Al Gore on Net Neutrality

[bluemoonlama]

You can limit bandwidth without discriminating on content, duh.

[BigNOLAdude]

Al Gore seems more and more to resemble Rodney Dangerfield.

[IcarusFlying]

here's what you need to know about net neutrality. watch?v=zASHI9qdB0U

[MoldytoasterMedia]

holy crap, that's the guy from the screen savers show.

[operadood]

0:13 Wasn't Earth in the Balance published in the early 90s Al?

[nightwolf117610]

Why isn't this guy president?

[KedViper]

@nightwolf117610 Florida

[damasta00138]

@KedViper lol

[Mother3pla3r]

@nightwolf117610 becuase our electorates are idiots

[claudius2u]

Al Gore IS all about destroying Internet access for 99% of citizens. His investments into Global Warming banking schemes to bilk taxpayers of trillions of our money, and take control of our elected governments is his legacy. Keep this dangerous shill away from government, if you value freedom!

[superbob314]

The best thing about the fact that the right wing retards always getting their way in America is that eventually they will strike down any net neutrality standards and when no one gets to view anything but corporate, ISP controlled content, I'll never have to look at another fucking manbearpig or Al Gore invented the internet "joke". Thank fucking Christ.

[macplumber]

This guy is Full of Shit! Belongs to large Telco Corps

[colts18to87td]

I'm Super SERIAL!!!! lol

[sgiff]

Well All Gore should know since he invented the internet, lol. Seriously I cant believe this guy even shows his face after the whole global warming sham was proven to be faked. The problem is not Net Neutrality, it's about how we control net neutrality and it should be controlled in the courts and by the free market, not by government mandate which anytime you give a government entity like the FCC new powers to regulate it always comes back to haunt the American people. Wake up America.

[saper321]

Internet is working fine as is. Why introducing government control AKA Net Neutrality now? FCC is the reason you can say "fuck" on TV. Why would you want those people to control the internet?!? Think people, think!!!

[MEpianist]

@saper321 You think, you fucking hack-idiot. THINK FOR A CHANGE! The status-quo is Net Neutrality, proponents of which believe ISPs are threatening the status-quo with monopolistic structuring of our cables. They are trying to replace NetFlix with OnDemand and WebTV with DRM-malware. You need to wake the FUCK UP and stop doing the bidding of the ISPs. Learn something. Open your eyes, shit-for-brains.

[saper321]

@MEpianist

Your tone is disrespectful.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 You are a hack and know nothing about NN. Read "Neutrality Or Bust" on TechCrunch. Thanks.

[saper321]

@MEpianist

You will get your wish soon. Once the FCC starts closing and censoring websites, I assume it will be for... "greater good" right??? They should call it Net Neutralizer.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 What the fuck is wrong with you, hack? Seriously, where do you get your bullshit? It's such a pure distilled form of lobbyist drivel, I'm tempted to just accuse you of working in telecom PR. Look, when the FCC (the impotent, oft-defeated group of morons) starts censoring the internet, I'll be in the fucking streets with you. No doubt. But that fact is, the FCC has no mandate to regulate the internet. What I want is Net Neutrality.

BTW, ever heard of ICE?

[saper321]

@MEpianist

If you want Net Neutrality tell FCC to G.T.F.O.

I want free internet, and the number one threat right now is FCC and US government.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 You just don't know what you're talking about. ICE is greater a threat than the FCC, first off. Secondly, FCC has no power to regulate. Thirdly, ISPs are going to destroy the internet if you keep it up, shit-for-brains.

[saper321]

@MEpianist

"Net Neutrality" bill will give FCC the power to regulate the internet.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 What bill, retard?

[kev3d]

@MEpianist How will the "ISPs destroy the internet"? Why would ISPs block access when they earn money by providing it? The unnamed bill from Henry Waxman sounds rather innocent...Broadband ISPs must provide equal service to "legal" sites (lest they face a $2M fine) but when has the government EVER stopped with just one regulation? Also what is a "legal" site? Legal where? How can one state impose it's laws on another?

[kev3d]

@saper321 Quite right, and in some ways, it has already happened, but with the DHS and not the FCC yet. The DHS has seized a number of domains that "facilitate copyright infringement"....all without a hearing on the matter (goodbye due process!). The FCC, as we know, censors TV and Radio, issues fines for what it deems a violations, yet people want to invite that vampire to oversee the web. The only role the government has is impartial contract enforcement, for which we already have laws.

[bjarnet3]

Al Gore wants the Government to control it... LOLOLOL... Socialists

[DavidPennable]

Ocelot was not told the whole truth, S3 does not stand for Solid Snake Simulation,what it does stand for is Selection for Societal Sanity.  mgs2 GW AI

[k445barnes]

It is the Corporations that want to end neutrality and control content- Not the government! If you want to save the internet as you know it, look up the congressmen and senators for your state and email or call their comment line.

[HexTest]

@k445barnes - Wow, noticed Google and Amazon have expressed support for this kind of thing. I wonder what they might have to gain...

[claudius2u]

@HexTest

Google CEO and All media execs are in banking business with Al Gore, and his banker buddies goal to take over all nations of the world. Go check out 'bilderberger,' OK?

[HexTest]

@claudius2u - Interesting! Now the connections are starting to make sense. Thanks man! ;D

[kalumnist]

Gore: "Do you agree (with Net Neutrality)?" Yes Sir! Hopefully the young people in this country will wake up in time to save both themselves and the country. Companies should be able to charge more for premium service. Libs are peddling the lie that big corporations (the enemy) will censor the internet. But more likely it is the government. Especially when they can download whatever the want about anybody. Including financial information. It's a Trojan.

[saper321]

If Al Gore is "all for it" I'm all against it. Net Neutrality is a Trojan horse to introduce government regulations for internets.

[migraine516]

@saper321 It's the regulation of corporate control that keep the internet free and innovative. In this case "government regulation" doesn't mean the government controlling what YOU do on the net. It only means that corporations can't control what you do on the Net, because the government protects YOUR rights.

[saper321]

@migraine516

If Net Neutralist becomes a law, and all the "unintended consequences" become evident, I hope you will come back here and apologize to everybody who read your comments in support of that monster.

That makes me wonder if Lenin would apologize if he was alive today. Doubt it.

[migraine516]

@saper321 its already in practice, it's the threat of it being disabled that is in danger.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 You fucking MORON! We have NN now. The ISPs are trying to undermine that and shut down competition. Just because Rush Limbaugh says it, doesn't make it good economics. Sometimes the gov't can intervene to prevent monopolies and anti-trust behaviour.

What "unintended consequences" -- be specific -- could possibly come from adopting a law that says all packets are created equal?

[saper321]

@MEpianist

OK. If we have net neutrality right now then why change it. Your logic is eating itself. But please I enjoy when you are calling me a "fucking MORON", it warms my heart.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 No it doesn't, and I won't stop telling the truth about you. We do have net neutrality now. Nothing would "change" if the FCC adopted a rule that guaranteed it. Such a rule is being recommended because ISPs are trying to discriminate. You must get your opinions from hacks who are being paid by telecoms. There is no other possible explanation for your fucking astounding amounts of bullshit.

[saper321]

@MEpianist

How about we wait for those EVIL ISPs to actually discriminate before we do something about it. As far as I'm concerned the internet is working fine as is. No need to get government monopoly involved just yet. And please feel free to use more curse words, it makes your point look more valid.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 Yes certainly I am more persuasive that you are, but I don't require any lexical guidance from complete morons and AM-listeners like you. Your position is absurd and risible. This is clear from what you say: "let's wait until the ISPs discriminate until we act." Understand now the purpose of my humanitarian intervention on your posts? Understand that you never cared about NN to begin with, and that was clear to all as you lied?

[saper321]

@MEpianist

You are definitely entitled to your opinion.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 You are of course entitled to oppose NN, like a telecom lobbyist or AM-listener. But I will judge you.

[saper321]

@MEpianist

Please, judge me.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 And harshly.

[saper321]

@MEpianist

Do your worst.

[MEpianist]

@saper321 I already have.

[saper321]

@MEpianist

Good.

[bagadonuts112294]

why the fuck is this video getting dislikes. It is good for the people on the internet to have net neutrality, Yet this gets fucking dislikes. NET NEUTRALITY=FREEDOM ON THE INTERNET.

[JazistheGreatest]

@bagadonuts112294 well said. i agree

[loyalzerg]

He said it wrong its the tubes not the pipes.

[Edwardlbaker]

The only thing more egregious than having ISP's intrude on consumer's network activities is having the Federal government do it over the ISP's. Internet Service Providers are merely corporations in an oligopolist marketplace whereas the Federal government is the single largest and most powerful entity in the country with the ability to create and enforce legislation that may potentially be unconstitutional and harmful to both consumers and producers alike.

[raparee001]

@Edwardlbaker The underlying question here and for many other issues facing us today is do the needs or wants of a few powerful corporations outweigh those of the many or the American people? What would happen if government stopped regulating the power, phone and cable companies or the banks and credit card companies were permitted to charge whatever interest and penalties they wanted, wherever and whenever they wanted?

[papapetad]

@raparee001 It's a fine line they're treading. Basically we've been hammered by concepts of scarcity and the inevitable rise in living costs etc... So we are used to the idea and all they have to do is to know at which point the masses will say "fuck off that ain't happenin", and raise the bar to somewhere there. But I think it's getting out of control. The population is increasing rapidly, resources are being pilfered to all hell and soon the castle will crumble. What happens then...well...

[raparee001]

@raparee001 What happens then is simple -- the so-called New World Order will be established and there won't be anything we can do about it! Right now, Obama and the Government are not the problem! Special Interests are the problem! A major function of Government is and should be to maintain a balance between the needs of the few vs. the needs of the many. Right now, the scale is heavily tipped on the side of the few.

[SGTProduction]

Half MAN Half BEAR Half PIG. Controlling the internet is very bad... MMMKKK ????

[ShowtimeLakers87]

This is probably the only thing I agree with Al Gore on. I can't stand the global warming theory that seeks to tax people.

[jzev]

Al Gore invented lulz.

[notthecheatr]

True fact: Al Gore invented the internet.

[olstar18]

@notthecheatr A true fact that is not bullshit. Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet. He did however claim to have taken part in writing a series of bills that helped with the creation of the internet. And guess what, he was telling the truth.

[notthecheatr]

@olstar18 I know, I was kidding ;P

[happinessisnowhere]

I think pre-emptive war is a good analogy, not lietrally of course. In the sense that government expansion & control in the name of protecting us only ends up taking away more of our freedoms (think Patriot Act, FISA...etc).

They sell you the poison w\ feel-good-misleading titles. "Net Neutrality" sounds good, right...eveyones treated equal, greedy corporations wont do you harm. But who will be the wise overseer that will determine what gets displayed > The Government! RUN AWAY RUN AWAY!

[yojimbo1981]

@happinessisnowhere

As well as the unintended consequences;)

No, the unintended consequences would in fact be part of the effect. Maybe you think you read intended effect.

I think pre-emptive war is a good analogy

The OPs point was, in essence, that all preemptive action taken by the government is bad. That is wrong, it is in fact so wrong its dangerous.

[yojimbo1981]

In the sense that government expansion & control in the name of protecting us only ends up taking away more of our freedoms

What might the expansion of corporate powers do to us? Or did you skip over the part about Robber barons in history class

The idea is to keep both of them, the government and corporations, form doing us harm. Might we do something crazy like make regulations that say neither corporations nor the FCC (government) are allowed to mess with what is in and on the net?

[stlstringssteve]

This is where you're wrong. Corporations are subject to market forces. Government is subject to lobbying, which is why regulation is a bad idea. Regulation allows the government the ability to pick winners. Market forces do a better job at keeping the prices low and the service levels high. Market competition is a good thing. Your robber baron comment is laughable.

[yojimbo1981]

Corporations are subject to market forces. Government is subject to lobbying,

What exactly do you imagine market forces to be? Are you a millionaire that just happens to hangout on Youtube a lot; because if you are not market forces dont mean anything good for you. Lobbying isnt the only thing that has an effect on government. VOTING or protesting or petitioning; those also have an effect on government and they don't, necessarily, cost anything

[yojimbo1981]

Market forces do a better job at keeping the prices low and the service levels high.

Who said ANYTHING about price control? Its not enough to state something as fact and move on. Thats called natural law language and is at the base of the worst forms of specious reasoning.

Do you happen to know WHY market forces supposedly do a better job? Or are you repeating FOX news talking points...

[yojimbo1981]

Market competition is a good thing. Your robber baron comment is laughable.

Who said competition is a bad thing; are we having the same conversation? Is the statement laughable because you dont seem to have any form of actual rebuttal for it? Because that seems pretty funny to me as well

[yojimbo1981]

Your objection seems to be that regulations wont be perfect. Well wow, whod of thunk it. But, just because it wont be perfect doesnt mean it wont be better than doing nothing. You are not powerless in this situation.

Government action is not necessarily good or bad. Corporate action is not inherently good. You need to look at the world practically and not attempt to commit forms of logical suicide in pursuit of making the world conform to you presumptions and ideals.

[olstar18]

@stlstringssteve Seems like you do not know what robber baron refers to. Good example is standard oil. Do you realize how many competitors had buildings that suddenly burned down when they could not be bought out and were still able to compete. Market competition is definetly a good thing and keeps prices from getting to high but if left completely unregulated can lead to someone getting rid of the competition legally or otherwise and creating a monopoly. In a monopoly there is no competition.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

Isn't the idea of having a monopoly to raise the price of your good or service once the competition has been eliminated?

As for net neutrality, one need only look at the countries that have a net neutrality bill already in place. Australia passed there bill and already they are talking about the government filtering content just like they do in China. New Zealand gov is filtering content and wont allow Alex Jones Prison Planet in the country. Net N means government censorship

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal No need to explain net neutrality to me. I already know about it and have been writing my congressmen about in support of it.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

How the hell can you be in support of the government censoring the internet. Thats what this bill will do. Ask an Australian or New Zealander what happened when their governments passed net neutrality. In Australia they are discussing removing all adult content, for the good of their citizens.

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal The adult content situation in Australia is NOT net neutrality. Net Neutrality is what the internet started out doing. No one could restrict you from going to websites on the internet. I am tired of you conspiracy nuts always claiming everything is an attempt at control. Is it the government trying to control everything when they allow monopolies on things like natural gas but put severe restrictions on when and why they can raise prices. Net Neutrality needs to be law.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18If the content restrictions in Aus aren't net neutrality then what is it?

Who has a monopoly on natural gas? Why do you find it hard to believe that the governemnt wants to control content when they have come out and said that they want to control content? Ever heard of the fairness doctrine?

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal My area has only 1 supplier for natural gas (monopoly) but there are several regulations governing how much and why they can raise the prices. They made a few bad decisions on when to buy gas a few years ago causing expenses to go through the roof but they could not just raise the price they had to explain exactly how much and why they needed to raise the price and send it to some government office for approval before they could do anything

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18 The reason your area only has one gas provider is because of gov regulations. The gov creates monopolies, history has shown it is the only way they can exist. There is no historical evidence for a natural monopoly in the free market, EVER.

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal Try picking up a history book.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18 Net neutrality is not what the net started out doing, or the government would not need to pass a bill, now would it? Either you are a political hack trolling to spread disinformation or you are retarded, which is it?

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal There is a third option. You are to ignorant enough to pay attention to the fact that the who commotion over net neutrality started when the deadline for the old law passed.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

So net neutrality was a law that expired? When

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

Hey when Rockefeller got his "monopoly" with Standard Oil, how much did he raise the price of Kerosene? You agree that the reason to have a monopoly is to eliminate competition so you can raise your prices, right? So how high did the robber baron raise prices once the competition was eliminated?

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal 3 posts for one of mine and you have done little but display ignorance and try to insult me.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

WTF does that have to do with anything? You didn't answer any questions, so why even reply? Do you not have any evidence to support your argument.

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal How about the fact that you can't tell the difference between censorship and laws preventing isps from throttling and content control. By the way thats part of what net neutrality really is. If you want more info you can always look at the fuckin wiki.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

Correct me if Im wrong but didn't Aus use a bill similar to NN to monitor the ISP's and are now using this bill to censor huge portions of the web for "the good of the people"? Considering this administration is talking about the Fairness Doctrine which is blatant censorship, why would you trust them not to behave like many of the other governments around the world and censor content? You can be rest assured in this NN bill there will be language permitting censorship

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

Have you not figured out that congress rights 2000 page bills that no one reads. When they pass net neutrality, and they will, you will see censorship immediately. This is what communist regimes do. Its what Chavez just did, and its what Obama will do. Research some of the folks in his cabinet and the czars, these people aren't about freedom, they are all about socialism and communism and tyranny and misery.

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal Says either the conspiracy theorist or the bush worshiper. Can't tell which yet. Oh and communism is not a government it is an economic system. Its just that dictatorships and oligarchys have been using it lately. Socialism in todays usage is more along the lines of the government controling essentials like power and health care and the government is in no way going to bring in actual communism as that would take to much away from their wealthy supporters.

[jjrglobal]

@jjrglobal R U trying to judge my political leanings by my name. JJR are my initials and the name of the company I work for is Trans Global Energy, but since it must mean so much to you, I couldn't stand Bush, but I love him compared to Obama. Im a Ron Paul Austro Libertarian that understands government fucks up everything it touchs and leaves a hell of a lot of bodies in its wake. I wonder how many people like you were around in Russia right before the Bolsheviks took power. I bet millions

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

In New Zealand the Gov is blocking political sites that they find offensive. If you cant see the slippery slope then something is wrong with your vision.

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal That is not net neutrality that is censorship.

[olstar18]

@happinessisnowhere So we should have internet companies blocking or limiting access to their competitions websites or making them pay to make their site more accessible. There is regulation and there is control. Preventing such practices is regulation. If you can not understand the difference go buy yourself a dictionary.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

Why aren't ISP's already blocking or limiting access to their competitors websites? If you give the FCC control, mark my words, content will be restricted and censored. It has happened in every country that has implemented a net neutrality bill and given their gov control instead of private business.

[stlstringssteve]

There's no evidence this is happening, We should treat preemptive lawmaking the same way we should treat preemptive war strikes - "Do your homework first!"

[yojimbo1981]

A preemptive war is not analogous to a preemptive law, at least not in this case. In a war people DIE. If they made a preemptive law about this, most likely, the worst thing that might happen is the law stifles the market. Preemption is not, by definition, a bad thing. I mean are condoms inherently evil? Like most other things its all about the effect the action will have

[happinessisnowhere]

"...the effect the action will have"

As well as the unintended consequences;)

[olstar18]

@yojimbo1981 Plus if the law turns out to be a bad decision they can always pass amend it or replace it entirely.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

Oh yeah, since government has a good track record of giving back power once they realize they fucked up!!LOL you have git to be fuckin kiddin right?

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal And your only problem with net neutrality is paranoia. Look in the yellow pages I'm sure you'll find a nice psychiatrist to talk to you and give you plenty of drugs.

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal Oh and you still havn't shown me anything connecting net neutrality and censorship.

[jjrglobal]

@olstar18

Australia and New Zealand. China's government also "regulates" its internet. Any place on the planet that censors content is an example because it is all done by the government. Private businesses are not the culprit. By giving the Fed Gov control it will eventually lead to censorship, maybe not right away, but eventually. History proves my point. Why do you trust the government, not just ours but any of them. You know corporations dont invade other countries and massacre millions

[olstar18]

@jjrglobal You have yet to make a coherent connection between telling isps that they can not restrict what websites or programs we are allowed to use and censorship. And historicaly there has been a great deal of censorship in the united states but as time passes those laws have been declared unconstitutional one after the other. Oh and you still havn't made a connection between net neutrality and censorship. Censorship in other countries has nothing to do with a Net Neutrality bill here.

[Keeban3]

Its good to hear the opinion of the man that made the internet. I have no idea what the hell he's saying. Net neutrality is about controlling bandwidth not content. I'm pretty sure hes against it, but he doesn't know what it is.

[ptangboy]

Al Gore is such a pleasant fellow until you suggest that maybe there isnt a "consensus on the science" of man made global warming. Well, then your basically a terrorist in his eyes.

[Janusha]

@ptangboy

And stupid in everybody elses eyes.

[gzozgo]

@ptangboy He's a pleasant fellow until you spout dangerous lies... sounds about right

[lisa313jones]

Fuck you Al Gore ! Cool Palm song

[AnotherAlexChannel]

AL WHORE

[sinitskyd]

As internet inventor Mr. Gore is entitled to setting ruls of internet. As inventor of man-made global warming he is also entitled to profiteering from cap-and-trade.

[Jinu187]

Gore is a god guy but he doesnt really know what hes talking about since he talks so non-specifically.. He tries to be a peoples politician, always in favor of the obvious good causes like global warming and net neutrality that opposes the large corporations.. why wouldnt people like this guy? Hes always playing the nice role :) I guess it works for me.

[4K4K1K0]

You mean he's like the nice guy from next door?

[RegressLess]

Just read the bill, people: "H.R. 3458" Like always, the public goes off on what they think is right without reading the stinking bill. If the guy who invented the Internet is behind it, it must be a good thing. For those of you who don't know, that was a joke.

[xtoda]

well it happened again I posted a comment under the character count and it wasn't posted didn't even use profanity.This has happened several times before was this the you tube crew? Please let me know !?!?

[jejeroy]

if they do that lets do internet 2 that its ...

[tegl1n]

Service providers are responsible for one thing only: moving data packets from point A to point B. They need to carry out this responsibility without regard to the contents of the data packets. AND if the service provider is unable to accommodate the demands of it's users, it must expand its network infrastructure.

[RIAAInformant]

@tegl1n

Not if those point A to B packets contain copyrighted information.

We reserve the right to shut down your Internet access and reject proposals to upgrade or service decayed infrastructure, if said lines are being used to pirate copyrighted content such as illegal digital copies of music and movies.

[DavidPennable]

@RIAAInformant hidemyassDOTcom proxy through an Icelandic server

[wildnites558]

Gore:

"Now there is a legitimate debate about how and when to introduce market signals into the allocation of scarce spectrum if some use is, you know, hogging uhhh bandwith or current in a particular system to the point where others are really being impacted...."

Does anybody even know what he means by this superficial gobbledeegook! What he really means is that he's in favor of a tiered pricing structure on the interent ( like your cable TV bill). No more pay-one-price and surf anywhere.

[RegressLess]

I'm no Gore supporter, but let's not take what he said out of context. He said that maybe something needs to be worked out, but not by restricting access to the competition. The host reiterates this idea at the end and Al Gore agrees.

[spadabear]

Did you actually listen to what he is saying? Sure he says corporation has concerns that may be legitimate. Some of those concerns are legitimate. The quote you chose to use is not complete, and does embody what he is trying to communicate.

[wildnites558]

Sounds to me like Al Gore likes the idea of a tiered price structure on the internet (which is actually anti-net neutrality). Just listen to how he talks so non-specifically

[Rickardio54321]

Al Gore you are such a [greedy or stupid... I can't figure it out] piece of shit. Please just be quiet and stay in your big-ass home.

[propagandeclan]

I want free internets to spend on the interwebs.