet
I know, it's like Costco. I mean, Costco has the right to charge whatever they want, and now look at them. Look at those high prices! All those unregulated grocery stores, and look at all those starving Americans.
Owlblocks David False equivalency, my dude. Costco isn't 1 of 3 companies that can provide you with a service.
there isn't 14 months
wow nothing changed lol
With all this still going on, I'd like to put in my 2 cents.
*TL;DR* If Net Neutrality is done away with, cancel your internet and cable until ISPs realize that's not going to work. In the meantime play single/local multiplayer games.
Ehem...
If *Net Neutrality* is actually done away with I will cancel my *internet service*. I encourage everyone to follow along, and if you have *cable*, cancel that too. It's gonna be boring, so you'll have to play a lot of *single player*, or *local multiplayer games*.
But hear me out. If the *ISP's* profits hit a brick wall, they will be fighting harder than you can imagine to put *Net Neutrality* back in place. Then all the *users* AND *providers* will be on the same side of the argument.
As for *games* to play, you can revisit some old classics.
And here's my personal list of things I plan to buy.
docs.google.com/document/d/1aL1c7k96prlmLL8h4KpzQMjdcRyBtGEyUJ7-v6c2PZs/edit?usp=sharing
Note: I have unique tastes so you might want to look into some *single/local multiplayer games* yourself.
And all of this is assuming the worst happens. Hopefully we don't get to this point.
*Edit:* grammar and formatting.
That's not practical for a lot of people. Some need internet for their work, and others just feel like they can't live without it.
A Pedo In a Speedo If it is work, then keep using it. If you don't you can do this, because the internet doesn't bring food too the table (granted people use internet to buy food too. But to fix this
Problem is 'go outside, go to the shop and buy something').
I'd rather make my own ISP, and come up with new IP addresses than to pay extra money for accessing google ontop of my overpriced fios service.
Shambles1980TRealOne it's just a matter of purchasing unused bandwidth/backbone from the goverment, and paying the network committee for hosting your personal domain. It may be a pain to build a network from cheap cisco routers and programming isis or bgp protocols, but you can charge consumers no differently when they subscribe to your network. I'm surprised that no isp company has ever thought of using cryptocurrency being the trend for paying of the service, nor thought of a way to use peer to peer connections to their advantage for common data transfers/youtube video streams.
MultiMedia XL I think you missed the point
India already fought for net neutrality back in 2015 when Zuckerburg introduced free basics at IIT Delhi to "provide free access to the Internet in rural areas". It was one of the methods of making India's Internet non-neutral. In 2016 , Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) banned free basics from India due to violation of net neutrality. Stay strong guys Americans, you need to fight back again.
And here we go again.
10 years later and net neutrality has finally been restored ❤️
And one again it's a big problem ...
For fucks sake America you're the one who's supposed to ride a bald eagle barechest with the star spangled banner on your left hand and a gun on your right hand, you're supposed to annoy everyone everywhere when you screams FREEEEEDOOOOM like a madman
Citizens do, corporations and politicians don’t
I'm so grateful to have a small internet provider that's local to my area (Long Island), since their rates are normal and they're actually quite nice
I legitimately don't know what I would do without net neutrality. Cry, of course, but beyond that I have no idea.
Get funding for your own ISP company through kickstarter?
An ISP that attracts customers by being net neutral?
Merecir
And how would your ISP afford to be net neutral when you rely on the backbone that is other ISP's network, and they have special restrictions on sites driving up your costs?
Unless you can afford the astronomical cost of setting up independent infrastructure, you're screwed. A lot of ISP's get internet to their customers through a larger ISP's infrastructure.
I'd be tempted to ask our "Fine President" (a joke BTW, Trump is a man-baby) for a loan, but, knowing the implications of receiving a "small loan of a million dollars" which, based on my budget, I would have a harder time paying off, because of a thing called interest. I could explain it to anyone reading this, but I'm kinda a bit low on energy to explain it without being confusing. Basically, I'd owe more money than I could pay him, and well, he ends up with more money than the initial loan. I'll make my own million, thank you very much, Donald "Man-Baby" Dump.
This is by far the most convincing argument I've heard for Net Neutrality. I usually hear it presented as "ISPs will create a fast lane that only big corps will be able to use, limiting access for smaller companies/people." I've always looked at that with the thought that the higher prices those big corporations would be willing to pay would lead to more innovation and progress in delivery systems, bringing down the base costs, as usually happens when new technology proliferates. Hearing about the way Netflix was essentially blackmailed into paying higher rates to maintain bandwidth for its content kind of opened my eyes to what could be possible. A company like Netflix would almost certainly pass that additional cost on to their consumers, so the charge on the company becomes a charge on everyone who wants to use their services. I still think allowing people/companies to pay higher rates for a level of service/bandwidth above the standard consumer level makes sense, but I now realize that would have to be coupled with a definition of a "standard consumer level." Unfortunately, I don't know if such a thing exists when we, apparently, have greatly varying service levels in different parts of the country. You have definitely moved me, though I'm not quite across the line, yet.
Heres a video that discusses the thing 3 years before everyone worries about it.
YEAH
The FCC has only tried to enforce a "Net Neutrality" policy for a couple years. For most of the history of the internet, there was no enforcement. It's not that we once had "Net Neutrality" and now we don't; it's that the FCC decided to step in, and was told "no."
The real issue isn't whether or not we have top-down "Net Neutrality" enforcement. The real issue is the barricade of state laws and local ordinances that grant virtual monopolies to the cable providers. The reason there's little competition among ISPs is that "Right-of-way" laws and ordinances make it nigh unto impossible for competitors to lay down new communications infrastructure.
Keep the government's intrusive, corrupt nose out of the internet.
If corporations do something illegal, then take them to court.
But if the government's corrupt, how will taking anyone to court to any good?
Part of the problem is that you can't shop around for ISPs. Federal and state over-regulation currently all but prevents new ones from starting up and moving into new areas, effectively granting government-sanctioned monopolies. Fix that problem (that is, remove unnecessary, overbearing, and frivolous regulation) , and net-neutrality will be a non-issue.
Here’s one thing I haven’t heard: let’s say Comcast DID get away with the things you mentioned. How long would they be able to pull it off? Wouldn’t we all holler so loud that one of the other companies out there say “hey guys, we’re not evil! You can switch to us!”
Second, maybe the fact that there ARE no other options for you is due to the FCC making it too dang difficult for a new company to move in? Maybe that’s one of the arguments you don’t find convincing, but that’s what has happened pretty much for wireless far as I know.
Personal story: my company I work for used an antiquated AT&T plan for 20+, our limit was something like a gig of data for everybody. Obviously extremely frustrating for us, not to mention that ATT is a terrible company. Then TMobile contacted us with a plan that has ended up being CHEAPER than AT&T and gave us unlimited data, and our customer service is heavenly. Why? Because TMobiles business model is “don’t be a mobile carrier that everyone hates”
I dunno guys. I think I’m with FCC on this one. If it ends up being that bad it’s not like we can’t just pass another law; some pork-hungry politician will run on reinstituting net neutrality and fix it. Parties swap in Congress every few years; if somebody wants to shove more laws down our throats they can sure as heck do it. Our problem hasn’t been too little regulation, it’s too much.
Thank you for this comment, wish you could get more up votes even if this video is 3 years old.
Critterz thanks! Im beginning to Learn that Whenever you feel a massive amount of pressure to go for a specific position because “everybody” says so it’s probably wrong. Net neutrality feels like that b/c there’s almost complete silence on the internet from the other side.
That part is the effect of the Echo Chamber caused not only bye CZcams algorithms, but humans natural migration to towards others holding views similar to theirs.
Check out the comment section of one of Mr. Dapperton's videos, Ben Shapiro, Sargon of Akkad, etc. Good example of people against net neutrality. Also it comes down to who you put your trust in more, businesses or government.
czcams.com/video/zpN3HUO9Ksg/video.html
Critterz thx, I’ll check them out, especially Shapiro. Anybody who can shoot lasers from his eyes is cool in my book :D.
This probably goes without saying, but u aware of PragerU? If you like Shapiro you’ll like them (and Denis Prager himself). They’re fantastic.
PS go check out freedom tunes if you don’t know what I’m talking about above
Sadly, this video is highly relevant again, three and a half years later.
Worst part is this video relevant again.
Hot damn... 3 and a half years and this video is needed...
Finally, something that my country (Chile) does better than in others.
Read up on some of the astronomy that happens in Chile.
Your nation's contributions in that area are worthy of more than merely this one comment.
This isn't the only thing the companies could do, what's stopping them from removing criticism or propagandizing Our every form of entertainment?
I'm feeling monopoly busting time again. Time to break the new "Bells".
In some of these cases it's not even an analogy. AT&T, Verizon, and CenturyLink are the only 3 Baby Bells left, and they have all reacquired some of the others, on top of snatching up other telecoms companies. Each of them have got local strangleholds on high-speed internet, although they may not have a national monopoly.
Comcast is also very worrying of course. Really I think one of the most important things we should be doing to preserve net neutrality is not allowing content creators and service providers to be in bed with each other (as mentioned in the video, even owned by the same company). We've seen the type of petty bullshit this can cause on the television side, where the service providers control the namespace and can squeeze money out of networks or face removal from homes.
Wow, I didn't even realize this vid was 3 years old till I started reading the comments!
i was in this Video at 0:34
:D
This has become very relevant again, and the same arguments are being used. I only noticed this was actually an old video when I looked at the date.
add were back
3 years later and it's back
if they have the ability to have companies pay ISPs to slow down other sites, would that not lead to perpetually slowing down every site? Say myspace wants to slow down facebook. The ISP does it out of greed. Then what if facebook comes back and says we will pay you to slow down myspace. and they take BOTH of their money and each one keeps paying to slow down the other to the point that the site wouldn't even load anymore.
this concept is getting out of hand and needs to stop
They can simply work out an exclusivity deal.
Basically it leads to the entity with the most money wins.
I think there are more law's against paying to hinder you compatitors.
In practise this will work the other way around.
Companies will have to pay the ISPs to ensure maximum bandwidth for their own service's.
I belief Netflix was doing this already to some extent.
Does sound a bit like blackmail to me.
The dutch Net Neutrality law came to be after MobilePhone companies tryed to charge customers for WhatsApp use to make up for the decline of Text income.
Net neutrality being lost in the US would be terrible for us foreigners, because pretty much everything that affects the American Internet will have ramifications across the world and I hope the government can realize this and avoid putting restrictions that quite honestly even foreigners should have a say in.
A MEGABYTE a second?!?! Are you crazy, that's like I've died and gone to heaven!! My average Steam download is 600 KB/s if the wind is in the right direction and Jesus comes back.
600kb/s? Thats about what i get on a phone... i have around 10megabyte/s download. for 20$ a month.
Damn... For around $15-20 a month, my ISP provides me with download speeds around 20-30 megabytes/s (on a slow day)
Does your modem still scream at you (Dial-Up)? Jesus... lol
Michael Ticea Yup, nearly the same feeling, only I had 8megabits+tv+telephone internationally for 30€ a month... Then I had to move back to the US and find out it's 2-3 times that amount for less in a lot of regions, not to mention the cost of electric.
Michael Ticea
Damn, 30 megaBYTES/second, I who thought that Internet speed was measured in megaBITS/second... So that would translate to something like 240 Mbit/s.
But still quite good, it's almost a quarter of the 1000 Mbit/s available in Sweden. =)
It's been three years, why does this still have to be an issue
How did Europe vote? Net Neutrality all the way!
It passed unanimously
I live in Chile, and up until you mentioned it, I thought it was a very concerning problem for us, giving how ISP treat us clients.
It seems like a real concerning problem. Definetly going to check out what's going on here in terms of net neutrality.
Thank you for this, as always.
Of course you don't have choice in ISPs, haven't you seen "Last Week Tonight's" segment on Net Neutrality? He shows video where one of the big wigs explains that they don't cross into another company's turf.
Eh, you do have some choice. You can chose between technologies. Most areas have access to two or more of the following: DSL, Satellite, Cable, Fiber, Cellular
Each technology has its strengths and weaknesses. I have Cable and I made that call over Fiberoptic because Verizon FIOS has hard data caps and Cox Cable doesn't. Fiber would have been significantly faster and only slightly more expensive, but Cox provided the less restrictive service.
Neighborbob WISP is none of the above, and available in most places.
It's not "Cellular" because it's fixed point microwave: you mount an antenna at your house pointed to a transmitter, instead of waving a phone around that has a built-in, low powered omni antenna, so at your house's end it looks like Satellite. But it's not satellite either because the transmitter is ground-based, so it offers much higher bandwidth at lower latency than satellite.
In a resource based economy, there would be no monetary system to unduly interfere with network neutrality.
We must defend net neutrality.
mihnea spiridon sadly we failed
All the circuit court did was rule that the FCC could not apply common carrier rules to corporations that the FCC had not classified as common carriers. It did not shoot down net neutrality, nor the FCC's ability to regulate, just the FCC's attempt to _half-ass common carrier status_.
The FCC could decide ISPs are common carriers tomorrow, instantly (compared to new legislation) re-applying most of those rules (plus a few others), and this whole issue becomes a great deal easier to solve (check out this post by a former FCC commissioner, Micheal Copps: benton.org/node/172880).
Admittedly, most ISPs would fight this decision, hiring lobbyists to convince Congress that the ISPs aren't common carriers, and reverse the FCC's decision.
Finally, a new mobilization video, I've been waiting for one of these for a while. Time to dedicate myself to the cause of the revolution!
We're actually trying to stop a bad revolution here, not start a new one.
***** Indeed. So I guess in this case, instead of "¡Viva La Revolucion!", the chant could be "Keep the Statis Quo!"
Or Lets Watch this city burn the world since if they try to restrict sites you know that Anon is gonna put up a hissy fit and start mobilising to strike on every front.
.
People just don't know that Anon is a potential End Game for most parliaments and that they have the ability to lock down a couple hundred government sites and services.
DeltaTwoNiner Anon is just a bunch of anarchists with computers. They're nothing more than terrorists with keyboards, and almost every member has a different agenda. I know the word terrorist sounds harsh, but there's more potential for abuse in Anon than good. Since anybody can claim to be part of Anon, the group remains formless and therefore unorganized and unpredictable. They're a disjointed "movement" full of internet "hacktivists" who simply use computers and social networks to do their dirty work. Sure, they can attack and bring down government websites and high-profile Twitter accounts, but that's child's play compared to real hacking and I highly doubt any one of them actually has the balls to do anything more extreme than DDoS websites and "hack" Twitter accounts. Anonymous may have started with good intentions, but due to it's nature, it has devolved into an excuse to cause cyber-mayhem.
Thats what i mean they are unpredictable and and there for a potential threat to every one
Heck. Where I live, there are 3 actual broadband carriers; 2 cable and one fiber.
...but you don't have a choice between them. They TRADE townships with one another every so often, but have agreements to never operate in the same township at the same time.
AND its back, its back stronger...