@rbairos1 Like it or not Government is getting involved into Net Neutrality. This is the whole point to getting involved in this. You can't change the inevitable. This is why you should get involved. So it doesn't turn into the post office, DMV, and public TV.
Net neutrality *is* government regulation aka censorship, this piece of animated propaganda fools only the ignorant voting public. The Internet is as successful as it is precisely because no government bureaucracy has yet been able to turn it into the us post office, or DMV . Think
Some are saying change ISP's if you don't like what your ISP is doing. Well that is not always a option. Some areas only have certain ISPs. Changing would not be a option if you don't have better options available.
As far as the video goes for explaining Net Neutrality. Simplicity works best in getting the message out. Create your own version. Make changes as you see fit in the content, have video wars on youtube. This will make the subject of Net Neutrality important & noticed.
First off, just want to say that I'm very much in favor of NN, and enjoyed this video as entertainment. However, I don't believe this video offers an ideal explanation of the issue, no offense intended whatsoever.
My main complaint is that, even without NN enforcement, you'd still see sites like Google and Facebook, just not the "next" Google or FB. ISPs want to charge large amounts of money to websites to be seen, so big ones will still be around. It's the small, newer ones that get punished.
Respond to this video...Tell that to Netflix, who's had to deal with several schemes to bring them down. You're not taking into account ISPs creating competitors to established business models, which they are already pushing.
@Mark2k This is very true, and honestly I should have made my statement a little less "it will be this way so there." What I SHOULD have said was that both outcomes are possible and both will probably happen to some degree if NN is killed; ISP's may cut off things that they feel they can make more money off of doing themselves (i.e. movie renting) and may allow certain things to pass through for a fee (i.e. social networking). Again, all hypothetical.
@Mark2k What I'm basically saying is I'm worried people WON'T realize how big a deal NN is if, assuming it's killed, they still see their old favorites (like facebook, google, etc.). They'll see them, figure nothing's changed, and think that NN was all just a bunch of "mumbo jumbo" (see anti-NN commercial, very lulzy), even though nothing new is being created because of ISPs cutting off the flow of creativity.
This is complete propaganda. It is literally a problem that has never happened, and the government wants to regulate it. ISP starts slowing your connection? SUBSCRIBE TO A DIFFERENT ISP.
Instead of getting this "slower connection" to competitors, how about he government totally pulling down sites they don't agree with.
The internet is the closest manifestation of human consciousness and this is a the proverbial lobotomy that will leave society retarded and unable to think.
@rdhayes06 Honestly, I can't really understand your point because of the capslock, bad grammar, and missing words.
I think you are, like 123elnet, saying that if there is Net Neutrality the government will be able to take down sites. That already happens. There are plenty of Bit Torrent sites that the government commandeered the domain names of. NN has nothing to do with that. It's a separate issue. Instead of attacking NN for no reason, go after the powers that affect what you are upset about.
@Mark2k One has as limited number of characters on YouTube. I can't really understand your point with all of your logical fallacies. Bit torrent sites taken down are in lawsuits over the FCC is acting outside its scope of its limited power.
NN would put an umbrella over the ENTIRE internet, characterizing it as a stream of interstate commerce and therefore within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Read the legislation. This is not in the best interest of liberty.
@rdhayes06 Again, really bad grammar. Type slower and contemplate your words more carefully. Domain seizures are conducted by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and usually without due process. The FCC and Congress have nothing to do with it. In fact, it's Democratic congress people who are looking into the unfairness of this practice. Honestly, you don't know your facts.
@rdhayes06 - If you think this has never happened, you must not pay attention. Comcast, RCN, Windstream, Verizon, etc, all have done it. It's not govt blocking or taking down sites. It's protection against ISPs doing that.
And how many ISPs do you have in your area offering broadband speeds? Maybe 3, if you're lucky. Probably 2. And if they all practice the same types of control, in the name of keeping your prices down while they (magically, of course) make more money -- then what?
@rdhayes06 - If you think this has never happened, you must not pay attention. Comcast, RCN, Windstream, Verizon, etc, all have done it. It's not govt blocking or taking down sites. It's protection against ISPs doing that.
And how many ISPs do you have in your area offering broadband speeds? Maybe 3, if you're lucky. Probably 2. And if they all practice the same types of control, in the name of keeping your prices down while they (magically, of course) make more money -- then what?
The best part about this video being true, and the people saying there's no need for this sort of regulation, is that the argument is invalidated immediately the moment ISPs decide to start metering bandwidth and "Prioritizing" traffic. Think it won't happen? Go talk to the fine folks in Canada. Without a truly adequate Net Neutrality law, the ISPs are having a field day at our expense. All those subsidies paid for by tax payers to build Fiber Optic was pocketed. Over sell, under deliver.
@darianknight The government has not regulated the internet thus far, and look how it is today. Would you say it is awful? Canada is a heap of trouble because the government passed regulations requiring that IPS preform like that.
@rdhayes06 Actually, Canada *was* in a heap of trouble specifically because the regulations passed were anti-competitive and did not follow a Net Neutrality doctrine, allowing extreme bias on behalf of the main ISPs. However, it was overturned by the Prime Minister who favors a Net Neutrality approach. If ISPs want to offer Telephone service then they should be reclassified the same way as existing Telephone companies are and should have to play by the same rules.
@123elnat You have several pieces of wrong information. Net Neutrality is not being pushed by the government but by regular citizens. There's actually very little interest in NN in the government. That's the problem. Next you make the old "this is communism" attack. We have laws right now that say Walmart cannot stop you from building a store in the same town as them to squash competition. What's wrong with applying that to the Internet? That's called capitalism, dude.
I appears that I got this mixed up with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" -which could affect blogs - and the proposal for an internet ID for US citizens. Hence my comment about China.
HOWEVER, I don't see why one couldn't just switch providers. Further, I note that everyone who favors NN is upset with the current proposed laws as being ineffective, which is a pretty good indication of what they are actually going to get. Best not to get the Feds involved except as a last resort.
@123elnat Do you actually have a choice of providers? In the major city I live in it's ATT or Comcast. Now imagine someone living in a rural area where people have a hard time getting one provider to serve them? And what is the point of mobilizing people to complain every time an ISP blocks or manages traffic? We have enough examples of that. Lets just make it law.
First of all, as Mark2k already pointed out, not everyone has a choice between multiple providers. Secondly, all major providers are in on this - they all want to abolish NN so they can upsell existing services. Switching providers won't help you, you're going to get the exact same restrictions regardless of what provider you pick. Third of all, in most municipalities, ISPs have exclusivity rights so you can forget someone starting a competing service without the restrictions.
@123elnat Ha ha ha, a choice in providers. I can use Comcast.. or Comcast where I live. Bright House won't even install service in my neighborhood because they struck a deal not to compete with each other. Thanks free market!
@theleast100seconds "Youtube probably wouldn't even exist without net neutrality! Must support!"
WRONG. The internet, and its universe of diversity exists *PRECISELY* because no government bureaucracy has yet fooled enough voting citizens to convert it into the US post office, DMV or public tv. Let's keep it that way.
This has been flagged as spam show
capitalism - this world is fucked
FredthaGr8t 3 months ago
@rbairos1 Like it or not Government is getting involved into Net Neutrality. This is the whole point to getting involved in this. You can't change the inevitable. This is why you should get involved. So it doesn't turn into the post office, DMV, and public TV.
Gh0stMaster 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Net neutrality *is* government regulation aka censorship, this piece of animated propaganda fools only the ignorant voting public. The Internet is as successful as it is precisely because no government bureaucracy has yet been able to turn it into the us post office, or DMV . Think
rbairos1 3 months ago
Comment removed
rbairos1 3 months ago
I can't like this enough. =(
savagesw450 4 months ago
Some are saying change ISP's if you don't like what your ISP is doing. Well that is not always a option. Some areas only have certain ISPs. Changing would not be a option if you don't have better options available.
As far as the video goes for explaining Net Neutrality. Simplicity works best in getting the message out. Create your own version. Make changes as you see fit in the content, have video wars on youtube. This will make the subject of Net Neutrality important & noticed.
newbiespc 10 months ago
don't tell me what I can and can't do with my soda.
MisterDoctorNerd 11 months ago 3
First off, just want to say that I'm very much in favor of NN, and enjoyed this video as entertainment. However, I don't believe this video offers an ideal explanation of the issue, no offense intended whatsoever.
My main complaint is that, even without NN enforcement, you'd still see sites like Google and Facebook, just not the "next" Google or FB. ISPs want to charge large amounts of money to websites to be seen, so big ones will still be around. It's the small, newer ones that get punished.
BigTmoose 11 months ago
Respond to this video...Tell that to Netflix, who's had to deal with several schemes to bring them down. You're not taking into account ISPs creating competitors to established business models, which they are already pushing.
Mark2k 11 months ago
@Mark2k This is very true, and honestly I should have made my statement a little less "it will be this way so there." What I SHOULD have said was that both outcomes are possible and both will probably happen to some degree if NN is killed; ISP's may cut off things that they feel they can make more money off of doing themselves (i.e. movie renting) and may allow certain things to pass through for a fee (i.e. social networking). Again, all hypothetical.
BigTmoose 11 months ago
@Mark2k What I'm basically saying is I'm worried people WON'T realize how big a deal NN is if, assuming it's killed, they still see their old favorites (like facebook, google, etc.). They'll see them, figure nothing's changed, and think that NN was all just a bunch of "mumbo jumbo" (see anti-NN commercial, very lulzy), even though nothing new is being created because of ISPs cutting off the flow of creativity.
BigTmoose 11 months ago
This is complete propaganda. It is literally a problem that has never happened, and the government wants to regulate it. ISP starts slowing your connection? SUBSCRIBE TO A DIFFERENT ISP.
Instead of getting this "slower connection" to competitors, how about he government totally pulling down sites they don't agree with.
The internet is the closest manifestation of human consciousness and this is a the proverbial lobotomy that will leave society retarded and unable to think.
rdhayes06 1 year ago
@rdhayes06 Honestly, I can't really understand your point because of the capslock, bad grammar, and missing words.
I think you are, like 123elnet, saying that if there is Net Neutrality the government will be able to take down sites. That already happens. There are plenty of Bit Torrent sites that the government commandeered the domain names of. NN has nothing to do with that. It's a separate issue. Instead of attacking NN for no reason, go after the powers that affect what you are upset about.
Mark2k 1 year ago
@Mark2k One has as limited number of characters on YouTube. I can't really understand your point with all of your logical fallacies. Bit torrent sites taken down are in lawsuits over the FCC is acting outside its scope of its limited power.
NN would put an umbrella over the ENTIRE internet, characterizing it as a stream of interstate commerce and therefore within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause. Read the legislation. This is not in the best interest of liberty.
rdhayes06 1 year ago
@rdhayes06 Again, really bad grammar. Type slower and contemplate your words more carefully. Domain seizures are conducted by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, and usually without due process. The FCC and Congress have nothing to do with it. In fact, it's Democratic congress people who are looking into the unfairness of this practice. Honestly, you don't know your facts.
Mark2k 1 year ago
@rdhayes06 - If you think this has never happened, you must not pay attention. Comcast, RCN, Windstream, Verizon, etc, all have done it. It's not govt blocking or taking down sites. It's protection against ISPs doing that.
And how many ISPs do you have in your area offering broadband speeds? Maybe 3, if you're lucky. Probably 2. And if they all practice the same types of control, in the name of keeping your prices down while they (magically, of course) make more money -- then what?
imaphaker 11 months ago
@rdhayes06 - If you think this has never happened, you must not pay attention. Comcast, RCN, Windstream, Verizon, etc, all have done it. It's not govt blocking or taking down sites. It's protection against ISPs doing that.
And how many ISPs do you have in your area offering broadband speeds? Maybe 3, if you're lucky. Probably 2. And if they all practice the same types of control, in the name of keeping your prices down while they (magically, of course) make more money -- then what?
imaphaker 11 months ago
The best part about this video being true, and the people saying there's no need for this sort of regulation, is that the argument is invalidated immediately the moment ISPs decide to start metering bandwidth and "Prioritizing" traffic. Think it won't happen? Go talk to the fine folks in Canada. Without a truly adequate Net Neutrality law, the ISPs are having a field day at our expense. All those subsidies paid for by tax payers to build Fiber Optic was pocketed. Over sell, under deliver.
darianknight 1 year ago
@darianknight The government has not regulated the internet thus far, and look how it is today. Would you say it is awful? Canada is a heap of trouble because the government passed regulations requiring that IPS preform like that.
rdhayes06 1 year ago
@rdhayes06 Actually, Canada *was* in a heap of trouble specifically because the regulations passed were anti-competitive and did not follow a Net Neutrality doctrine, allowing extreme bias on behalf of the main ISPs. However, it was overturned by the Prime Minister who favors a Net Neutrality approach. If ISPs want to offer Telephone service then they should be reclassified the same way as existing Telephone companies are and should have to play by the same rules.
darianknight 1 year ago
wait, I don't understand... can someone explain?
Goldhawkstar 1 year ago
This was beautifully animated.
BanjoBoy123 1 year ago
I want everyone to notice that the only people that are opposed to Net Neutrality...are the ones who don't understand/have no idea what it is.
jaller12 1 year ago 3
Yes, because the internet really needs is government intervention to make sure that everything is "fair." Hey, it works for China!
Honestly, if this was just a matter of sites being blocked by the provider, you could simply switch providers. What are they really up to here?
123elnat 1 year ago
@123elnat You have several pieces of wrong information. Net Neutrality is not being pushed by the government but by regular citizens. There's actually very little interest in NN in the government. That's the problem. Next you make the old "this is communism" attack. We have laws right now that say Walmart cannot stop you from building a store in the same town as them to squash competition. What's wrong with applying that to the Internet? That's called capitalism, dude.
Mark2k 1 year ago 9
@Mark2k,
I appears that I got this mixed up with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" -which could affect blogs - and the proposal for an internet ID for US citizens. Hence my comment about China.
HOWEVER, I don't see why one couldn't just switch providers. Further, I note that everyone who favors NN is upset with the current proposed laws as being ineffective, which is a pretty good indication of what they are actually going to get. Best not to get the Feds involved except as a last resort.
123elnat 1 year ago
@123elnat Do you actually have a choice of providers? In the major city I live in it's ATT or Comcast. Now imagine someone living in a rural area where people have a hard time getting one provider to serve them? And what is the point of mobilizing people to complain every time an ISP blocks or manages traffic? We have enough examples of that. Lets just make it law.
Mark2k 1 year ago 6
@123elnat
First of all, as Mark2k already pointed out, not everyone has a choice between multiple providers. Secondly, all major providers are in on this - they all want to abolish NN so they can upsell existing services. Switching providers won't help you, you're going to get the exact same restrictions regardless of what provider you pick. Third of all, in most municipalities, ISPs have exclusivity rights so you can forget someone starting a competing service without the restrictions.
naetss 1 year ago 3
@123elnat Ha ha ha, a choice in providers. I can use Comcast.. or Comcast where I live. Bright House won't even install service in my neighborhood because they struck a deal not to compete with each other. Thanks free market!
rocktron2000 1 year ago 3
our school blocks everything to the point where we can't do any work
Ultrox007 1 year ago
@Ultrox007 look up "tor browser" in google before google gets blocked ;)
MitchandGarrettfilms 1 year ago
I hope that youtube will be free forever >.>
theasdnightmare 1 year ago 9
Youtube probably wouldn't even exist without net neutrality! Must support!
theleast100seconds 1 year ago 20
This has been flagged as spam show
@theleast100seconds "Youtube probably wouldn't even exist without net neutrality! Must support!"
WRONG. The internet, and its universe of diversity exists *PRECISELY* because no government bureaucracy has yet fooled enough voting citizens to convert it into the US post office, DMV or public tv. Let's keep it that way.
rbairos1 3 months ago
No one should decide what i use the internet for, at all!
ichbinein123 1 year ago