"It's easy to distill topics like that down to jinoistic phrases." = "I have absolutely no idea what you're asking me about, but I'm praying that my use of the word jingoistic will make me appear smarter than I really am."
@TiconderogaX Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@halloranedward No it's not. It seeks to slow down smaller websites (which is censorship) and eventually kill off smaller websites. Net Neutrality is GOOD. I still am surprised Steven messed this one up.
@normalpsychology Of course he's against it. He is a small time web producer. Net Neutrality will INCREASE the cost of his operation and make it harder for him to produce. On the other hand, billion dollar corporations like Google and Microsoft don't mind because the increased cost is negligible to them. Net Neutrality will make it harder for entrepreneurs and small businesses to provide web services to customers, making it hard for them to create new jobs. THIS IS BAD!
I remember I argued with someone on here about this, taking the side against government regulated net neutrality due to the fact that I feared the Government would want to censor various parts of the internet. He considered my fears silly, that they would never come to fruition.
NOW we have SOPA and PIPA on the table, with over 100 sites protesting supposed government censorship...
Steven has a legitimate point. Net neutrality would create costs that would hinder the small business' ability to expand their company outreach and sales potential via the internet. Big businesses, no problem. Here is my question: Why does the government care about trying to make the internet a level playing field for anyone? What do they have to gain from hindering small business? Long term, that hurts the U.S. Short term I can only guess there are some senators buying big yachts and hookers.
But... net Neutrality works ? I don't see any major problems here. I rarely have Internet issues. And isn't the Issue with wireless Internet that the broadcasting-strength of the providers isn't strong enough in the area ? He makes a decent point tough, but I'd wait a minute before throwing the current system in the bin.
You're thinking of your internet access...net neutrality is something that would affect how the internet (world wide web) as a whole works. it has nothing to do with the broadcast strength because net neutrality won't affect your signal...
@DRUM57IX It doesn't affect the signal on the user end ... it affects the signal on the SERVER end ...who you want to get access to. It limits how fast they can provide service to you, and the more service they want to provide, the SLOWER their service becomes. Billion dollar corporations like Google or Microsoft can always buy a near infinite number of subdomains, and redirect traffic to load balance and keep all service running fast, but entrepreneurs and small businesses CAN'T. NO ES BUENO!
@jordanrfire2 Or, you know, he could be completely right and YOU could be the one "far off." Seeing as you offered one possibility, it's only fair (or neutral, perhaps?) to offer the other.
@Shuemais (COMMENT 1) If that was my personal opinion then I would welcome others to have apposing ones, but it's not. I am not commenting on whether or not the government should get involved, or whether big corporations would over step their boundaries if given the chance. I am saying that his definition of network neutrality is literally wrong. Network Neutrality is what we have always had. In short it boils down to the fact that you currently can visit any website you want or...(next Comment)
@Shuemais (COMMENT 2) ...download anything you want at the same speed. A non-neutral Internet is when you don’t have those freedoms. A couple examples would be if your Internet provider was allowed to slow down (or deny you access) your Internet if you wanted to visit certain sites. Reasons they might do this would be if Google paid them a premium and Yahoo doesn’t; they would slow down your access to Yahoo or reroute you to Google automatically.......(Next comment)
@Shuemais (COMMENT 3) In conclusion Net neutrality is where we currently stand. The question at hand is what is the best way to preserve Network Neutrality. One opinion is that the Government should implement rules and regulations in order to ensure that Internet providers don’t start controlling our free and fair access to all sites. The apposing view is that we leave the Internet alone and allow competition to take its course in order to preserve our currently free and fair access..(Thats it)
I would have liked to hear the entire interview with that woman. She seemed to have a more accurate idea on the true nature of the issue. I would really like to know her response to you asking her to cite an example of what she was describing. You claim she "had no answer" but I bet she did, and I bet it was something along the lines of this: IT'S NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE OF NET NEUTRALITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
@cuervanada It's always said that liberals drink the cool-aid. Actually, it was flavor-aid that the Jone's zombies drank. Try some on ice, I know YOU'll like it.
"It's always said that liberals drink the cool-aid. Actually, it was flavor-aid that the Jone's zombies drank"
It's "always said" because conservatives just parrot things. You have several hours of talk radio telling them what to think..church with buys who talk to rise from the dead (zombie?) magical jesus telling them what to think.. Newt Gingritch even wrote such a script called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" telling them what to think AND say.
"I would have liked to hear the entire interview with that woman."
You wont get that from a conservative. It;s usually screened calls, then fun with editing. I love how Youtube puts up video of Rush's show...and you now see him hit a button cutting off anyone who disagrees. It makes it seem like his reply was so amazing it just stumped everyone!
Notice how Crowder goes into silent running when you point out factual mistakes in his videos? See the peace sign one.
Crowder, for someone who is attempting to antagonize random people for not knowing what net neutrality is, you sure have misunderstood what it is yourself. I am baffled by your interpretation. I suggest you go back and do more research on the topic and make a follow-up video.
Wow, for someone who claims that liberals don't know what is net neutrality, there sure is a lot of misconceptions in this video coming from the uploader. But with 500 char limit, I will just say this: @ 3:30 No shit, of course it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean providers aren't working on plans for it. @ 4:45 they CAN charge more for faster speeds. They already do it. It's called DSL and Cable and has NOTHING to do with what net neutrality is supposed to be about. Yep... char limit reached...
Wow, Steven, wow, the best yet. The internet had flourished because the government has pretty much left it alone. Progressives need control of the web, not only because that's what they do, but because it's another place to expand their power (and wealth). The liberal young are so easily exploited because critical thought and honest research are always replaced with emotion.
@LCCharlie I think you misunderstood the concept of net neutrality. You're right, the internet has flourished because of net neutrality. Steven is against net neutrality. Net neutrality can be a complicated subject, but I don't know where you got the idea about progressives or liberals taking control over the web. The FCC is trying to keep things the way they are, but House Republicans are trying to overturn these efforts.
@cuervanada So, you're against Republicans, just not totally; and you're for liberals, just not totally. That makes you a liberal who is'nt completely moon-bat crazy...yet.
@LCCharlie I hate most liberals but I think people who agree with everything someone else says just because they call themselves a "Republican" are idiots. You need to start thinking for yourself instead of blindly agreeing with people. I can tell from your previous comment that you don't understand the topic. You said you agree with him but than you said the opposite of what he said.
@LCCharlie And I never said I was against Republicans. I'll hopefully be voting for one next election. If you knew me personally you would know I hate most people that say they're "liberals". But you don't. You wouldn't even have the ability to comprehend most of my opinions. One major aspect is THINKING FOR YOURSELF. I don't blindly copy the opinion of people I respect, like you obviously do.
@LCCharlie And BTW, where did you even get the idea that I am "against Republicans". Because I said that some House Republicans voted against the FCC's rules? Wow, so not only do you not think for yourself, it's actually a trait you expect everyone else to have also! Are you that stupid?
What happens if different Republicans have a different opinion on something? You know that happens a lot right? Maybe you don't, I wouldn't be surprised. If you do, what do you do in those cases? Coin toss?
Hmmnn...is this really the limit of net neutrality as you say?
When I first started reading of net nuetrality, the concept was accompanied by bids by ISP's to start charging for services that would normally be free. The internet would essentially be segmented off, only accessible to those willing to pay a premium for normally free services and access to information.
If it were only about network speeds, I wouldn't be so alarmed, but there seems to more attached to the deal.
Before implementing ANY regulation, please do make the effort to understand what you are regulating. For those who have any knowledge of what networks are and how they function, it would quickly asserted how ignorant the makers of this "net neutrality" are and how devastating it would be to the infrastructure of any and all networks. Just ask any CNNA certified technician, they will tell you how moronic this piece of proposed legislation is.
HAHAHAHA. That was great, especially your conversation on Canadian healthcare. I don't hear any of this here at my college. I have to go somewhere else for something informative.
With the exception of Google's man in Washington DC, Vint Cerf (with whom Kahn developed TCP/IP), most of the senior engineers responsible for developing the packet switched internetworking of today oppose "Neutrality" legislation. Dave Farber, often called the grandfather of the internet, has been the most prominent critic.
Well, Al Franken is a moron. But truly, net neutrality is a good thing. It just depends on your definition. For me and the rest of my friends, net neutrality means that the government can't create blacklists and censor the internet. The fast-lane, slow-lane argument doesn't phase me as much. What I care about is the original intention of the internet: providing an information highway that won't be deleted (though some of it has been removed.) To keep all data accessible to everyone.
@CrazyKarlTheTruth Yes but YOUR interpretation isn't WHAT Net NEutrality is.
Let's say some guy has a site that gets 4 hits a month and doesn't sell anything while someone else's site sells t-shirts and gets thousands of hits a month. Their saying that the site that gets 4 hits a month is just as important as the site that gets THOUSANDS of hits a month and shouldn't be punished for not being as popular so you can't shunt bandwith from it to use for the site that IS getting Tons of Traffic.
@Darkeklaw There are many facets to net neutrality. I had to heavily research it in my college mass communications class a couple years ago. There are many things we need to take into account. Not so much that another larger site is getting more bandwidth, but that the fast lane/slow lane takes over and throttles speeds of other sites. That the internet is on the verge of censorship in the U.S. The one that we should worry about the most is censorship.
@CrazyKarlTheTruth Which is something that the Supreme Court would rule against seeing as censoring stuff even on the Internet goes against the first amendment of the Constitution. But hey what do I know I'm just a thirty eight year old who's had "Internet" or it's predecessor the BBS since the late 80's these fights have been going on since then. Most people are afraid of the Tier system that all these ISPs seem to want to impose. The best way to fight the Tier system is ...
whoa, another liberal cliche. the corporations, now de facto government, are CENSORING US! OH HOLY SHIT! no seriously...how is open (non-neutrality) internet equivalent to the GOVERNMENTS of Australia and Chin blacklisting certain sites?
@Darkeklaw Well, when it does get censored, remind me to say I told you so. Australia and China among others have already imposed an internet blacklist. But, hey, what do I know?
except that that's not what "net neutrality" as a policy is. that's actually what "net neutrality" opens the door to, giving government more power over the administration of the internet...therefore giving them a foot in the door toward being able to control the flow of information...therefore giving them a path toward censorship. in fact you should be AGAINST net neutrality if you want to prevent censorship.
@jlancecombs I took the freaking class on this. So shut up and listen to the facts. I'm far from liberal. I hate the republicans as well. Look at it from the right perspective. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication. as stated by Tim Berners-Lee, who wrote the script for hypertext and the associated protocols. Your an idiot. Do your research before you run your mouth.
SPECIFICALLY, net neutrality disallows bandwidth prioritization. It is the government, via the FCC, making decisions for the providers. Taking the class hasn't stopped you from mixing up the ideal vs the proposed legislative policy.
Nor, btw, do we know that whoever taught the class did not have his/her own bias regarding the issue and spun it to appeal to that particular bias. Don't tell me that the teacher didn't have a bias...I can't really believe you'd be naive enough to believe that. So, if you tell me the teacher wasn't biased, I'll just have to assume that you're B.S.ing me.
Besides, I'm not even doubting your knowledge on net neutrality. I'm doubting your knowledge on the definition of censorship and what it requires to institute censorship. It absolutely requires government action. A provider banning such and such site is NOT censorship, for it can be found if you use a provider more friendly to the content on that site.
Not to mention the fact that no provider has "censored" anything. They've been around long enough to make decisions on that front...so why haven't they?
Oh and, by the way, the "you can't argue with me because I had a class" argument fails to win the argument or to make your argument more appealing to third parties. It simply makes you look immature.
I have to post many times to get past the word limit. 500 words is not enough. And I'm actually a former "at large" for the local Libertarian party and a former political candidate. But if your version is so correct and beyond debate...why is it that so many of the original computer engineers are opposed to it?
Besides, you never contradicted my point...only contradicted the end result of what it would do, which is opinion, not fact.
Do you mean to tell me that "net neutrality" is not a movement to give the government oversight powers over the ISPs, to prevent bandwidth prioritization? Or are we arguing over the merits of the program, rather than the details, which would be opinion?
@jlancecombs You know what makes you look really immature? Commenting on the same post five times in a row. Don't tell me I'm an idiot if the real definition IS what I'm explaining and politicians spin it their way. It means their definition is wrong. You're a damn troll is what you are. The teacher never spun anything one way or another, he made us do research and back our arguments in in-class discussions. What are your qualifications for this conversation? You use the internet?
@jlancecombs And furthermore, your arguments go in circles. There are two main problems that arise with the internet: censorship, and companies taking control with prioritizing traffic. Both are a major issues. I support net neutrality in the sense that no company, nor government should have the right to say "this content is illegal to view" and be able to ban certain opinions. It badgers the freedom of speech. It seems neither side can agree on what it is, so let me be clear. No censorship
"I support net neutrality in the sense that no company, nor government should have the right to say "this content is illegal to view" and be able to ban certain opinions. It badgers the freedom of speech."
1) to determine what content a company must allow through it's service is a violation of the property rights of the company and the first amendment rights of those who own or run it.
2) net neutrality would give government the foot in the door to do just that.
@jlancecombs It's late and minus the incorrect usage of "your" (since we're apparently arguing grammar here too) I meant what I said about your argument going in circles. You're a fucking tool who's just trying to push my buttons at this point. I don't care if you're a former at large or Jesus Christ. You're annoying as hell.
explain this..... like actually your interview with the lady with the analogy that started making sense all up until you fucked it up with something that wasnt really relevant just screwed up the whole video. so please sit down, take out the "funny" explain what it is and then throw out your opinion. so far it doesnt even exist in the way you portrayed it.
@fataxe1 Actually her explaination made no sense because 18 wheelers on the real highway aren't allowed to do certain things. There are stretches of Interstate where tractor trailers have lane restrictions while passenger vehicles can use special lanes to move faster. IE Carpool lanes or a second passing lane that trucks may be prohibited from. And what Net Neutrality would be more akin to is making NO Car or truck able to use the special lanes and keep them with the 18 wheelers.
@Darkeklaw you damn conservatives always have to take things so literal and ruin things, maybe you should go home and stop doing politics since you just poke holes in everythins. im just fuckin wich ya! i really dont see how anyone cares since it is going to happen weither or not we want it to. the government cant regulate something privatized they think they can so people just dont bother giving a fuck.
Kinda kills Governemt can't regulate something privatized. TV Stations are run by private companies and they are regulated by the GOVERNMENT.. But hey you're just funnin with us. No you're a moron.
@Darkeklaw you do realize i dont care, i cant do anything, i cant vote so there is no reason for me to discuss it. the best i can do is know what it is and convince my conservative friends they are dumb for being so young and close minded. now good day sir!
@carminav25 Yeah, you missed the point. No matter what site you go to, it will be slow. It's like going to youtube on a Friday, but with every site on the internet, no matter how many people are actually on the site.
@skatergurljubulee No, see you have missed my point. The fact is that my internet is fast no matter what site I go to. I am satisfied with how my internet works, whether I am at home, in public, or at college. Privatizing the internet would not better my own, or others internet experience.
Did he really say "jingoistic"?........Laughable. He's either constantly overusing the term or has been waiting with bated breath for you to come along so he could wow us with his command of the English language. Either way, I think I am quite secure in my belief it is completely the wrong usage.
The problem is that they are trying to solve the wrong issue. We have the same issue as before telco deregulation. I have a wire to my house, but I am forced to pay what ever that company wants to charge for voice, video, or data. The issue is that why wouldn't comcast pref their own cable video over my prefered hulu content? I need to be able to pay for the wire to my house and then buy content from what ever vendor does the best job. The market needs to be opened.
One word for your example: C O M C A S T oh excuse me, they want to hide from their name, now they want to be know as X F I N I T Y . Yeah, we need hands off the internet from everyone. Y U K.
Comcast now terminates your account for using more than 250GB a month, as well as blocking users from using a potentially competitive music service from Amazon.
comcast has no monopoly. m'thinks you are misunderstanding the definition of monopoly. it's pretty easy to get another service provider. go to the yellow pages. they aren't like the energy companies; not mandated by government to serve specific areas. and there are cheaper services...some local services even...so, yeah, it's pretty much an option for everyone.
too bad i can't download 62,501 songs per month now. don't know what i'll ever do without that 62,501st song. i'll have to wait til the next month. but, wait, my games are about 8g or more a piece, so I can't download more than 41 of them in the span of one month now!
@jab07 oh yeah, sorry...i forgot, you have to stay within about 100 hrs of streaming video a month too! OMG, with all the different bandwidth draining things combined I might have to stay within a data amount that's actually humanly possible.
of course that is assuming that anyone else is going to follow comcast's business model, which I don't see as likely. otherwise, after comcast has tested the waters, other companies would have jumped on the data-limit bandwagon by now. who else is doing it?
it's likely that comcast is catering to a niche market of family subscribers and are offering a lower bandwidth/lower cost service, as opposed to a company that caters to gamers. you don't buy a station wagon to drag race.
sorry, i'd forgotten the most important part. convenience is more important than freedom. therefore providers should have to be forced to make things more convenient for customers.
The problem with net neutrality is the same as that of "progressive", the name implies something good, the soundbites promise something good, the actual bills in congress do the exact opposite of good.
Although I would have to disagree with Steven's tech examples where congested internet traffic would be improved by a tiered structure, that is not how it works. To carry his highway analogy, its not that they would install a 100 mph lane on an other 60mph highway. But new 10 mph lanes.
It comes down to "Are equal levels and speeds of access to the internet a privelage, or right?" The internet is full of both amazing tools and education, or useless, crude, and "uncensored" information. Then there are advertisements and businesses. So is the internet an enterprise, or a media platform? Or, like television, is it both? It's really an opinion for the individual.
"Hipsters" do not want "large corporations" to change the equality of the internet. If somebody has enourmous amounts of money wants to make their advertisements priority, the give and take could mean that the smaller businesses and artists have web pages that load slower or are allowed less memory & bandwitdth. You can look at it as "everybody must move slowly, or "everyone gets to move quickly." Without net neutrality, the mindset could become "You may only go faster if you are really rich."
Great upload. You made me laugh while exposing ignorant lemmings pushing themselves off as compassionate politically correct do-gooder liberals. At the end of the day, did they actually sing "Kum ba yah"? Vote Libertarian!
If he's not pro-Constitution, he's not worth the spit I need when I'm thirsty...neither is any OTHER congressman, given that circumstance...(in other words, FUCK HARRY REID!!!)
You ask has there ever been a case of a corporation throttling the Internet? Answer, no... Because of net neutrality. Net neutrality has existed since the inception of the web. Now let me turn it on you. What about the current Internet is it that you don't like?
Steven, I mostly agree with you, but I needed to point out that you are wrong about Net Neutrality not happening. It is happening now, just look at ESPN3 and the access restrictions that go along with that site. That is a part of net neutrality that you didn't touch on.
Why should the big websites load faster? That idea crushes the little guy. Why would you support this? The internet is supposed to be equal for everyone. What happens to the smaller websites when you have facebook, twitter, etc loading faster than a small website? Lets take walmart vs a mom and pop website. Why would anyone go to the small and slow website to do their transaction when walmart does it twice as fast (because they paid to be faster)? That right there is an injustice to society.
@Netherfist Why should websites that get a ton of traffic (like Walmart) be forced to be slower than mom and pop websites that get a tenth of their traffic? If I shop at Walmart, I have to share the same bandwidth with over 1000 people at the same instant whereas if I went to a mom and pop website, I may be competing with 100 people. Either small businesses pays more then they can afford for internet they don't need, or Walmart pays less for substandard internet, which hurts their business.
@AtrusOranis That question makes no sense? No ones saying the people shouldn't be able to buy more bandwidth. Here's a more accurate analogy, why should a mom & pop shop that has a superior product (in that more people visit or buy from the site) lose in the market because walmart bribes ISPs to make their competitors sites unusable?
The entire point of the video was to mention the fact that the government wants to regulate the "speed at which all data crosses networks (1:53)". If you have everything move at equal speeds, then naturally you will either have to (1) slow everything down (2) speed everything up or (3) estimate the average, which is too slow for bigger sites and too expensive for smaller sites.
Also when and how has a larger company bribed an ISP successfully to make their competitors unusable?
@AtrusOranis But network neutrality doesn't give everyone equal speed it requires internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all traffic neutrally, which means you get the bandwidth you pay for no matter what you're using the internet for. What this law did, was keep ISPs from throttling back peoples service when they were attempting to access any network or website. Your speed was still what you [payed for, only it was the same no matter what websites or services you ussed.
Again, I fail to see ISP's would limit your personal bandwidth going to certain sites, and can't think of anytime it's happened here.
The way I see it working is that data traveling on the internet is dependent on 2 basic things. The speed of your internet access and the other persons internet access. If I have a higher internet speed then the companies (and could happen especially if they lots of business), then my data will naturally be sent at a slower speed.
@AtrusOranis Don't say again when you're addressing the issue for the first time in a sentence that's incoherent.
If you mean you don't see why an ISP would throttle. (Comcast already is.)
One reason would be someone paying them to,or they would rather their costumers use a service they provide over a competitors another would be eco-political reasons, ie restricting access to information critical of them.
Your understanding is correct in a system with network neutrality.
Then in a sense one could claim Comcast is breaching contract, which IS subject to litigation and could be subject to a class action lawsuit. If it isn't breaching contract, then the customers can vote with their money and stop using Comcast by either using another service (like Qwest, Verizon, AT&T, or Roadrunner), or getting the know how to make another service available and create their own company.
@AtrusOranis Unless Comcast put an exemption in the fine print which they did, hence why they fought to remove network neutrality. & No dollar democracy doesn't work (outside of free market fantasies) particularly when there are only 4 major competitors & It takes a lot of money to create a telecom company, & again the other telecom companies could restrict access from/to your network. Seriously what good would it be to have access to an isolated network?
4 major competitors seems to be actually a decent size if you ask me. As for the fact it takes a lot of money to make a telecom company, I agree. That is the entire reason all the telecom companies are incorporated, to raise capital. As for telecom companies restricting access to your network, if it was that easy they would have done it by now to each other. Quest would only serve quest users or force them to pay a fee to contact someone with a Comcast ISP.
@AtrusOranis All ISPs developed under network neutrality & not a one of them actually would cut off their customers from such a large portion of the W.W.W.However they would cut off smaller start ups. Seriously you argued dollar democracy, when you didn't even know what network neutrality meant & still don't.You prove that dollar democracy when you didn't &don't know what this issue is about?You pretty much said I should let uninformed fuckwits like you decide to create a noncompetitive market
Sir or Madam, I suggest we both take a breather from this conversation as your last message is barely comprehensible and you have made a personal insult against me. You seem to think I have no idea what network neutrality means but really it seems that its just a lack of agreement on methods. As for your claim that all ISP's developed under net neutrality this means they all developed under H.R. 5417 which was soon killed within a year of its creation. All other attempts failed.
@AtrusOranis Sorry trying to explain this shit in under 500 characters us hard. Lets just leave it at this dollar democracy is disproven as an effective regulator every fucking day.I did not say ISPs were developed under HR 5417, I said the major ISPs came about before 2005 when the supreme court ruled that internet service was an information service & not a telecommunication service & thus not subject the same regulations. & you've clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding on the subject.
I'm afraid that though dollar democracy is not 100% effective (partly due to government regulations) I would rather have the internet run in the hands of companies then government, who time has show, can be just as corrupt. However, I do see a way that we can get a balance.
The idea is simple: Amend the US Constitution to say that Government may have no power what-so-ever in hindering the flow of any information on the internet. this keeps government in check. (cont.)
I do know that this could cause problems, especially when it comes to our national security. Instead of national laws prohibiting illigal activities on the internet, you would need to have states or local governments. trying to clamp down on things.
THEN and ONLY THEiN we can then have congress start thinking about creating laws to place on ISPs (which I still think would not help the situation, but I would feel a LOT more comfortable).
@AtrusOranis Dollar democracy is not effective at all because it relies on the people to be informed which would require people to do 35hours of research just to buy groceries. No one suggested the government run the internet. You want an amendment to the Constitution in order guarantee that the government can't enforce network neutrality a regulation that was in place 'till 2005 because...? What you hate the idea of a competitive market?
Because people don't do hours of research on groceries dollar democracy doesn't work? That seems like your exaggerating to the absurd. Your right, when I buy groceries I don't do hours of research because I use hindsight. For things that I don't buy everyday (like an MP3 player) I often DO put in hours of research. Though no-one has suggested the government runs the internet, I would be afraid of what is referred to as "mission creep".
Also, may I ask what that regulation your referring to is?
@AtrusOranis The regulation we've been discussing is network neutrality, you know the one you actually want a constitutional amendment against. & Slippery slope fallacies don't justify why you are against Network neutrality being reinstated. & Your defense of dollar democracy is that you on;ly care about the quality of said product. Your defense for dollar democracy is that your only concern is for the quality of the product? & Out of curiosity, do you do said research online?
There has never been a law labeled "Net Neutrality". Net Neutrality is a concept we both want in which the information is free to travel from source to destination unimpeded. What we disagree on is the method to ensure it. You obviously want the government to get involved whereas I want the free market to be the regulator. As for "slippery slope fallacies", it has happened before with the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine (which later got repealed but some have tried to bring back).
@AtrusOranis If you want the free market to be the regulator you don't know what the term "free market" means or you have no clue how the internet actually works. Tell me what could happen if we were to reinstate network neutrality regulations what slipperly slope do you fear ? Other than ISPs not giving (objectivity measurable) preferential treatment. Do you believe fact that we don't name comprehensive regulatory acts after an individual concept there in means the laws don't exist?
By the free market to be the regulator I mean that the economy will adjust itself and in the end the best ISPs win.
The slippery slope I'm afraid of is the government could decide what information is "appropriate" and that all controversial information should be balanced in its point of view (like the fairness doctrine did for radio). I know that not what is intended at all, but its the slippery slope I have some concern over. (cont.)
@AtrusOranis This will be my last communication to you on this subject.
Doesn't the fact that you have to pretend that the fact that bills with dozens of provision aren't named after one of the provision means said provisions don't exist tell you you're wrong.
Or the fact that you claim the slippery slope that the government will use a very specific objectively verifiable regulation to broadly regulate? Or that you want the internet to be freemarket (which is like wanting 0 calorie sucrose)?
I feel you haven't understood my proposal at all. First we make sure the government cannot regulate the internet. This does not stop congress from keeping companies accountable, but rather ensures the government can't interfere with the internet themselves. Think of it as an addendum to the first amendment ensuring that the government can't stop the flow of information.
I am saddened that you think me so pedantic that I am looking for a bill labeled "The Net Neutrality Bill" or some such obvious thing. All I ask is that you cite the bill or case which you are referring to. You have said these laws exist, but I'm asking for specifics, and you have yet to provide.
I will point out that you also previously called it "network neutrality" when referring to it instead of providing the actual case or law that created network neutrality when I had asked you to provide citation (which, by the way, you STILL haven't provided). I mentioned that no bill is named "Network Neutrality" so you would not provide me with common name again but instead use the actual name and location (Example is the "Fair use clause" is Title 17 US Code Section 107)
@AtrusOranis I will also point out that I never claimed the law was called network neutrality, only the concept. The fact you think the laws have to be named after the concept is what's so retarded. & Again I know you didn't look for this law & you never asked for citation. Here's what you done "FREE MARKET!!! SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!! FREE MARKET!!! UH HUH,!!" That's been everything you've said thus far only with the occasional blatant lie & amazingly stupid analogy.
I most certainly did request that you cite the law you referred to, the second time mentioning I would not pedantic about the actual title. Each time you have countered using ad hominem attacks, specifically about my intelligence, instead of backing up your claims. Your last post was filled straw man arguments. This is not a debate, but one of the most base of arguments, and I refuse to participate in such.
@AtrusOranis No you never requested anything, you stated that there is no law named net neutrality & implied that meant no law enforcing network neutrality ever existed. Don't verb pedantic it sounds awful & I don't think you know what that word means. I never used argumentum ad hominem I paraphrased your arguments, & called them stupid & retarded, which they are. You are right this is not a debate, this is you using nonsequiters, a slippery slope argument, & repeating campaign slogans.
Steven, You should do a video with the full, unedited conversation that you quoted there at the end, discussing Canadian health care and the supreme court decision. I'd love to see it!
YOu can haz a curbstomping, you quebecian cunt
DJpopel 3 days ago
hurp a durp...
This video gave me brain damage.
planet1000 1 week ago
Steven Crowder, you are clearly a pompous moron.
flipsyde24 1 week ago
"It's easy to distill topics like that down to jinoistic phrases." = "I have absolutely no idea what you're asking me about, but I'm praying that my use of the word jingoistic will make me appear smarter than I really am."
P.S. Al Franken is a big fat idiot.
koyunbaba73 3 weeks ago
Is it just me or do all of those laughs sound fake?
TiconderogaX 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TiconderogaX Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 3 weeks ago
Al Franken got to have a whole decade already, why does he have to louse up the 21st century.
halloranedward 1 month ago
So, Crowder is against Net Neutrality. I used to like him a lot, but this is bizarre that he would be against it....
normalpsychology 1 month ago
@normalpsychology it is censorship.
halloranedward 1 month ago
@halloranedward No it's not. It seeks to slow down smaller websites (which is censorship) and eventually kill off smaller websites. Net Neutrality is GOOD. I still am surprised Steven messed this one up.
normalpsychology 1 month ago
@normalpsychology Of course he's against it. He is a small time web producer. Net Neutrality will INCREASE the cost of his operation and make it harder for him to produce. On the other hand, billion dollar corporations like Google and Microsoft don't mind because the increased cost is negligible to them. Net Neutrality will make it harder for entrepreneurs and small businesses to provide web services to customers, making it hard for them to create new jobs. THIS IS BAD!
HumbleWillis 1 week ago
or in the states as we know them...hospitals!
epic win at the end!!!
DRUM57IX 1 month ago
I remember I argued with someone on here about this, taking the side against government regulated net neutrality due to the fact that I feared the Government would want to censor various parts of the internet. He considered my fears silly, that they would never come to fruition.
NOW we have SOPA and PIPA on the table, with over 100 sites protesting supposed government censorship...
AtrusOranis 1 month ago
Your carpool analogy .... win, epic win.
KittenKoder 1 month ago
Steven has a legitimate point. Net neutrality would create costs that would hinder the small business' ability to expand their company outreach and sales potential via the internet. Big businesses, no problem. Here is my question: Why does the government care about trying to make the internet a level playing field for anyone? What do they have to gain from hindering small business? Long term, that hurts the U.S. Short term I can only guess there are some senators buying big yachts and hookers.
MrLotharofhillpeople 1 month ago
You should have a show! You explain things very well and are so funny!
KuhEssen 1 month ago
But... net Neutrality works ? I don't see any major problems here. I rarely have Internet issues. And isn't the Issue with wireless Internet that the broadcasting-strength of the providers isn't strong enough in the area ? He makes a decent point tough, but I'd wait a minute before throwing the current system in the bin.
Thebeastcalledmydong 1 month ago
@Thebeastcalledmydong
You're thinking of your internet access...net neutrality is something that would affect how the internet (world wide web) as a whole works. it has nothing to do with the broadcast strength because net neutrality won't affect your signal...
DRUM57IX 1 month ago
@DRUM57IX It doesn't affect the signal on the user end ... it affects the signal on the SERVER end ...who you want to get access to. It limits how fast they can provide service to you, and the more service they want to provide, the SLOWER their service becomes. Billion dollar corporations like Google or Microsoft can always buy a near infinite number of subdomains, and redirect traffic to load balance and keep all service running fast, but entrepreneurs and small businesses CAN'T. NO ES BUENO!
HumbleWillis 1 week ago
Christopher Robin had the best line. "Net Neutrality... you mean like, censorship?"
22Inquisitor 2 months ago
Hey Steven,your name should officially be changed to "Idiotic Leftists' ASS KICKER IN CHIEF".
I love the way idiots on the left react,every time you give them a Truth and Facts slap on their stupid face.
Be careful tough,you might be accused of making fun of special needs people.KEEP IT UP.
alacranmann 2 months ago
Love it. Hope the FCC get's abolished in the future.
1RedshirtXLG 2 months ago
i get it ...18 wheelers and corporations are bad ...
woodenmajor 3 months ago
Why are you so awesome?
15minoflame 3 months ago
First off - That purple hair girl is cute.
Second off - that response to the burnt out hippy at the end was priceless.
KingDingaLing090 3 months ago
totally wrong about the hospitals... totally wrong
231karl 3 months ago
@231karl Hah <-- look, It's a moron. o_O
KingDingaLing090 3 months ago
1,324 apparently don't understand net neutrality. This guy is so far off its unbelievable.
jordanrfire2 3 months ago
@jordanrfire2 Or, you know, he could be completely right and YOU could be the one "far off." Seeing as you offered one possibility, it's only fair (or neutral, perhaps?) to offer the other.
Shuemais 3 months ago
@Shuemais (COMMENT 1) If that was my personal opinion then I would welcome others to have apposing ones, but it's not. I am not commenting on whether or not the government should get involved, or whether big corporations would over step their boundaries if given the chance. I am saying that his definition of network neutrality is literally wrong. Network Neutrality is what we have always had. In short it boils down to the fact that you currently can visit any website you want or...(next Comment)
jordanrfire2 3 months ago
@Shuemais (COMMENT 2) ...download anything you want at the same speed. A non-neutral Internet is when you don’t have those freedoms. A couple examples would be if your Internet provider was allowed to slow down (or deny you access) your Internet if you wanted to visit certain sites. Reasons they might do this would be if Google paid them a premium and Yahoo doesn’t; they would slow down your access to Yahoo or reroute you to Google automatically.......(Next comment)
jordanrfire2 3 months ago
@Shuemais (COMMENT 3) In conclusion Net neutrality is where we currently stand. The question at hand is what is the best way to preserve Network Neutrality. One opinion is that the Government should implement rules and regulations in order to ensure that Internet providers don’t start controlling our free and fair access to all sites. The apposing view is that we leave the Internet alone and allow competition to take its course in order to preserve our currently free and fair access..(Thats it)
jordanrfire2 3 months ago
@jordanrfire2 My questions is what would the ISPs do in response to the FCC rules?
alamoallies 3 months ago
I would have liked to hear the entire interview with that woman. She seemed to have a more accurate idea on the true nature of the issue. I would really like to know her response to you asking her to cite an example of what she was describing. You claim she "had no answer" but I bet she did, and I bet it was something along the lines of this: IT'S NEVER HAPPENED BECAUSE OF NET NEUTRALITY, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
cuervanada 3 months ago 2
@cuervanada It's always said that liberals drink the cool-aid. Actually, it was flavor-aid that the Jone's zombies drank. Try some on ice, I know YOU'll like it.
LCCharlie 3 months ago
@LCCharlie
"It's always said that liberals drink the cool-aid. Actually, it was flavor-aid that the Jone's zombies drank"
It's "always said" because conservatives just parrot things. You have several hours of talk radio telling them what to think..church with buys who talk to rise from the dead (zombie?) magical jesus telling them what to think.. Newt Gingritch even wrote such a script called "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" telling them what to think AND say.
hipstermi 3 months ago
@cuervanada
"I would have liked to hear the entire interview with that woman."
You wont get that from a conservative. It;s usually screened calls, then fun with editing. I love how Youtube puts up video of Rush's show...and you now see him hit a button cutting off anyone who disagrees. It makes it seem like his reply was so amazing it just stumped everyone!
Notice how Crowder goes into silent running when you point out factual mistakes in his videos? See the peace sign one.
hipstermi 3 months ago
Crowder, for someone who is attempting to antagonize random people for not knowing what net neutrality is, you sure have misunderstood what it is yourself. I am baffled by your interpretation. I suggest you go back and do more research on the topic and make a follow-up video.
cuervanada 3 months ago 2
The lady at 2:56 must hate Steven. :P
TheMisstiff15 3 months ago
Ouch!! "As we call them in states, HOSPITALS!"
RisenPhoenix68 3 months ago
Wow, for someone who claims that liberals don't know what is net neutrality, there sure is a lot of misconceptions in this video coming from the uploader. But with 500 char limit, I will just say this: @ 3:30 No shit, of course it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean providers aren't working on plans for it. @ 4:45 they CAN charge more for faster speeds. They already do it. It's called DSL and Cable and has NOTHING to do with what net neutrality is supposed to be about. Yep... char limit reached...
eggiex1 3 months ago 2
9:01 well done Steve you wiped that smug look right off his face
Robodude288 3 months ago
Wow, Steven, wow, the best yet. The internet had flourished because the government has pretty much left it alone. Progressives need control of the web, not only because that's what they do, but because it's another place to expand their power (and wealth). The liberal young are so easily exploited because critical thought and honest research are always replaced with emotion.
LCCharlie 4 months ago
@LCCharlie I think you misunderstood the concept of net neutrality. You're right, the internet has flourished because of net neutrality. Steven is against net neutrality. Net neutrality can be a complicated subject, but I don't know where you got the idea about progressives or liberals taking control over the web. The FCC is trying to keep things the way they are, but House Republicans are trying to overturn these efforts.
cuervanada 3 months ago 2
@cuervanada I would like to add that I am totally not against Republicans or for Liberals. Just stating the facts of the matter.
cuervanada 3 months ago
@cuervanada So, you're against Republicans, just not totally; and you're for liberals, just not totally. That makes you a liberal who is'nt completely moon-bat crazy...yet.
LCCharlie 3 months ago
@LCCharlie I hate most liberals but I think people who agree with everything someone else says just because they call themselves a "Republican" are idiots. You need to start thinking for yourself instead of blindly agreeing with people. I can tell from your previous comment that you don't understand the topic. You said you agree with him but than you said the opposite of what he said.
cuervanada 3 months ago
@LCCharlie And I never said I was against Republicans. I'll hopefully be voting for one next election. If you knew me personally you would know I hate most people that say they're "liberals". But you don't. You wouldn't even have the ability to comprehend most of my opinions. One major aspect is THINKING FOR YOURSELF. I don't blindly copy the opinion of people I respect, like you obviously do.
cuervanada 3 months ago
Comment removed
cuervanada 3 months ago
@LCCharlie You talk about "drinking the kool-aid". Take some of your own advice and form your OWN opinions.
cuervanada 3 months ago
@LCCharlie And BTW, where did you even get the idea that I am "against Republicans". Because I said that some House Republicans voted against the FCC's rules? Wow, so not only do you not think for yourself, it's actually a trait you expect everyone else to have also! Are you that stupid?
What happens if different Republicans have a different opinion on something? You know that happens a lot right? Maybe you don't, I wouldn't be surprised. If you do, what do you do in those cases? Coin toss?
cuervanada 3 months ago
Hmmnn...is this really the limit of net neutrality as you say?
When I first started reading of net nuetrality, the concept was accompanied by bids by ISP's to start charging for services that would normally be free. The internet would essentially be segmented off, only accessible to those willing to pay a premium for normally free services and access to information.
If it were only about network speeds, I wouldn't be so alarmed, but there seems to more attached to the deal.
trenton9 4 months ago
Before implementing ANY regulation, please do make the effort to understand what you are regulating. For those who have any knowledge of what networks are and how they function, it would quickly asserted how ignorant the makers of this "net neutrality" are and how devastating it would be to the infrastructure of any and all networks. Just ask any CNNA certified technician, they will tell you how moronic this piece of proposed legislation is.
yodasoda125 4 months ago
Al Frankin SUCKS. N I live in Minnesota. I didnt vote for him.
kooooolmatt 4 months ago 2
HAHAHAHA. That was great, especially your conversation on Canadian healthcare. I don't hear any of this here at my college. I have to go somewhere else for something informative.
whackybarbiedoll 4 months ago
Yeah, don't try to argue about universal healthcare with Crowder, you will have your ass handed to you.....lol
critter505 4 months ago
I have a 56k modem. Downloads at 15kb/s, fast speed!
I have no idea what you mean by slower websites :P
LekLekTheAsian 5 months ago
youre a dork but keep up the good work.
I cant post a comment with the word D U F U S in it so i have to use dork instead. Is that net nuetrality?
levthelion 5 months ago
youre a Dufus but keep up the good work
levthelion 5 months ago
can't seem to post internet links...so here:
With the exception of Google's man in Washington DC, Vint Cerf (with whom Kahn developed TCP/IP), most of the senior engineers responsible for developing the packet switched internetworking of today oppose "Neutrality" legislation. Dave Farber, often called the grandfather of the internet, has been the most prominent critic.
from TheRegister.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
that lady isn't allowed to live in Texas anymore
jubeikiba6 5 months ago
@jubeikiba6 Agreed...Texas rules...
DoctorSargeMD 5 months ago
Well, Al Franken is a moron. But truly, net neutrality is a good thing. It just depends on your definition. For me and the rest of my friends, net neutrality means that the government can't create blacklists and censor the internet. The fast-lane, slow-lane argument doesn't phase me as much. What I care about is the original intention of the internet: providing an information highway that won't be deleted (though some of it has been removed.) To keep all data accessible to everyone.
CrazyKarlTheTruth 6 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth Yes but YOUR interpretation isn't WHAT Net NEutrality is.
Let's say some guy has a site that gets 4 hits a month and doesn't sell anything while someone else's site sells t-shirts and gets thousands of hits a month. Their saying that the site that gets 4 hits a month is just as important as the site that gets THOUSANDS of hits a month and shouldn't be punished for not being as popular so you can't shunt bandwith from it to use for the site that IS getting Tons of Traffic.
Darkeklaw 6 months ago
@Darkeklaw There are many facets to net neutrality. I had to heavily research it in my college mass communications class a couple years ago. There are many things we need to take into account. Not so much that another larger site is getting more bandwidth, but that the fast lane/slow lane takes over and throttles speeds of other sites. That the internet is on the verge of censorship in the U.S. The one that we should worry about the most is censorship.
CrazyKarlTheTruth 6 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth Which is something that the Supreme Court would rule against seeing as censoring stuff even on the Internet goes against the first amendment of the Constitution. But hey what do I know I'm just a thirty eight year old who's had "Internet" or it's predecessor the BBS since the late 80's these fights have been going on since then. Most people are afraid of the Tier system that all these ISPs seem to want to impose. The best way to fight the Tier system is ...
Darkeklaw 6 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
whoa, another liberal cliche. the corporations, now de facto government, are CENSORING US! OH HOLY SHIT! no seriously...how is open (non-neutrality) internet equivalent to the GOVERNMENTS of Australia and Chin blacklisting certain sites?
jlancecombs 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
"There are many facets to net neutrality. I had to heavily research it in my college mass communications class a couple years ago."
maybe as an ideal. but not so with the proposed policy of that name.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@Darkeklaw To not buy into the tier system. Hit the ISP's in the pocket books. Nobody in America has seen REAL Censorship.
Darkeklaw 6 months ago
@Darkeklaw Well, when it does get censored, remind me to say I told you so. Australia and China among others have already imposed an internet blacklist. But, hey, what do I know?
CrazyKarlTheTruth 6 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
except that that's not what "net neutrality" as a policy is. that's actually what "net neutrality" opens the door to, giving government more power over the administration of the internet...therefore giving them a foot in the door toward being able to control the flow of information...therefore giving them a path toward censorship. in fact you should be AGAINST net neutrality if you want to prevent censorship.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jlancecombs I took the freaking class on this. So shut up and listen to the facts. I'm far from liberal. I hate the republicans as well. Look at it from the right perspective. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, types of equipment that may be attached, and modes of communication. as stated by Tim Berners-Lee, who wrote the script for hypertext and the associated protocols. Your an idiot. Do your research before you run your mouth.
CrazyKarlTheTruth 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
SPECIFICALLY, net neutrality disallows bandwidth prioritization. It is the government, via the FCC, making decisions for the providers. Taking the class hasn't stopped you from mixing up the ideal vs the proposed legislative policy.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
BTW, I was FOR net neutrality until I DID research it and found out what it was.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
Nor, btw, do we know that whoever taught the class did not have his/her own bias regarding the issue and spun it to appeal to that particular bias. Don't tell me that the teacher didn't have a bias...I can't really believe you'd be naive enough to believe that. So, if you tell me the teacher wasn't biased, I'll just have to assume that you're B.S.ing me.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
Besides, I'm not even doubting your knowledge on net neutrality. I'm doubting your knowledge on the definition of censorship and what it requires to institute censorship. It absolutely requires government action. A provider banning such and such site is NOT censorship, for it can be found if you use a provider more friendly to the content on that site.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jlancecombs
Not to mention the fact that no provider has "censored" anything. They've been around long enough to make decisions on that front...so why haven't they?
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
Oh and, by the way, the "you can't argue with me because I had a class" argument fails to win the argument or to make your argument more appealing to third parties. It simply makes you look immature.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
I have to post many times to get past the word limit. 500 words is not enough. And I'm actually a former "at large" for the local Libertarian party and a former political candidate. But if your version is so correct and beyond debate...why is it that so many of the original computer engineers are opposed to it?
Besides, you never contradicted my point...only contradicted the end result of what it would do, which is opinion, not fact.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
Do you mean to tell me that "net neutrality" is not a movement to give the government oversight powers over the ISPs, to prevent bandwidth prioritization? Or are we arguing over the merits of the program, rather than the details, which would be opinion?
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
Btw, it's "you're an idiot"...not "your an idiot".
jlancecombs 5 months ago
But...I've already run past the limit of "acceptable number of posts", so you have the last word, even if it is to call me a nazi troll baby-killer.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jlancecombs last words
CrazyKarlTheTruth 5 months ago
@jlancecombs see how annoying this gets
CrazyKarlTheTruth 5 months ago
@jlancecombs seriously, grow up. you politicians are like the big kid on the playground.
CrazyKarlTheTruth 5 months ago
@jlancecombs You know what makes you look really immature? Commenting on the same post five times in a row. Don't tell me I'm an idiot if the real definition IS what I'm explaining and politicians spin it their way. It means their definition is wrong. You're a damn troll is what you are. The teacher never spun anything one way or another, he made us do research and back our arguments in in-class discussions. What are your qualifications for this conversation? You use the internet?
CrazyKarlTheTruth 5 months ago
AND...I never called you an idiot...but you sure called me one.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jlancecombs And furthermore, your arguments go in circles. There are two main problems that arise with the internet: censorship, and companies taking control with prioritizing traffic. Both are a major issues. I support net neutrality in the sense that no company, nor government should have the right to say "this content is illegal to view" and be able to ban certain opinions. It badgers the freedom of speech. It seems neither side can agree on what it is, so let me be clear. No censorship
CrazyKarlTheTruth 5 months ago
@CrazyKarlTheTruth
"And furthermore, your arguments go in circles"
I suggest you look up what a circular argument is before referring to it.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
"I support net neutrality in the sense that no company, nor government should have the right to say "this content is illegal to view" and be able to ban certain opinions. It badgers the freedom of speech."
1) to determine what content a company must allow through it's service is a violation of the property rights of the company and the first amendment rights of those who own or run it.
2) net neutrality would give government the foot in the door to do just that.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jlancecombs It's late and minus the incorrect usage of "your" (since we're apparently arguing grammar here too) I meant what I said about your argument going in circles. You're a fucking tool who's just trying to push my buttons at this point. I don't care if you're a former at large or Jesus Christ. You're annoying as hell.
CrazyKarlTheTruth 5 months ago
explain this..... like actually your interview with the lady with the analogy that started making sense all up until you fucked it up with something that wasnt really relevant just screwed up the whole video. so please sit down, take out the "funny" explain what it is and then throw out your opinion. so far it doesnt even exist in the way you portrayed it.
fataxe1 6 months ago
@fataxe1 Actually her explaination made no sense because 18 wheelers on the real highway aren't allowed to do certain things. There are stretches of Interstate where tractor trailers have lane restrictions while passenger vehicles can use special lanes to move faster. IE Carpool lanes or a second passing lane that trucks may be prohibited from. And what Net Neutrality would be more akin to is making NO Car or truck able to use the special lanes and keep them with the 18 wheelers.
Darkeklaw 6 months ago
@Darkeklaw you damn conservatives always have to take things so literal and ruin things, maybe you should go home and stop doing politics since you just poke holes in everythins. im just fuckin wich ya! i really dont see how anyone cares since it is going to happen weither or not we want it to. the government cant regulate something privatized they think they can so people just dont bother giving a fuck.
fataxe1 6 months ago
@fataxe1 I'm a democrat, slap nuts
Darkeklaw 6 months ago
@fataxe1 By the way ever hear of the FCC...
Kinda kills Governemt can't regulate something privatized. TV Stations are run by private companies and they are regulated by the GOVERNMENT.. But hey you're just funnin with us. No you're a moron.
Darkeklaw 6 months ago
@Darkeklaw you do realize i dont care, i cant do anything, i cant vote so there is no reason for me to discuss it. the best i can do is know what it is and convince my conservative friends they are dumb for being so young and close minded. now good day sir!
fataxe1 6 months ago
Thanks for showing what Al Franken really is.
Mr101Darwin 6 months ago
my internet is pretty fast for all websites. don't know what you're talking about crowder
carminav25 6 months ago
@carminav25
crowder's not the one complaining about business as usual. the net neutrality people are.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@carminav25 Yeah, you missed the point. No matter what site you go to, it will be slow. It's like going to youtube on a Friday, but with every site on the internet, no matter how many people are actually on the site.
Yeah. Hope that helps! :)
skatergurljubulee 4 months ago
@skatergurljubulee No, see you have missed my point. The fact is that my internet is fast no matter what site I go to. I am satisfied with how my internet works, whether I am at home, in public, or at college. Privatizing the internet would not better my own, or others internet experience.
carminav25 4 months ago
"every site runs as slowly. that's net neutrality"
hey smartass, all of my sites run equally fast. THAT is net neutrality. You are so wrong on so many levels.
carminav25 6 months ago
Did he really say "jingoistic"?........Laughable. He's either constantly overusing the term or has been waiting with bated breath for you to come along so he could wow us with his command of the English language. Either way, I think I am quite secure in my belief it is completely the wrong usage.
luke55664 6 months ago
The problem is that they are trying to solve the wrong issue. We have the same issue as before telco deregulation. I have a wire to my house, but I am forced to pay what ever that company wants to charge for voice, video, or data. The issue is that why wouldn't comcast pref their own cable video over my prefered hulu content? I need to be able to pay for the wire to my house and then buy content from what ever vendor does the best job. The market needs to be opened.
sspurling 7 months ago
One word for your example: C O M C A S T oh excuse me, they want to hide from their name, now they want to be know as X F I N I T Y . Yeah, we need hands off the internet from everyone. Y U K.
P.S. Tell the TSA, hands off my junk!
Armornone 7 months ago 6
Comcast now terminates your account for using more than 250GB a month, as well as blocking users from using a potentially competitive music service from Amazon.
Are you happy now Steven?
jab07 7 months ago
@jab07
It's called getting a different service provider.
AtheistTower 5 months ago
@AtheistTower Not an option for everyone. Comcast has the monopoly, there is very little competition.
jab07 5 months ago
Comment removed
AtheistTower 5 months ago
@jab07
comcast has no monopoly. m'thinks you are misunderstanding the definition of monopoly. it's pretty easy to get another service provider. go to the yellow pages. they aren't like the energy companies; not mandated by government to serve specific areas. and there are cheaper services...some local services even...so, yeah, it's pretty much an option for everyone.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
Comment removed
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jab07
too bad i can't download 62,501 songs per month now. don't know what i'll ever do without that 62,501st song. i'll have to wait til the next month. but, wait, my games are about 8g or more a piece, so I can't download more than 41 of them in the span of one month now!
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jlancecombs Yes only mp3s eat bandwidth great analogy!
jab07 5 months ago
@jab07 oh yeah, sorry...i forgot, you have to stay within about 100 hrs of streaming video a month too! OMG, with all the different bandwidth draining things combined I might have to stay within a data amount that's actually humanly possible.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jab07
of course that is assuming that anyone else is going to follow comcast's business model, which I don't see as likely. otherwise, after comcast has tested the waters, other companies would have jumped on the data-limit bandwagon by now. who else is doing it?
it's likely that comcast is catering to a niche market of family subscribers and are offering a lower bandwidth/lower cost service, as opposed to a company that caters to gamers. you don't buy a station wagon to drag race.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
@jab07
sorry, i'd forgotten the most important part. convenience is more important than freedom. therefore providers should have to be forced to make things more convenient for customers.
jlancecombs 5 months ago
The problem with net neutrality is the same as that of "progressive", the name implies something good, the soundbites promise something good, the actual bills in congress do the exact opposite of good.
Although I would have to disagree with Steven's tech examples where congested internet traffic would be improved by a tiered structure, that is not how it works. To carry his highway analogy, its not that they would install a 100 mph lane on an other 60mph highway. But new 10 mph lanes.
taltamir 7 months ago
It comes down to "Are equal levels and speeds of access to the internet a privelage, or right?" The internet is full of both amazing tools and education, or useless, crude, and "uncensored" information. Then there are advertisements and businesses. So is the internet an enterprise, or a media platform? Or, like television, is it both? It's really an opinion for the individual.
TheMuffinChef 7 months ago
"Hipsters" do not want "large corporations" to change the equality of the internet. If somebody has enourmous amounts of money wants to make their advertisements priority, the give and take could mean that the smaller businesses and artists have web pages that load slower or are allowed less memory & bandwitdth. You can look at it as "everybody must move slowly, or "everyone gets to move quickly." Without net neutrality, the mindset could become "You may only go faster if you are really rich."
TheMuffinChef 7 months ago
Great upload. You made me laugh while exposing ignorant lemmings pushing themselves off as compassionate politically correct do-gooder liberals. At the end of the day, did they actually sing "Kum ba yah"? Vote Libertarian!
luke55664 7 months ago
Totally stumped her with the carpool lane argument... people are such morons.
MajorAmby 7 months ago
@thecreativeoneish Apparently, I don't.
If he's not pro-Constitution, he's not worth the spit I need when I'm thirsty...neither is any OTHER congressman, given that circumstance...(in other words, FUCK HARRY REID!!!)
QuartuvLarry 7 months ago
107 people trust government implicitly (aka politicians)
QuartuvLarry 7 months ago
Wrong wrong wrong...
You ask has there ever been a case of a corporation throttling the Internet? Answer, no... Because of net neutrality. Net neutrality has existed since the inception of the web. Now let me turn it on you. What about the current Internet is it that you don't like?
lepban 7 months ago
Net neutrality is the gateway bill to China's internet cencorship, hands-down, that is what it is.
Jhazmoth 7 months ago
Steven, I mostly agree with you, but I needed to point out that you are wrong about Net Neutrality not happening. It is happening now, just look at ESPN3 and the access restrictions that go along with that site. That is a part of net neutrality that you didn't touch on.
claytonboen 7 months ago
Why should the big websites load faster? That idea crushes the little guy. Why would you support this? The internet is supposed to be equal for everyone. What happens to the smaller websites when you have facebook, twitter, etc loading faster than a small website? Lets take walmart vs a mom and pop website. Why would anyone go to the small and slow website to do their transaction when walmart does it twice as fast (because they paid to be faster)? That right there is an injustice to society.
Netherfist 7 months ago
@Netherfist Why should websites that get a ton of traffic (like Walmart) be forced to be slower than mom and pop websites that get a tenth of their traffic? If I shop at Walmart, I have to share the same bandwidth with over 1000 people at the same instant whereas if I went to a mom and pop website, I may be competing with 100 people. Either small businesses pays more then they can afford for internet they don't need, or Walmart pays less for substandard internet, which hurts their business.
AtrusOranis 7 months ago
@AtrusOranis That question makes no sense? No ones saying the people shouldn't be able to buy more bandwidth. Here's a more accurate analogy, why should a mom & pop shop that has a superior product (in that more people visit or buy from the site) lose in the market because walmart bribes ISPs to make their competitors sites unusable?
Fuctmentality 7 months ago
@Fuctmentality
The entire point of the video was to mention the fact that the government wants to regulate the "speed at which all data crosses networks (1:53)". If you have everything move at equal speeds, then naturally you will either have to (1) slow everything down (2) speed everything up or (3) estimate the average, which is too slow for bigger sites and too expensive for smaller sites.
Also when and how has a larger company bribed an ISP successfully to make their competitors unusable?
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis But network neutrality doesn't give everyone equal speed it requires internet service providers (ISPs) to treat all traffic neutrally, which means you get the bandwidth you pay for no matter what you're using the internet for. What this law did, was keep ISPs from throttling back peoples service when they were attempting to access any network or website. Your speed was still what you [payed for, only it was the same no matter what websites or services you ussed.
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
Again, I fail to see ISP's would limit your personal bandwidth going to certain sites, and can't think of anytime it's happened here.
The way I see it working is that data traveling on the internet is dependent on 2 basic things. The speed of your internet access and the other persons internet access. If I have a higher internet speed then the companies (and could happen especially if they lots of business), then my data will naturally be sent at a slower speed.
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis Don't say again when you're addressing the issue for the first time in a sentence that's incoherent.
If you mean you don't see why an ISP would throttle. (Comcast already is.)
One reason would be someone paying them to,or they would rather their costumers use a service they provide over a competitors another would be eco-political reasons, ie restricting access to information critical of them.
Your understanding is correct in a system with network neutrality.
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
Then in a sense one could claim Comcast is breaching contract, which IS subject to litigation and could be subject to a class action lawsuit. If it isn't breaching contract, then the customers can vote with their money and stop using Comcast by either using another service (like Qwest, Verizon, AT&T, or Roadrunner), or getting the know how to make another service available and create their own company.
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis Unless Comcast put an exemption in the fine print which they did, hence why they fought to remove network neutrality. & No dollar democracy doesn't work (outside of free market fantasies) particularly when there are only 4 major competitors & It takes a lot of money to create a telecom company, & again the other telecom companies could restrict access from/to your network. Seriously what good would it be to have access to an isolated network?
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
4 major competitors seems to be actually a decent size if you ask me. As for the fact it takes a lot of money to make a telecom company, I agree. That is the entire reason all the telecom companies are incorporated, to raise capital. As for telecom companies restricting access to your network, if it was that easy they would have done it by now to each other. Quest would only serve quest users or force them to pay a fee to contact someone with a Comcast ISP.
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis All ISPs developed under network neutrality & not a one of them actually would cut off their customers from such a large portion of the W.W.W.However they would cut off smaller start ups. Seriously you argued dollar democracy, when you didn't even know what network neutrality meant & still don't.You prove that dollar democracy when you didn't &don't know what this issue is about?You pretty much said I should let uninformed fuckwits like you decide to create a noncompetitive market
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
Sir or Madam, I suggest we both take a breather from this conversation as your last message is barely comprehensible and you have made a personal insult against me. You seem to think I have no idea what network neutrality means but really it seems that its just a lack of agreement on methods. As for your claim that all ISP's developed under net neutrality this means they all developed under H.R. 5417 which was soon killed within a year of its creation. All other attempts failed.
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis Sorry trying to explain this shit in under 500 characters us hard. Lets just leave it at this dollar democracy is disproven as an effective regulator every fucking day.I did not say ISPs were developed under HR 5417, I said the major ISPs came about before 2005 when the supreme court ruled that internet service was an information service & not a telecommunication service & thus not subject the same regulations. & you've clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding on the subject.
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
I'm afraid that though dollar democracy is not 100% effective (partly due to government regulations) I would rather have the internet run in the hands of companies then government, who time has show, can be just as corrupt. However, I do see a way that we can get a balance.
The idea is simple: Amend the US Constitution to say that Government may have no power what-so-ever in hindering the flow of any information on the internet. this keeps government in check. (cont.)
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@Functmentality
I do know that this could cause problems, especially when it comes to our national security. Instead of national laws prohibiting illigal activities on the internet, you would need to have states or local governments. trying to clamp down on things.
THEN and ONLY THEiN we can then have congress start thinking about creating laws to place on ISPs (which I still think would not help the situation, but I would feel a LOT more comfortable).
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis Dollar democracy is not effective at all because it relies on the people to be informed which would require people to do 35hours of research just to buy groceries. No one suggested the government run the internet. You want an amendment to the Constitution in order guarantee that the government can't enforce network neutrality a regulation that was in place 'till 2005 because...? What you hate the idea of a competitive market?
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
Because people don't do hours of research on groceries dollar democracy doesn't work? That seems like your exaggerating to the absurd. Your right, when I buy groceries I don't do hours of research because I use hindsight. For things that I don't buy everyday (like an MP3 player) I often DO put in hours of research. Though no-one has suggested the government runs the internet, I would be afraid of what is referred to as "mission creep".
Also, may I ask what that regulation your referring to is?
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis The regulation we've been discussing is network neutrality, you know the one you actually want a constitutional amendment against. & Slippery slope fallacies don't justify why you are against Network neutrality being reinstated. & Your defense of dollar democracy is that you on;ly care about the quality of said product. Your defense for dollar democracy is that your only concern is for the quality of the product? & Out of curiosity, do you do said research online?
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
There has never been a law labeled "Net Neutrality". Net Neutrality is a concept we both want in which the information is free to travel from source to destination unimpeded. What we disagree on is the method to ensure it. You obviously want the government to get involved whereas I want the free market to be the regulator. As for "slippery slope fallacies", it has happened before with the FCC and the Fairness Doctrine (which later got repealed but some have tried to bring back).
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis If you want the free market to be the regulator you don't know what the term "free market" means or you have no clue how the internet actually works. Tell me what could happen if we were to reinstate network neutrality regulations what slipperly slope do you fear ? Other than ISPs not giving (objectivity measurable) preferential treatment. Do you believe fact that we don't name comprehensive regulatory acts after an individual concept there in means the laws don't exist?
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
By the free market to be the regulator I mean that the economy will adjust itself and in the end the best ISPs win.
The slippery slope I'm afraid of is the government could decide what information is "appropriate" and that all controversial information should be balanced in its point of view (like the fairness doctrine did for radio). I know that not what is intended at all, but its the slippery slope I have some concern over. (cont.)
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis This will be my last communication to you on this subject.
Doesn't the fact that you have to pretend that the fact that bills with dozens of provision aren't named after one of the provision means said provisions don't exist tell you you're wrong.
Or the fact that you claim the slippery slope that the government will use a very specific objectively verifiable regulation to broadly regulate? Or that you want the internet to be freemarket (which is like wanting 0 calorie sucrose)?
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
I feel you haven't understood my proposal at all. First we make sure the government cannot regulate the internet. This does not stop congress from keeping companies accountable, but rather ensures the government can't interfere with the internet themselves. Think of it as an addendum to the first amendment ensuring that the government can't stop the flow of information.
(cont.)
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
last one of this set, maybe of the argument.
I am saddened that you think me so pedantic that I am looking for a bill labeled "The Net Neutrality Bill" or some such obvious thing. All I ask is that you cite the bill or case which you are referring to. You have said these laws exist, but I'm asking for specifics, and you have yet to provide.
Slán agus beannacht leat
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis I lied, I never said I thought you were looking, but you did bitch that a bill is not named such. Seriously learn to think.
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
I will point out that you also previously called it "network neutrality" when referring to it instead of providing the actual case or law that created network neutrality when I had asked you to provide citation (which, by the way, you STILL haven't provided). I mentioned that no bill is named "Network Neutrality" so you would not provide me with common name again but instead use the actual name and location (Example is the "Fair use clause" is Title 17 US Code Section 107)
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis I will also point out that I never claimed the law was called network neutrality, only the concept. The fact you think the laws have to be named after the concept is what's so retarded. & Again I know you didn't look for this law & you never asked for citation. Here's what you done "FREE MARKET!!! SLIPPERY SLOPE!!!! FREE MARKET!!! UH HUH,!!" That's been everything you've said thus far only with the occasional blatant lie & amazingly stupid analogy.
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
@Fuctmentality
Sir/Madam, I'm afraid we are at an impasse.
I most certainly did request that you cite the law you referred to, the second time mentioning I would not pedantic about the actual title. Each time you have countered using ad hominem attacks, specifically about my intelligence, instead of backing up your claims. Your last post was filled straw man arguments. This is not a debate, but one of the most base of arguments, and I refuse to participate in such.
I bid you good-day and adieu.
AtrusOranis 6 months ago
@AtrusOranis No you never requested anything, you stated that there is no law named net neutrality & implied that meant no law enforcing network neutrality ever existed. Don't verb pedantic it sounds awful & I don't think you know what that word means. I never used argumentum ad hominem I paraphrased your arguments, & called them stupid & retarded, which they are. You are right this is not a debate, this is you using nonsequiters, a slippery slope argument, & repeating campaign slogans.
Fuctmentality 6 months ago
Steven, You should do a video with the full, unedited conversation that you quoted there at the end, discussing Canadian health care and the supreme court decision. I'd love to see it!
ecsheats 7 months ago 2
FUCK THE GOVERNMENT
dksilentbob 7 months ago
ROLF Steven, you are the man!
bantyhenrants 7 months ago
+ companies have already blocked internet sites... yep, neutrality is bad... fucking americans...
Darusdei 7 months ago
nice to see how much this fool knows about net neutrality...
same thing with peoples liberties, people will demand that they are taken away...
few years later you're crying "this is bullshit" lol...
Darusdei 7 months ago
I would like to see some unedited, unbiased footage.
NTARelix 8 months ago
@NTARelix Not gonna happen from this rightwing hack.
SlightyDisturbedNBK 8 months ago