'What John Oliver, H3H3, and others miss about Net Neutrality' - General

[video=youtube;dYVgIGL1E34]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYVgIGL1E34[/video] I didn't think I'd have to mention it but because i posted this doesn't mean I 100% whole-heartedly agree on everything in it. tl;dr net neutrality and the internet are complicated personally, I feel we need regulations for protecting against anticonsumer practices (i.e price hiking) and censorship as the ones being set in stone. Otherwise case by case handling instead of sweeping regulation seems pretty reasonable, as well as shady business tactics being more of an FTC issue.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;53001870]i havent listened to the entire video but the comments are all dumb alt right bullshit and thats pretty telling of what im in for isnt it[/QUOTE] not really, although it does all start coming together into a main point around half-way in. also which comments are you reading [url]https://i.imgur.com/XwG09ye.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/qSr19rn.png[/url]

[QUOTE=RichyZ;53001895]so just avoiding the dudes w/ the trumby avs and the (((cuck neutrality))) comments also the r-r-r-reddit one counts as that shit, also anyone who says msm is hella suspect[/QUOTE] are you sure you know what alt-right means? looking at the post instead of the avatar, they're all either relatively normal, or reasonably written. only ~1-2 give off that kinda aura. also don't see any ((()))'s or trump avatars anywhere.

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;53001881]not really, although it does all start coming together into a main point around half-way in. also which comments are you reading [url]https://i.imgur.com/XwG09ye.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/qSr19rn.png[/url][/QUOTE] Simple: Net Neutrality as we know it was implemented, in 2015, to curb the desperate desire of the telecoms to hinder those who used the bandwidth they'd paid for (I.E. netfix and other upstart internet companeis), and as a result the FCC, at the time [I]not[/I] under the control of corporate telecom whores, ruled in favor of small business owners. Then, with the new administration, the FCC now basically under the control of shameless telecom lobbyists, decided to blow their load on allowing the telecoms to do whatever the fuck they want. The same telecoms who make restrictive and stifling local deals with governments who effectively grant them monopolies, who go out of their way to break government-public trust, and who have made an effort to actively [I]avoid[/I] any opportunity to upgrade their infratructure, instead pocketing even government subsidy money rather than re-investing it into improving their lines. Did you know that there are [I]many[/I] countries that have superior internet infrastructure to the US? Superior internet, superior education... Shiiiit, you know, I get the impression that, in a technological future, the United States is going to get absolutely [I]shit on[/I] by countries like South Korea and other who actually managed to invest in their internet infrastructure because they didn't have lobbyists corrupting their politicians to worm against it. But ah well...

[QUOTE=RichyZ;53001926]scroll down my Guy[/QUOTE] seriously what comments are you reading [url]https://i.imgur.com/XwG09ye.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/qSr19rn.png[/url] -- [url]https://i.imgur.com/KCt65m7.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/dY6o78A.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/jF5Egzb.png[/url]

This is a way better video breaking down Net Neutrality, the lies told to have it repealed, and the shit eels behind it. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqJDW_s93rc[/media] Basically, Ajit Pai is a dastardly fucking liar.

I managed to watch the whole thing (somewhat), but did he literally compared Net Neutrality to shooting your grandma? [QUOTE=FurrehFaux;53001958]seriously what comments are you reading [url]https://i.imgur.com/XwG09ye.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/qSr19rn.png[/url] -- [url]https://i.imgur.com/KCt65m7.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/dY6o78A.png[/url] [url]https://i.imgur.com/jF5Egzb.png[/url][/QUOTE] [URL="https://i.imgur.com/tbLnSSW.png"]mmmmmmmm......[/URL]

I'm legitimately worried for the future of the US. Our education sucks as it's based on property tax in many regions (I.E the schools in the most economically blighted regions are the most underfunded, and thus there exists an increasingly large percentage of our population put through useless shit-ass schools), our internet infrastructure has essentially been given over to that childish kid who won't brush his teeth because "It takes tooooo muuuuuch tiiiiime!" Which stifles the major secondary avenue of educating our population on high-tech subjects... Where is the population of the United States expected to go? As technology advances, service industries are set to be automated out of existences. Already self-driving vehicles are waiting in the wings, set to automate a worryingly [I]huge[/I] quantity of the US job market out of existence, and although a few years ago I would've said otherwise, there's no doubt a large quantity of the US service industry that's next on the chopping block. We're dangerous, [I]dangerously[/I] close to creating and underclass from which there is no escape. The kind of underclass that, when it gets pissed off enough, starts putting people to the guillotines. That's not a threat, that's a prediction, because I'm sure as shit not amongst them, but I'd be worried enough about being caught up in the ensuing civil unrest to want to do [I]something[/I] about it before it becomes my goddamn reality.

The dude in the OP makes some valid points but he misconstrues others and conflates some arguments down to single points. First off, Net neutrality is not a singular state of the internet to be in whether domestic or international, it is an ideal to be strived for as closely as possible, as a shared resource, ofcourse it is required to adapt to the needs of all its peers, not just the biggest fishes. (Be in in his example of the heavy users on campuses or the ISPs in the U.S. portion of the internet) The deciding factor is the incentive. the various examples he brought up can be effectively summarized as network administrative actions. The ISPs are very welcome to optimize their network to run as efficient as possible so everyone gets a "Win-Win-Win" as he described using new technologies. BUT throttling with the incentive of pure profit at the cost those that can't afford it, is malicious, fact is that ISPs have near monopolies in many areas due to broad stretches of land that need to be covered and in their incentive to make money by providing access to the internet, they can make even more money by charging the peers on the other side of the network also. With many end-consumers being stuck with one ISP or having to relocate their home which can also not be an option due it being expensive. ISPs can't be trusted because they put their own monetary needs above or else which isn't surprising, they are companies after all. If they can charge more for their end-consumers and the other peers of the internet for equal or even preferred access, why wouldn't they? They can't be trusted to try to uphold those ideals if it directly stands against their monetary self-interest, pretty easy to see. The advantages of the free market only work as long as their is fair competition. [URL=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-admits-defeat-in-lawsuit-it-filed-to-stall-google-fiber/]Or why would AT&T and Comcast try to stifle competition again?[/URL] The internet is a public utility and in many ways a necessity which requires governmental oversight. Other countries have both a great internet and NN, why shouldn't the US also? And in case, sure many (myself included) wish to see actual policy enshrined in law instead being decided on the whim by an governing agency, but until it is, the FCC should have stuck with NN. To counter the points made in this video, even if the FCC is not directly elected, their are appointed by an elected president, thus reflecting the will of the people. Having every single position electable is a horrible choice, let me give an example, [URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poL7l-Uk3I8]elected judges[/URL] in the US. Also, what the hell have CDN's and other global caching solutions to do with ISPs holding the their customers and the services they want to use hostage? And, just because most of public is against his opinion does not validate his opinion either.

[QUOTE=gunguy765;53001984]I managed to watch the whole thing (somewhat), but did he literally compared Net Neutrality to shooting your grandma? [URL="https://i.imgur.com/tbLnSSW.png"]mmmmmmmm......[/URL][/QUOTE] In any case, the comments don't have a bearing on the video itself. The video isn't unbiased by any means, but he does make some reasonable points. Like business-related issues (i.e. malicious throttling) with the internet being better suited for the FTC. Something like a fast lane can and probably would be used to exploit consumers but that's more of a 'don't be a shitty business' problem than a 'will this interfere with all the police radios in town' kinda thing. While the internet has become essential part of our infrastructure and lives like a utility, the ways it can be used and what for are a lot different than things like TV and the telephone. When the technology and industries around it change so rapidly, we really need new laws (and maybe even a regulatory body) specifically for it, rather than rules written for the early 20th century. [editline]24th December 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Coolboy;53002065] Also, what the hell have CDN's and other global caching solutions to do with ISPs holding the their customers and the services they want to use hostage? And, just because most of public is against his opinion does not validate his opinion either.[/QUOTE] I think the point being made is that a 'fast lane' kinda deal would be a win-win in the sense internet-based giants, like netflix or google, would be the ones paying for better speeds, rather than the consumer. Makes sense on paper, and I think it would in practice, but only if ISPs weren't allowed to throttle competition and still gave you your advertised speed, that also being more of an FTC than FCC problem. Also feel like the takeaway he wants you to get from this is a new perspective, rather than a new belief.

[QUOTE=gunguy765;53001984]I managed to watch the whole thing (somewhat), but did he literally compared Net Neutrality to shooting your grandma? [URL="https://i.imgur.com/tbLnSSW.png"]mmmmmmmm......[/URL][/QUOTE] 1791L is a right learning channel, it's only natural that it would attract such a crowd. Channel's generally not complete bullshit, but I wouldn't put it pass them to put out content that supports their motive. As one of their videos will suggest, even they will have a bias

There's a reason why the U.S has among the shittiest Internet infrastructure in the world, and it sure as fuck isn't because of technological limitations

[t]https://i.imgur.com/fTnvdeD.png[/t] Hmm :thinking:

[QUOTE=gokiyono;53002140][t]https://i.imgur.com/fTnvdeD.png[/t] Hmm :thinking:[/QUOTE] Doesn't Youtube's channel recommendation work by what other see when they've seen the current channel/video? Because I'm pretty sure that's how it operates, and that just shows the crowd this video attracts.

[QUOTE=Van-man;53002171]Doesn't Youtube's channel recommendation work by what other see when they've seen the current channel/video? Because I'm pretty sure that's how it operates, and that just shows the crowd this video attracts.[/QUOTE] No, the related is based on either, content tags OR by what it's subscribers also follow. It's not personalised per user

[QUOTE=gokiyono;53002140][t]https://i.imgur.com/fTnvdeD.png[/t] Hmm :thinking:[/QUOTE] While it is a fair point, I do think there are probably better ways to rebut this video's point that guilt by association.

[QUOTE=froztshock;53002178]While it is a fair point, I do think there are probably better ways to rebut this video's point that guilt by association.[/QUOTE] Ironically enough, They have video which praises efforts by podcasts recently that pretty well mannered debates over disagreements. Instead of some media that relied on quips or zingers in some direction. Something like when H3H3 did a podcast with Martin Shkreli, it was handled pretty civilly. So to think there are better ways to rebut the video felt like an understatement. Granted I haven't watched the video yet, but with how heated net neutrality is right now, and the amount of support there is keeping it open, I would imagine it shouldn't be too hard to provide one

I feel the pseudo-centrists (read: alt-right) asking for "well-mannered" debates are actually looking for legitimacy, just like those who claim to be "skeptics" or "rational" want to appear enlightened. A "well-mannered" debate implies that both parties have points and that it's a matter of opinion rather than something based on facts, giving off the idea any view is equally valid when theirs is objectively horseshit.

could someone summarize the video?

[QUOTE=froztshock;53002178]While it is a fair point, I do think there are probably better ways to rebut this video's point that guilt by association.[/QUOTE] I'm just trying to be skeptical. If the related channes pretty much all are people who lie and spread misinformation. I also think it's quite interesting how the guy has taken the time to put air-quotes around the neutrality in his sources list

[QUOTE=JXZ;53002277]could someone summarize the video?[/QUOTE] Concern trolling drama from a highly biased source that is only interested in conservative/capitalistic agenda being pushed onto a resource deemed non-monetary and globally universal by most of civilized society, the kind of video that will be used a decade from now as ironic "look how fucking stupid and backward people were back then" soundbites framing a documentary about the utter selfish fucksticks that helped usher in a new age of depression via glamorizing obvious flawed ideologies ala still believing there are magic bearded antihomosexual zombie men living in a literal cloud city in the sky that will in addition to giving people touchdowns on sunday, will also suck people up in a magic vacuum right before the completely avoidable consequences of global warming turn most of the arable land into water pervaded terrarium for diving iguanas and also destroy brown people and brown religions k thx bai.

This is all parts of the Republican effort to make the issue seem more complicated than it really is. It's literally tapping into what Ajit Pai is saying and what he has been doing for the last couple of months. What net neutrality is, is very simple: a guarantee that your internet service provider and your government will treat all internet traffic the same regardless of its content. There is no other angle to net neutrality, that's it, that's what it means, and that's what those "sweeping regulations" are about. This isn't something that was established in 2015, it's a core principle of the internet that was obeyed out of principle until Comcast and Verizon attempted to break it. Net neutrality is the reason why so many internet based businesses exist, and without these regulations, ISPs can alter the entire landscape of the internet freely. This is not a hypothesis, it has already happened and is already happening with mobile carriers. The idea of, for example, ISPs throttling Netflix in favour of their own streaming service is based on reality, Comcast already did that in 2014, [I]that's the reason why these regulations were put in place in 2015[/I].

[QUOTE=gokiyono;53002306]the guy has taken the time to put air-quotes around the neutrality in his sources list[/QUOTE] Big red warning flags even before you've started the video.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53002242]I feel the pseudo-centrists (read: alt-right) asking for "well-mannered" debates are actually looking for legitimacy, just like those who claim to be "skeptics" or "rational" want to appear enlightened. A "well-mannered" debate implies that both parties have points and that it's a matter of opinion rather than something based on facts, giving off the idea any view is equally valid when theirs is objectively horseshit.[/QUOTE] The point of such debates is usually to promote a non-threatening image by appearing open-minded, which is something their audience usually already expects "the enemy" not to be.

I've heard from anti-nn people that it causes hardship for startup ISPs. Any validity to that?

[QUOTE=Destroyox;53002549]I've heard from anti-nn people that it causes hardship for startup ISPs. Any validity to that?[/QUOTE] [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oW6td5ttv8]NO[/url]

[QUOTE=Destroyox;53002549]I've heard from anti-nn people that it causes hardship for startup ISPs. Any validity to that?[/QUOTE] No, there's a lot of bullshit going against startup ISPs but NN isn't one. Why would it be, anyways?

[QUOTE=FurrehFaux;53002071] While the internet has become essential part of our infrastructure and lives like a utility, the ways it can be used and what for are a lot different than things like TV and the telephone. When the technology and industries around it change so rapidly, we really need new laws (and maybe even a regulatory body) specifically for it, rather than rules written for the early 20th century. [/quote] Net neutrality laws [I]were[/I] those new rules and regulations, and now they're getting repealed [quote] I think the point being made is that a 'fast lane' kinda deal would be a win-win in the sense internet-based giants, like netflix or google, would be the ones paying for better speeds, rather than the consumer. Makes sense on paper, and I think it would in practice, but only if ISPs weren't allowed to throttle competition and still gave you your advertised speed, that also being more of an FTC than FCC problem. [/QUOTE] Have you thought about that for five seconds, if businesses had to compete with each other for speed and visibility, what would happen to any competitor or service smaller than Netflix and Google?

Net neutrality existed before 2015, in a different legal form but the FCC was enforcing it. Then they lost a court battle over the enforcement of one of the NN rules, a judge ruled that the FCC had power to enforce these rules but not without classifying the internet as title 2, so the FCC lost the case. So, they did just that, classified the internet as title 2 and re-establishing net neutrality rules. This idea that the internet until 2015 was pre-net neutrality is an outright falsehood. in 2014 companies were starting to violate the rules and it came to a head, obviously causing rules to be reinforced as verizon et al found loopholes. Thats what happened in 2015, it wasn't created then. Pretty much everyone who disagrees with net neutrality(who isnt the ISPs themselves) is a victim of ISP propaganda/money in politics. It's a really interesting case study on the effectiveness of that propoganda, because we can so easily classify everyone who only believes something because of propaganda and everyone who doesn't.

net neutrality is bad becasue obamea