So the same institution that fucked up my Social Security (i.e. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) wants to regulate the Internet??? Go ahead... ask me why I'm against this.
You know what, let's turn it the other way round. Maybe ISP's should be paying all the "content providers" out there for all the free content they give them, which they make a profit over by selling to their customers in the form of bandwidth. How do you like that, comcast?
Actually this video is Backwards, Net Neutrality law would let our government control what we can see and what we cant, and its much worse than what our ISP can do because its MUCH easier to influence ISP than Uncle Sam. free market is the way to go if My comcast decides to block google i will sue them and switch to ATT or something else, but if there is a law that permits it by the government you cant do squat because all ISP's will have to do it
@NIGHTMAREuki you do realize that net neutrality would actually prohibit both the ISP's AND the government from regulating internet? how many "network providers" are there in the US? I bet you can count them in the fingers of one hand. In many areas, there is only one or two available. Do you really call that a choice? And what if AT&T and comcast teamed up to throttle certain sites, who will then protect you from huge corporations you have no control over?
@iateyourgranny its not happening today, is it? net neutrality act would give the control of internet over to uncle sam and that is a bad thing because there would actually be someone in charge of it unlike right now. thanks to that act sites would be blocked for political and financial reasons, any alternative news sites would be gone right away, then lobbyists would get involved and say goodbye to the only free realm we have left
Here in Chile (Netherlands have antother similar law) we've a law to encourage ISPs to bring full transparent conections, it's called the "net neutrality" law, it's a good thing, but the ISP often find "lawyer tricks" to bypass the laws, spetially on not-well informed clients. Hope the rest of the world will take this path, and don't get fooled , Network security is not affected by this aproach.
It's wrong but I am sick of not being able to unsubscribe to forums and message boards. Maybe net neutrality will allow me to unsubscribe. I am also sick of moderators who don't do or get to moderate properly while at the same time have too much where every little shit word spellls out as ****
it's a fact from beginning of roman empire .. man .. internet is just creation . something like government .. what the hell you expect from it?! I hope you understand what I mean ... if not respect anyway :)
what if one day you decided to look up some thing on youtube at the same time as 1 million other people, and youtubes ISP was not allowed to charge youtube for more bandwidth. I will tell you what will happen, it will take forever to get to youtube, and even longer to view the video that you want to watch. THAT IS NET NEUTRALITY IN A NUTSHELL. Kiss flash media goodbye, kiss youtube goodbye, kiss social networking goodbye...IDIOTS
Why would you want the Fed.Government to pass net neutrality? They're the ones who are pushing to regulate the internet, not continue to keep it free. I agree with Ron Paul's stance on this, get rid of regulations to push for competition amongst ISPs. Sure it sucks that they slow down certain sites, but you have to remember, you signed a contract agreeing that the ISP has the power to control content/traffic, you are "renting" their services. We don't need more government...
Why would you want the Fed.Government to pass net neutrality? They're the ones who are pushing to regulate the internet, not continue to keep it free. I agree with Ron Paul's stance on this, get rid of regulations to push for competition amongst ISPs. Sure it sucks that they slow down certain sites, but you have to remember, you signed a contract agreeing that the ISP has the power to control content/traffic, you are "renting" their services. We don't need more government...
The government doesn't want to control the internet, but they dont want corporations to have total control. If net neutrality is gone then we will have BIG problems. companies like Comcast will easily make 1 trillion/yr. Just ask yourself why these corporations are fighting the FCC if they care about the peoples wants/needs. If internet freedom is what the corporations want then this wouldn't be an issue. The government does control the internet but only if the internet is fairly open to all.
Of course it wants to control the internet, it wants to control it to favor the big corporations so the big corporations in turn give their campaign funds millions of dollars. That's how regulation works and always has worked.
Just look at Obamacare and see how it is only the small and medium businesses suffering, because the big corps can take the costs.
Also if Big Corp wanted to dominate the Net, wouldn't they have already done it by now?
AT&T is now limiting EVERYONE's home Internet usage. They have 150GB - 250GB cap depending on service. So forget about gaming and online videos such as Netflix or Hulu.
I've read some comments that this isn't a problem yet, but it is fast becoming one. Take Comcast capping their Internet at 250GB (which affects Netflix) and then offering their own video on demand service that bypasses the cap. And as for switching ISPs: what happens when all ISPs figure out they can make more money this way, such as AT&T. If all the ISPs decide to limit traffic in the same manner then the consumer has few to no choices left except to not have Internet access.
Yes I want OUR government to make net neutrality law. Gov is not controlling the web, but establishing rules for fair play. We are told to be afraid of big government but what about powerful corporations? Corp Am is as much a threat to our freedoms as big gov. In order for capitalism to work, we need rules and competition. Corp Am doesn't care about either. If they can restrict what we see or read to protect their profits, they will. I want Capitalism not Corporatism!
Errrm. Unfortunately, capitalism can be used for greed.
What we really need is a CO-OP government. This is a harsher form of democracy where all public (including employees/employers), get equal share of their rights. 'equal capitalism and rights'.
No one should be at the top, just because they have a degree/smarter in something.
I'm only covering a dent of what needs to be done.
Most people will have no trouble downloading text and/or music. Issue is movies and other high-bandwidth websites. But why should low-bandwidth users subsidize high-bandwidth users? Or high-bandwidth users be denied the right to get the product of their choice? Look at the messenger. Al Gore.
@banq0o No its really not. This is sort of what I do for a living. The architecture of the internet is hardened against this sort of thing. The internet works off of advertising. Major websites rely on hitting a number of different networks to keep up and running. What ISP is going to offer internet without youtube or facebook? It wont sell. You can't imagine the support problems that would be involved with trying for just a youtube/facebook internet.
LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!
Get the word out and make this a popular video!!!!!
@Smann54 Really not hard to do. Computer science networks class and econ 101 should make a strong case against this BS. Its ironic that he uses VOIP in this video because VOIP and other time dependent protocols like gaming and real time video ought to be prioritized above other traffic. The computer science definition of net neutrality is basically treat all data the same. Not to mention if you're plugged in you can hit any connected endpoint and "blocking" is futile.
@lizard450 The ISP can block any website they want (except, of course, it's "illegal" to do so in the US, but as far as I can tell that only applies toward blocking american websites). Even now, our beloved Facebook actually blocks any links or content from (can't post name). People are looking at the word freedom more and more like it's something you can just claim, regardless of whether you truly have it or not. As long as money keeps telling us what to do, there will never be freedom.
@Fryilluh Its technically impossible for an ISP to absolutely block someone's access to content on the internet. Its the freaking architecture of the internet. Hi! I'm a proxy have we met? Remember the second the Egypt revolutions started there were tutorials on proxies? Then they shut down the ENTIRE internet in Egypt because "blocking" wasn't working.
@Smann54 Should be REALLY easy to do. For example in Egypt they had filters on the internet... immediately there were tutorials on how to use proxies ... presto... 3 days later Egypt shut down the ENTIRE internet. That is the only way. Either you reduce the internet to the point where you can no longer call it the internet or you put up BS blocks which people will go around. The difference is who do you want telling you not to go to wikileaks Comcast or the US Government with swat teams?
Net neutrality is a principle which advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or the modes of communication.
Those greedy remote surgeons, military drone pilots, and cell phone makers will never get to our free internet now. Let's keep them on their niche telecom networks, and keep the internet for lulcats! A bit is a bit, whether it's for medical consultation, phone calls, or porno!
@shmeebegek1 When an ISP offers you "NETBOOST" for example, offering double internet speeds for $20 extra/month, what are they doing? The fact is that they withhold bandwidth anyway, and they charge you extra to enable your signal to use more of it. If net neutrality is taken away, do you really think they will do any different when offered a big contract from Coke.com to 'encourage' more fans of Pepsi.com to try their site? If you think rich people don't plot to get richer you're a fool.
@Fryilluh What do you mean if it's taken away? It's not law yet. The proposal is to create net neutrality. Right now there is no law, and no problem as of yet. It's all purely hypothetical. Personally, if I were a user of pepsi.com and found it to be slower than coke.com, I would look to switch to an ISP that allowed me to access pepsi.com with the desired rapidity.
The creator of this video assumes that ISP customers as too stupid to switch ISPs if their current service is limiting them. They are also assuming that ISP are not in competition with each other and wouldn't blast negative PR on each other if they found out their competitors are taking up these practices. No ISP has done any of this to date because they know they will get terrible PR and lose more customers than its worth.
well in the name of evolution there might be one ISP that doesn't block any websites, people will go to that provider and they will make money. but that only happens if your not willing to change to yahoo
if any of you think the government sticking their nose in the net is going to make it better you are out of your mind. it will become more expensive, less accessible, and who knows what else. same thing happens every time the government gets involved. we never learn our lesson do we?
I was replying to your comment that contained the following absolute: "It will become more expensive, less accessible... same thing happens every time the government gets involved."
"Net Neutrality" is a backwards way to say "Net Neutrality applies ONLY to BIG Brother, NOT you and I, common citizens. Get he facts BEHIND "Net Neutrality"! It is the worst thing for free-use of the Internet by 99% of citizens.
You are an idiot if you can't see the problem with this video. If one ISP blocks google and another blocks yahoo, a third will pop up an offer no blockage and everyone will switch to them. unless of course the ISP's lobby washington and have them pass some kind of "regulation" (which naturally will be in 'everyones' best interest) that makes it harder to: a switch ISP's or B: start up an ISP.
@mixmastermeeks As PDzero responded "In a true free market, you would be right." However, when it comes to your local network operator or ISP, almost everyone in America is faced with a duopoly: They get the internet through their cable provider (Cox, Comcast, etc) or through their phone provider (Verizon, AT&T, etc.). The internet that you access--is through their wires. If they suddenly decide they don't want you connecting to something, they can cut you off.
@mixmastermeeks The reason why it's usually a single telephone company and a single cable company that dominates the area is not necessarily because they fought the good fight and beat out competition through offering a better service and better pricing. Oftentimes it's because cities, counties, and localities took a common sense approach to writing their laws. And found it sensible to only allow one company to come in--tear up the ground--and lay down copper, cable, and fiber optic lines.
@mixmastermeeks Most took the stance that it would be utter chaos to let each new upstart come in and tear up the ground, the roads, and set up new lines every five minutes according to the whims of individual customers. So we end up with two major players dominating most--though not all--markets: the telephone company and the cable company. Not much choice when you consider those options.
How many are stupid enough to believe this crap? If your ISP sucks-you FIRE them and find another. That will fix the make believe connection problems that no-one has ever complained about!
Just like govt has been operating for too long now, it creates a problem then advertises itself as the answer to pass more regulations to CONTROL YOU...WAKE UP PEOPLE!
How many are stupid enough to believe this crap? If your ISP sucks-you FIRE them and find another. That will fix the make believe connection problems that no-one has ever complained about!
Just like govt has been operating for too long now, it creates a problem then advertises itself as the answer to pass more regulations to CONTROL YOU...WAKE UP PEOPLE!
However this isn't a free market. The French can choose between 15 and 20 major providers. Here, we have a small handful that are quickly merging to eat up the competition. In the event of a monopoly, the corporation will ultimately decide how much you pay (which would likely be unreasonable) and what you get for that price. Brawndo- It's got electrolytes.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to the United States Constitution, having been ratified in 1992, more than 202 years after its initial submission in 1789. so do some research before telling lies please.
net neutrality will only stifle free speech and other things. there is nothing wrong with the current net at all. all the companies that have tried doing things that would make the net bad usually stop once they lose a bunch of customers because of it. obama and his cronies would have you believe net neutrality is to protect you. but its a power grab. allowing net neutrality would be allowing government to control the web.
@gibblets17 Nothing in the Bill of Net Neutrality gives the government any power to control the internet, the bill only says that ISP's cannot block or slow down content from other sites.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD yeah because the fcc doesn't totally try to control all of television and the air waves right? governments first and only response to situations is to grab for more power. they think they are smarter then anyone else and thus have the right to control everyone else. when you buy service from and isp and they cut you off from certain sites. which most don't. you can sue them or you can leave. noon HAS to buy internet form a company. don't like their service then don't buy it!
@gibblets17 The government's decisions are regulated by the Supreme Court and Judicial branch, your implication that they grab power is not described in the Net Neutrality bill. The government first response is NOT power grabbing, it is there to protect consumers and protect the rights of the people, as it says in the Constitution, the FCC is the government program that keeps cigarette ads from being televised.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD where in the constitution does it say government has the power to regulate business? the fcc is also the organization that is trying and been trying to pass legislation to regulate the internet and cable tv. the only people who want regulation are socialists big government and big companies. regulation only hurts the consumer and the small businesses. the fcc is also the organization that wants to ban mature game sales.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD oh and while your fact checking my answer, try to check out the 10th amendment. that's a nice one. i like to quote it whenever someone believe the government has more abilities then it does.
@gibblets17 typo from wiki, The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, there are precedents set by them such as Roe vs Wade and so on, The Government has the power to protect consumers, all regulations have been created to protect the consumers
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD most regulations have actually been made to protect larger corporations form smaller companies pushing in on their territory. who do you think it is pushing for regulations? the corporations!!
@gibblets17 Actually no, its more like the other way around, the corporations are being regulated to protect the consumers, that has no bases to what you said. Corporations dislike regulations, Republicans are the primary support for the corporations and try to shut down any type of reform.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD actually no you dont understand shit. obamas main campaign contributors are big oil and industry. regulation doesn't hurt big corporations one bit. they can afford a little loss in revenue. especially when those same regulations strangle the life out of all their competition.
@gibblets17 regulations sure does, how about the Health Care reform that now says that Health care providers cannot deny someone because of pre existing conditions, or how about that same reform bill that says that health care providers must provide coverage to parents' kids up to the age of 26 now. Or the Anti-trust laws that were set up back in the early 1900's that prevented monopolies and set minimum wage standards and allowed the formation of unions, sounds like protection of the consumer.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD that nifty little health-care reform. will not hurt major health-care providers at all. they can afford to work through it and take the extra cost. but what about the little guys who barley make a dime to start with. this will increase costs for the little guys by a large amount. you do know some of the biggest proponents of obama care are the huge health care companies right? you cant regulate a industry without harming the small business sector.
@gibblets17 The health care reform only applies to partnerships in which they are a Limited Liability Corporation or in which they sell and distribute stock among people other than their semi-immediate family or large corporations in which they employ more than 100 people and distribute stock as well
Small businesses will remain unaffected as long as they are not LLC
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD that sounds nice. but not all small business is family run. and even with that. prices on health care will increase for everyone. the insurance companies wont take this on the chin. they will just charge more. its a ploy to make everyone switch to obama care. the same people who are trying to make everyone buy insurance is behind this.
@gibblets17 Yes but if health care reform didn't exist, I guess you'd have about 20% of the population of the US who cannot afford health care for themselves let alone to pay for their own doctors visits will just either live in debt for the rest of their lives because they took that life saving surgery or they will die because they did not
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD seeing as medicare is easy as hell to get that's compete bull. and as evil as it might sound i would rather a few thousand people a year die because they don't have insurance then have obama care drag our economy even further into the abyss. i mean if this was 15 years ago and we where fine i could see you guys arguing that we need to help the poor. but we just cant afford this stuff.
@gibblets17 If everyone could get medicare without being denied and they could get all of the coverage they needed, with no special conditions, then there would be no need for health care reform. But seeing that Medicare is "minimal" for coverage and not everyone can get it, its not a reliable source, even for a government funded program.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD i mean a large portion of our budget already goes towards medicare. its really staggering how much it costs our nation. and obama care makes that spending look absolulty pathetic in comparison. and its not even like they are talking real economics to make it work. they are trying to say they wont raise taxes and wont cut our budget spending to make room. and billing the top 3 % for it all is not the answer. they our our private sector. which is already ravaged!
@gibblets17 Unlike other countries like the UK and Canada who have universal health care, the US has the population and GDP to support this, in the UK, people are put on waiting lists for weeks and months for their special treatments, and their taxes are huge, simply because they lack the growth and wealth and population like the US has
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD well that would be swell and all. but we don't have the time. we have to prioritize. and our ballooning national debt comes first. as well as our growing national unemployment rate. one in 10 people don't have jobs. that's ridiculous. im more for getting everyone jobs so they can buy thier own insurance. and the best way t do that is for the government to stop intervening. i know you are not going to agree but the best way for the economy to recover is the government to f off
@gibblets17 well 1/10 isn't as bad as the 1/5 in france who don't have a job, simply because once you get a job over there, their law says that they instantly get tenner
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD roe vs wade was more about a persons right to abort if they so choose or if they're life is in danger. that has more to do with life and death and what constitutes a life then regulation by far. im telling you regulation kills innovation and industry. i mean if a company does something bad sue them. what happened to people defending themselves. why do we need boards of super powerful assholes who think hey have the right to rule the world controlling everything?!
Yes, there's no cost tagged directly onto the regulation, but this is business.
Fact being that if ISP's can't boost their own sales by coaxing customers into using products exclusively, then they can introduce premium rates and loyalty discounts for not going to competitiors material.
Add that onto p2p/spam slowing which need to be monitored under the bill and you suddenly have huge expenses. Plus this also begs the question of who decides what passes and what doesn't?
It's only perfect or fair competition because of the current, totally equal and totally available version of the internet currently out now.
With forced neutrality companies can turn to exclusive contracts [for example the latest vevo videos] and hike prices accordingly based on what content they can offer their customers.
@christube1989 the idea of net neutrality is to prevent ISP's from slowing down other websites so that their customers will use their websites that sponsor the ISP
say I like to use Yahoo, but Verizon is sponsored by Google, Verizon would stop or slow down service to the IP address of Yahoo, and then attempt to redirect me to google,
Correct, and the whole point is that forcing them to treat all data equally will
#1 incur costs
#2 encourage stratified versions of larger sites
The data would be treated equally -yes- that's not to say it's a good thing or that it would actually be more equal service. ISP signing contracts for intellectual property will just result in videos, artwork, news etc. being exclusive to one network.
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Net neutrality will only stop -data- from being slowed. *We know*
The point is that banning data discrimination between ISP's wont solve the problem and could even make it worse.
The only reason ISP's treat it equally now is because other ISP's treat their data equally, so everyone wins. Once the threat of having their own data slowed/blocked is gone the companies are free to pull any intellectual property they have available on the internet and make access exclusive.
It's complicated. Large ISPs want to make websites and organizations pay MORE to use a "fast lane" so to speak, while smaller websites and organizations are forced to use the slow lane. It hurts big companies, because they have to pay, and small companies because they have restricted access, but most importantly, it hurts YOU the most because in order to make up for the costs large organizations will charge you in some way (ads or fees) and the ISP ultimately benefits. Congress has to protect us
No, net neutrality isn't a law it's just the name of internet packets [data] being sent impartially by competing ISPs.
That is the original, and current state of the internet. What is starting to creep in is the idea of hostile bias [ISPs blocking, slowing or charging premium for access to competing company's material].
The debate in congress is over whether or not to moderate these actions or not - do we really need government consorship/capitalist corner cutting online?
@christube1989 Ok thanks for the clarification, that makes sense now.
I just worry that the gov. regulators will try to limit our Net freedoms (like in Egypt now!) and will call it "Net Neutrality"
Just like the "Bailouts" and "Patriot Act" all the really great sounding deals they have tricked us with before, only to find out later that we have lost our freedoms forever. But thats just me...
Government regulations will mean 1). budget cuts 2). higher taxes 3). less internet space 4). the death of P2P sharing
And *countless* other no no's. Giving the government control over the internet will just be one more thing that will be turned over to multi-national corporations, just for them to cut enough corners to turn a profit.
Think Vevo is annoying on youtube? Wait until they own the entire interwebs and you have to sit through ads just to read your email.
I think the "Digital Divide" project is part of government-controlled internet. Taxpayers already provide free cell phones for those on government assistance. You can get internet service at any public library. Tax payers are ALREADY paying for free internet for anyone that can’t afford it! The government wants to control the internet. What happened to freedom of speech? With only 49% of the USA paying taxes, seems to me "too many are riding in the wagon and not enough PULLING!"
All i ever see with these so called "net Neutrality" laws are hypthetoicals and "what if" scenaros. This is total statist propoganda based on assumptions and lies.
all you bitches that dont like this , get yr ass real. XD these companies control a whole lot of the way we . yr damn fucking right they should be controlled by us! not anyone else! i dont give a shit what kind of vain fucking schemes theyre hatching! cause they can suck my dick! yes right here in missouri! they can suck my dick! in missouri! suck my dick! hehe^^
@H4x1990 Yeah proxy and private servers.... The net neutrality that I heard of is internet providers blocking most websites and filtering them, and making you charge extra to use them. This website fee is on top of the monthly fee that they normally charge you.
@HexTest "3. You don't want the ability to switch to a new ISP in order to get fairer service." All of these are pretty laughable, but this one takes the cake. Americans have far fewer options to "switch to a new ISP" than other countries in the first world, let alone as if ISPs being forced to let us all see the same internet would mean we are less able to switch providers. Some of these are just so silly that it's hard to believe someone isn't paying you to say it.
It is clear that the intention of BT is to reshape the internet as an extension to traditional broadcasting. BT are aiming to privatise the internet for the commercial benefit of BT and selected 'Content Providers'. Ordinary citizens will be placed in the slow lane of a two-tiered internet and will find it increasingly difficult to broadcast their own video material. The Internet was built on the principles on net-neutrality where all content is treated equally. BT want to put an end to this.
so the goverment is going to make everything okay? Why cant the consumer just choose not to buy the internet service if they are pulling stunts like that. My internet has been working fine for all sites. Companies have to compete which means they need to please you the goverment has no competition so you might not like what you get but hey thats to bad. Consumers need to demand a product that works for all sites.
@FernandoTorrera Might as well be "the government" providing the service for how little competition there is in the US broadband market right now. According to several consecutive OECD studies, the US has been continually falling behind in broadband quality, pricing and choice/availability. If the market is going to be so shitty, I'd at the very least hope the incumbents (who are going nowhere) are at least somewhat obligated not to limit what any of us can see on the internet. That's all NN is.
Unity - not net Neutrality The only ones that will benefit from internet censorship is the corrupt government as the people will no longer know what’s really going on.
We need to Unite we the people so we can hold Governments accountable , we don’t have to force them to comply to our rules or wishes we just have to stop complying to theirs. It’s backwards, we need a constitutional government not a democracy that is all about mob rules
This will never happen, If any internet provider tried to do this it would not be long until its millions of users started to realize this was happening and it would cause a mass un-subscription from the internet provider and they would prob go out of business. Net neutrality is a scam from the illuminati to try and filter off the only connection to the real truth to try and save their butts. (Research)
@day7creation A mass un-subscription, so the former subscribers could seek out a provider (and there aren't many here in the US, especially compared to elsewhere) that would now have more reason to limit content, given there's one less competitor? When Adelphia went down in flames where I live, Comcast and Time Warner bought up their assets and negotiated to ensure the former subscribers could not have a choice between the two--they split the map. Either way the consumer loses. Some free market.
The free market is what regulates the internet providers because the free market is you the people not the FCC! If you don't like that Internet Service provider you choose not to do business with them. It is democracy in its purest form. The big corporations are the ones who love regulation because it eliminates competition. NET NEUTRALITY IS BULLSHIT!!!
@conanthebarbarian333 There isn't a "free market" in this country insofar as broadband is concerned. Today's cable and phone incumbents are more or less here to stay. "Big corporations love regulation" Wow, who the heck told you that? AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Qwest have all thrown massive amounts of money towards fake grassroots (astroturf) against net neutrality.
Why the hell would they want to be obligated to provide everyone equal access to content? That's laughable
@conanthebarbarian333 im glad there are still people who understand the power of the people in a free market. in this age of technology the internet is the final frontier that would allow for peaceful protest on a mass scale against oppression whether it be corporate or political.
@z0r ISPs would LOVE a walled-garden internet like what Apple has now with the iPhone. Why wouldn't a content access provider want to control your access to content completely? And what does regulation that would limit their control of our traffic (which they have absolutely abused, Comcast is a great example) do to oppress us, the consumer? You're essentially claiming that's the ultimate goal of the FCC here is "massive oppression", when in reality the FCC has balked from preventing oppression.
@rujiel17 in order for these rules to stick there going to have to legislate them. there's a bill thats been in the works for years now that they have been trying to slip through. my point is if we allow the fcc to plant their seed they will grow and over the years you will start to see them do what they do best.. censorship, thats how they make their money. government cannot solve every ailment and the more you give the more they will take.
@z0r Even in Australia where legislation to censor the internet came about, there was such negative feedback that they couldn't see it through. I find it hard to imagine the FCC mandating censorship of the internet, especially now that the notion's been demonized since China's doing the same thing. We have much more to fear from corporations in this regard than a commission like the FCC, especially considering the FCC, even Obama's,is beholden to none of us and all of the telecos/cable providers
@rujiel17 and the same is even more true of the senate and house, to respond to your point--they have only ISP's best interests in mind, not ours, and that equates to far less regulation.
@rujiel17 i find it very easy to imagine the FCC censoring certain sites. they would start off with something deemed illegal like internet gambling or terrorist recruiting sites, then over the years they would start with sites like wikileaks and so on and so forth until u dont know what hit you. and for what? the potential of corporations cutting deals? fuck that!
@z0r any how exactly would they go about this? When has the FCC ever had the authority to censor everything, let alone being involved in censoring content? In the early days of the internet they were certainly interested, but I'd like to know just what how they'd get the DHS or somesuch to block website access. I think people would roll over far more easily if corporations limit us than the government. The rhetoric of the former as of late has certainly turned people against the latter.
listen you have to understand that when these bills are passed its not 1 or 5 pages, its about 2,000 to 9,000 pages long riddled with fine print and ambiguous one liners that give the government alot more power than what was originally intended. Supporters of the bill read the title and think thats all it is.as years pass by more and more of the truth comes out and they realize how very wrong they truly were. politics101.
Tell your member of congress to keep their dirty mittens of net..or any free enterprise, unless you want your internet to be as efficient and successful as our public schools currently are
Thanks to poor public education, the federal government assumes it can put out a piece of bs video and the gullible public will swallow it. Those days are gone. We're alert, educated and involved. As another video (Peter Shiff) explained in plain English, this a solution looking for a problem - and a WRONG solution at that. I also couldn't help but notice they couldn't even use a human voice, but some computer-generated robotic crap. Pulleeze!
@astroterf1 "Solution looking for a problem" Untrue. Comcat, for example, has been caught time and time again shaping traffic (limiting torrents) and is now trying to coerce a tier 1 backbone provider into ponying up more money to make up for Netflix' data load. Of course ISPs shouldn't be able to determine what internet content we can reach. "Then switch providers!" Broadband options are abysmal in this country. Don't trust pundits like you are now. trust Tim Burners-Lee, creator of the W3.
So the same institution that fucked up my Social Security (i.e. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) wants to regulate the Internet??? Go ahead... ask me why I'm against this.
LameBrainMcCain 1 month ago
lots of "what if"'s
QuickSilverD 1 month ago
stop SOPA
as they say in anonymous, if the government shuts down your internet, shut down your government.
free speech!
RainAngel111 1 month ago 5
Comment removed
000MrJwright 1 month ago
Comment removed
000MrJwright 1 month ago
we need more dislike to put neutrality!
bengacris 2 months ago
You know what, let's turn it the other way round. Maybe ISP's should be paying all the "content providers" out there for all the free content they give them, which they make a profit over by selling to their customers in the form of bandwidth. How do you like that, comcast?
iateyourgranny 2 months ago
Actually this video is Backwards, Net Neutrality law would let our government control what we can see and what we cant, and its much worse than what our ISP can do because its MUCH easier to influence ISP than Uncle Sam. free market is the way to go if My comcast decides to block google i will sue them and switch to ATT or something else, but if there is a law that permits it by the government you cant do squat because all ISP's will have to do it
NIGHTMAREuki 2 months ago
@NIGHTMAREuki you do realize that net neutrality would actually prohibit both the ISP's AND the government from regulating internet? how many "network providers" are there in the US? I bet you can count them in the fingers of one hand. In many areas, there is only one or two available. Do you really call that a choice? And what if AT&T and comcast teamed up to throttle certain sites, who will then protect you from huge corporations you have no control over?
iateyourgranny 2 months ago
@iateyourgranny its not happening today, is it? net neutrality act would give the control of internet over to uncle sam and that is a bad thing because there would actually be someone in charge of it unlike right now. thanks to that act sites would be blocked for political and financial reasons, any alternative news sites would be gone right away, then lobbyists would get involved and say goodbye to the only free realm we have left
NIGHTMAREuki 2 months ago
Here in Chile (Netherlands have antother similar law) we've a law to encourage ISPs to bring full transparent conections, it's called the "net neutrality" law, it's a good thing, but the ISP often find "lawyer tricks" to bypass the laws, spetially on not-well informed clients. Hope the rest of the world will take this path, and don't get fooled , Network security is not affected by this aproach.
oxvaldus 2 months ago
It's wrong but I am sick of not being able to unsubscribe to forums and message boards. Maybe net neutrality will allow me to unsubscribe. I am also sick of moderators who don't do or get to moderate properly while at the same time have too much where every little shit word spellls out as ****
TheKtikat 2 months ago
it's a fact from beginning of roman empire .. man .. internet is just creation . something like government .. what the hell you expect from it?! I hope you understand what I mean ... if not respect anyway :)
banq0o 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Say "NO" to Net Neutrality!
BTW the internet has been around for roughly 20 years.....It's been wonderful! WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION!
I would want my ISP to give more bandwidth to YT than a website devoted to smiling kitties
This douche-tard wanting "net neutrality" is ignoring the almighty words of wisdom: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.
austenbosten 3 months ago
Comment removed
austenbosten 3 months ago
what if one day you decided to look up some thing on youtube at the same time as 1 million other people, and youtubes ISP was not allowed to charge youtube for more bandwidth. I will tell you what will happen, it will take forever to get to youtube, and even longer to view the video that you want to watch. THAT IS NET NEUTRALITY IN A NUTSHELL. Kiss flash media goodbye, kiss youtube goodbye, kiss social networking goodbye...IDIOTS
tsharpmac420 3 months ago
This is all propaganda bullcrap. Don't buy into this hype to rush in goverment regulations. Google + Government = Unsafe internet
raininginhell 4 months ago
Why would you want the Fed.Government to pass net neutrality? They're the ones who are pushing to regulate the internet, not continue to keep it free. I agree with Ron Paul's stance on this, get rid of regulations to push for competition amongst ISPs. Sure it sucks that they slow down certain sites, but you have to remember, you signed a contract agreeing that the ISP has the power to control content/traffic, you are "renting" their services. We don't need more government...
MidNiteR32 4 months ago
Why would you want the Fed.Government to pass net neutrality? They're the ones who are pushing to regulate the internet, not continue to keep it free. I agree with Ron Paul's stance on this, get rid of regulations to push for competition amongst ISPs. Sure it sucks that they slow down certain sites, but you have to remember, you signed a contract agreeing that the ISP has the power to control content/traffic, you are "renting" their services. We don't need more government...
MidNiteR32 4 months ago
Keep the truth out there. Don't let "them" regulate (control) the internet. Otherwise the truth will never be available.
VoltaireGrown 4 months ago
AAAAAAAAAAAAWWW FUUUUUCK
Fandeps3 4 months ago
The government doesn't want to control the internet, but they dont want corporations to have total control. If net neutrality is gone then we will have BIG problems. companies like Comcast will easily make 1 trillion/yr. Just ask yourself why these corporations are fighting the FCC if they care about the peoples wants/needs. If internet freedom is what the corporations want then this wouldn't be an issue. The government does control the internet but only if the internet is fairly open to all.
tourneytike13 4 months ago
@tourneytike13 Spoken like a true liberal.
Of course it wants to control the internet, it wants to control it to favor the big corporations so the big corporations in turn give their campaign funds millions of dollars. That's how regulation works and always has worked.
Just look at Obamacare and see how it is only the small and medium businesses suffering, because the big corps can take the costs.
Also if Big Corp wanted to dominate the Net, wouldn't they have already done it by now?
austenbosten 3 months ago
AT&T is now limiting EVERYONE's home Internet usage. They have 150GB - 250GB cap depending on service. So forget about gaming and online videos such as Netflix or Hulu.
urna55 5 months ago
The internet will be the frontline of WW3...
PurpleurpleUK 5 months ago
265 people like being raped
richd506 5 months ago
I've read some comments that this isn't a problem yet, but it is fast becoming one. Take Comcast capping their Internet at 250GB (which affects Netflix) and then offering their own video on demand service that bypasses the cap. And as for switching ISPs: what happens when all ISPs figure out they can make more money this way, such as AT&T. If all the ISPs decide to limit traffic in the same manner then the consumer has few to no choices left except to not have Internet access.
genezix 6 months ago
@genezix You say capping at 250GB is bad. You need to see Canada. Many services cap at 60GB at higher price than American unlimited plans.
KayleLang 6 months ago
This never happens...why regulate something that is not a problem?
willmassey373 6 months ago
@willmassey373 So it doesn't become a problem --which has been starting to happen.
sinistar99 6 months ago
Yes I want OUR government to make net neutrality law. Gov is not controlling the web, but establishing rules for fair play. We are told to be afraid of big government but what about powerful corporations? Corp Am is as much a threat to our freedoms as big gov. In order for capitalism to work, we need rules and competition. Corp Am doesn't care about either. If they can restrict what we see or read to protect their profits, they will. I want Capitalism not Corporatism!
jteeselink 6 months ago
Errrm. Unfortunately, capitalism can be used for greed.
What we really need is a CO-OP government. This is a harsher form of democracy where all public (including employees/employers), get equal share of their rights. 'equal capitalism and rights'.
No one should be at the top, just because they have a degree/smarter in something.
I'm only covering a dent of what needs to be done.
CrewRite 6 months ago
Most people will have no trouble downloading text and/or music. Issue is movies and other high-bandwidth websites. But why should low-bandwidth users subsidize high-bandwidth users? Or high-bandwidth users be denied the right to get the product of their choice? Look at the messenger. Al Gore.
kalumnist 7 months ago
Capitalism, isn't it beautiful? Srsly, <3
HeyRuka 7 months ago
Sigh...you people are so gullible :/
dragonking700 7 months ago
lol this is wrong.
lizard450 7 months ago
@lizard450 rofl it's a fact :)
banq0o 3 months ago
@banq0o No its really not. This is sort of what I do for a living. The architecture of the internet is hardened against this sort of thing. The internet works off of advertising. Major websites rely on hitting a number of different networks to keep up and running. What ISP is going to offer internet without youtube or facebook? It wont sell. You can't imagine the support problems that would be involved with trying for just a youtube/facebook internet.
lizard450 3 months ago
@lizard450
Websites get money off of advertising, but internet providers don't. They get money from subscriptions.
AmericanNohbuddy 2 months ago
LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!LIKE THIS VIDEO!!!
Get the word out and make this a popular video!!!!!
imthetopstoner 8 months ago
in my debate class i'm forced to argue against net neutrality.
Smann54 8 months ago
@Smann54 Really not hard to do. Computer science networks class and econ 101 should make a strong case against this BS. Its ironic that he uses VOIP in this video because VOIP and other time dependent protocols like gaming and real time video ought to be prioritized above other traffic. The computer science definition of net neutrality is basically treat all data the same. Not to mention if you're plugged in you can hit any connected endpoint and "blocking" is futile.
lizard450 7 months ago
@lizard450 The ISP can block any website they want (except, of course, it's "illegal" to do so in the US, but as far as I can tell that only applies toward blocking american websites). Even now, our beloved Facebook actually blocks any links or content from (can't post name). People are looking at the word freedom more and more like it's something you can just claim, regardless of whether you truly have it or not. As long as money keeps telling us what to do, there will never be freedom.
Fryilluh 6 months ago
@Fryilluh Its technically impossible for an ISP to absolutely block someone's access to content on the internet. Its the freaking architecture of the internet. Hi! I'm a proxy have we met? Remember the second the Egypt revolutions started there were tutorials on proxies? Then they shut down the ENTIRE internet in Egypt because "blocking" wasn't working.
lizard450 6 months ago
@Smann54 Should be REALLY easy to do. For example in Egypt they had filters on the internet... immediately there were tutorials on how to use proxies ... presto... 3 days later Egypt shut down the ENTIRE internet. That is the only way. Either you reduce the internet to the point where you can no longer call it the internet or you put up BS blocks which people will go around. The difference is who do you want telling you not to go to wikileaks Comcast or the US Government with swat teams?
lizard450 6 months ago
Net neutrality is a principle which advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet. Specifically, network neutrality would prevent restrictions on content, sites, platforms, the kinds of equipment that may be attached, or the modes of communication.
snapy666 8 months ago
Those greedy remote surgeons, military drone pilots, and cell phone makers will never get to our free internet now. Let's keep them on their niche telecom networks, and keep the internet for lulcats! A bit is a bit, whether it's for medical consultation, phone calls, or porno!
shmeebegek1 8 months ago
@shmeebegek1 When an ISP offers you "NETBOOST" for example, offering double internet speeds for $20 extra/month, what are they doing? The fact is that they withhold bandwidth anyway, and they charge you extra to enable your signal to use more of it. If net neutrality is taken away, do you really think they will do any different when offered a big contract from Coke.com to 'encourage' more fans of Pepsi.com to try their site? If you think rich people don't plot to get richer you're a fool.
Fryilluh 6 months ago
@Fryilluh What do you mean if it's taken away? It's not law yet. The proposal is to create net neutrality. Right now there is no law, and no problem as of yet. It's all purely hypothetical. Personally, if I were a user of pepsi.com and found it to be slower than coke.com, I would look to switch to an ISP that allowed me to access pepsi.com with the desired rapidity.
shmeebegek1 6 months ago
Watch Zeitgeist Addendum
Fryilluh 6 months ago
The creator of this video assumes that ISP customers as too stupid to switch ISPs if their current service is limiting them. They are also assuming that ISP are not in competition with each other and wouldn't blast negative PR on each other if they found out their competitors are taking up these practices. No ISP has done any of this to date because they know they will get terrible PR and lose more customers than its worth.
jimmybobw 8 months ago
Comment removed
jimmybobw 8 months ago
Name one instance where these big companies have provided special treatment to their other friends. GO!
bryanthomas108 8 months ago
If the service provider does not provide desired service, change service providers. You do have choices.
Do we need grocery neutrality? Some grocery stories do not stock some brands I like. Others do.
ggallman 8 months ago
@ggallman Genius, my friend!
bryanthomas108 8 months ago
Wow, this video is old. I just heard about this about a month ago.
KedViper 9 months ago
well in the name of evolution there might be one ISP that doesn't block any websites, people will go to that provider and they will make money. but that only happens if your not willing to change to yahoo
heretothink 9 months ago
if any of you think the government sticking their nose in the net is going to make it better you are out of your mind. it will become more expensive, less accessible, and who knows what else. same thing happens every time the government gets involved. we never learn our lesson do we?
RememberDeath2112 9 months ago
@RememberDeath2112
Yeah, look what happened when they broke up Standard Oil and Ma Bell... Oh wait, that was actually pretty cool.
DrTallTimber 9 months ago
@DrTallTimber you really think this is the same thing?
RememberDeath2112 9 months ago
@RememberDeath2112
No, but it's a precedent that we can learn from.
I was replying to your comment that contained the following absolute: "It will become more expensive, less accessible... same thing happens every time the government gets involved."
Was this true in the case of Standard Oil? No.
DrTallTimber 9 months ago
I swear if this shit happens, we have to, trolls and all, band together and destroy these bastards.
NoPhame 10 months ago 64
@NoPhame They are scared of trolls. Trolls provide information to people right away and wake them up. Trolls will pwned them.
AssassinationCitizen 6 months ago
@NoPhame YESSS
MegaCollegiate 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PETITION TO DISBAND COMCAST -OR ANY CORPORATION WHO THREATENS THE INTERNET AND OUR NET NEUTRALITY PROTECTIONS - Repost this if you agree
- IT"S ALSO THE PEOPLE"S RIGHT -TAKE THE BROADBAND FOR EMMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PEOPLE-WE HAVE THAT POWER
elfraz9 10 months ago
"Net Neutrality" is a backwards way to say "Net Neutrality applies ONLY to BIG Brother, NOT you and I, common citizens. Get he facts BEHIND "Net Neutrality"! It is the worst thing for free-use of the Internet by 99% of citizens.
claudius2u 10 months ago
oh please, take the primitive competitive tendencies out of the field, finally - let's move on, there's so much to discover about life
ilbanito 10 months ago
You are an idiot if you can't see the problem with this video. If one ISP blocks google and another blocks yahoo, a third will pop up an offer no blockage and everyone will switch to them. unless of course the ISP's lobby washington and have them pass some kind of "regulation" (which naturally will be in 'everyones' best interest) that makes it harder to: a switch ISP's or B: start up an ISP.
mixmastermeeks 10 months ago
@mixmastermeeks In a true free market, you would be right. Unfortunately, we don't have that right now.
PDzero 10 months ago
@mixmastermeeks As PDzero responded "In a true free market, you would be right." However, when it comes to your local network operator or ISP, almost everyone in America is faced with a duopoly: They get the internet through their cable provider (Cox, Comcast, etc) or through their phone provider (Verizon, AT&T, etc.). The internet that you access--is through their wires. If they suddenly decide they don't want you connecting to something, they can cut you off.
Miraclemunkee 9 months ago
@mixmastermeeks The reason why it's usually a single telephone company and a single cable company that dominates the area is not necessarily because they fought the good fight and beat out competition through offering a better service and better pricing. Oftentimes it's because cities, counties, and localities took a common sense approach to writing their laws. And found it sensible to only allow one company to come in--tear up the ground--and lay down copper, cable, and fiber optic lines.
Miraclemunkee 9 months ago
@mixmastermeeks Most took the stance that it would be utter chaos to let each new upstart come in and tear up the ground, the roads, and set up new lines every five minutes according to the whims of individual customers. So we end up with two major players dominating most--though not all--markets: the telephone company and the cable company. Not much choice when you consider those options.
Miraclemunkee 9 months ago
How many are stupid enough to believe this crap? If your ISP sucks-you FIRE them and find another. That will fix the make believe connection problems that no-one has ever complained about!
Just like govt has been operating for too long now, it creates a problem then advertises itself as the answer to pass more regulations to CONTROL YOU...WAKE UP PEOPLE!
wachobf 11 months ago
How many are stupid enough to believe this crap? If your ISP sucks-you FIRE them and find another. That will fix the make believe connection problems that no-one has ever complained about!
Just like govt has been operating for too long now, it creates a problem then advertises itself as the answer to pass more regulations to CONTROL YOU...WAKE UP PEOPLE!
wachobf 11 months ago
252 prefer corporations to rule the net. (Must be libertarians.)
Shavarnarak 11 months ago
This is so bullshit.
If the provides service is slow then I change it and the provider loses business.
Free market works.
TheSupremeSkeptic 11 months ago
@TheSupremeSkeptic
However this isn't a free market. The French can choose between 15 and 20 major providers. Here, we have a small handful that are quickly merging to eat up the competition. In the event of a monopoly, the corporation will ultimately decide how much you pay (which would likely be unreasonable) and what you get for that price. Brawndo- It's got electrolytes.
DrTallTimber 9 months ago
How the hell did the internet work so well without Net Neutrality? Amazing.......
papageorgio419 11 months ago
0:17 you know this videos old because myspace is on the same level as youtube and yahoo
Arrancar175 11 months ago
this is bulshit, i'm sorry, you sir are a dumbass!!!
AtheistRightWing 11 months ago
PLEASE HELP CANADA .... or IT WILL SPREAD
fusedblue 11 months ago
The Twenty-seventh Amendment (Amendment XXVII) prohibits any law that increases or decreases the salary of members of the Congress from taking effect until the start of the next set of terms of office for Representatives. It is the most recent amendment to the United States Constitution, having been ratified in 1992, more than 202 years after its initial submission in 1789. so do some research before telling lies please.
gibblets17 1 year ago
CRTC set to impose bandwidth caps on all ISP's in Canada! Sign the petition! stopthemeter.ca
jbohler33 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?
youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcj
brunopaludo 1 year ago
youtube.com/watch?v=oTshrURtcj
brunopaludo 1 year ago
Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?
brunopaludo 1 year ago
net neutrality will only stifle free speech and other things. there is nothing wrong with the current net at all. all the companies that have tried doing things that would make the net bad usually stop once they lose a bunch of customers because of it. obama and his cronies would have you believe net neutrality is to protect you. but its a power grab. allowing net neutrality would be allowing government to control the web.
gibblets17 1 year ago
@gibblets17 Nothing in the Bill of Net Neutrality gives the government any power to control the internet, the bill only says that ISP's cannot block or slow down content from other sites.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 1 year ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD yeah because the fcc doesn't totally try to control all of television and the air waves right? governments first and only response to situations is to grab for more power. they think they are smarter then anyone else and thus have the right to control everyone else. when you buy service from and isp and they cut you off from certain sites. which most don't. you can sue them or you can leave. noon HAS to buy internet form a company. don't like their service then don't buy it!
gibblets17 1 year ago
@gibblets17 The government's decisions are regulated by the Supreme Court and Judicial branch, your implication that they grab power is not described in the Net Neutrality bill. The government first response is NOT power grabbing, it is there to protect consumers and protect the rights of the people, as it says in the Constitution, the FCC is the government program that keeps cigarette ads from being televised.
And the majority of ISP's want to do this.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 1 year ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD where in the constitution does it say government has the power to regulate business? the fcc is also the organization that is trying and been trying to pass legislation to regulate the internet and cable tv. the only people who want regulation are socialists big government and big companies. regulation only hurts the consumer and the small businesses. the fcc is also the organization that wants to ban mature game sales.
gibblets17 1 year ago
@gibblets17 It says under the 27th amendment that the Government has the power to protect consumers
All regulation laws are formed to protect consumers
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 1 year ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD oh and while your fact checking my answer, try to check out the 10th amendment. that's a nice one. i like to quote it whenever someone believe the government has more abilities then it does.
gibblets17 1 year ago
@gibblets17 typo from wiki, The constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, there are precedents set by them such as Roe vs Wade and so on, The Government has the power to protect consumers, all regulations have been created to protect the consumers
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD most regulations have actually been made to protect larger corporations form smaller companies pushing in on their territory. who do you think it is pushing for regulations? the corporations!!
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 Actually no, its more like the other way around, the corporations are being regulated to protect the consumers, that has no bases to what you said. Corporations dislike regulations, Republicans are the primary support for the corporations and try to shut down any type of reform.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD actually no you dont understand shit. obamas main campaign contributors are big oil and industry. regulation doesn't hurt big corporations one bit. they can afford a little loss in revenue. especially when those same regulations strangle the life out of all their competition.
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 regulations sure does, how about the Health Care reform that now says that Health care providers cannot deny someone because of pre existing conditions, or how about that same reform bill that says that health care providers must provide coverage to parents' kids up to the age of 26 now. Or the Anti-trust laws that were set up back in the early 1900's that prevented monopolies and set minimum wage standards and allowed the formation of unions, sounds like protection of the consumer.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD that nifty little health-care reform. will not hurt major health-care providers at all. they can afford to work through it and take the extra cost. but what about the little guys who barley make a dime to start with. this will increase costs for the little guys by a large amount. you do know some of the biggest proponents of obama care are the huge health care companies right? you cant regulate a industry without harming the small business sector.
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 The health care reform only applies to partnerships in which they are a Limited Liability Corporation or in which they sell and distribute stock among people other than their semi-immediate family or large corporations in which they employ more than 100 people and distribute stock as well
Small businesses will remain unaffected as long as they are not LLC
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD that sounds nice. but not all small business is family run. and even with that. prices on health care will increase for everyone. the insurance companies wont take this on the chin. they will just charge more. its a ploy to make everyone switch to obama care. the same people who are trying to make everyone buy insurance is behind this.
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 Yes but if health care reform didn't exist, I guess you'd have about 20% of the population of the US who cannot afford health care for themselves let alone to pay for their own doctors visits will just either live in debt for the rest of their lives because they took that life saving surgery or they will die because they did not
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD seeing as medicare is easy as hell to get that's compete bull. and as evil as it might sound i would rather a few thousand people a year die because they don't have insurance then have obama care drag our economy even further into the abyss. i mean if this was 15 years ago and we where fine i could see you guys arguing that we need to help the poor. but we just cant afford this stuff.
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 If everyone could get medicare without being denied and they could get all of the coverage they needed, with no special conditions, then there would be no need for health care reform. But seeing that Medicare is "minimal" for coverage and not everyone can get it, its not a reliable source, even for a government funded program.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD i mean a large portion of our budget already goes towards medicare. its really staggering how much it costs our nation. and obama care makes that spending look absolulty pathetic in comparison. and its not even like they are talking real economics to make it work. they are trying to say they wont raise taxes and wont cut our budget spending to make room. and billing the top 3 % for it all is not the answer. they our our private sector. which is already ravaged!
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 Unlike other countries like the UK and Canada who have universal health care, the US has the population and GDP to support this, in the UK, people are put on waiting lists for weeks and months for their special treatments, and their taxes are huge, simply because they lack the growth and wealth and population like the US has
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD well that would be swell and all. but we don't have the time. we have to prioritize. and our ballooning national debt comes first. as well as our growing national unemployment rate. one in 10 people don't have jobs. that's ridiculous. im more for getting everyone jobs so they can buy thier own insurance. and the best way t do that is for the government to stop intervening. i know you are not going to agree but the best way for the economy to recover is the government to f off
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 well 1/10 isn't as bad as the 1/5 in france who don't have a job, simply because once you get a job over there, their law says that they instantly get tenner
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@gibblets17
you can spew out fox news BS, good work
Shelbzism 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD oh and please don't quote roe vs wade. abortion has nothing to do with economic and regulatory issues.
gibblets17 11 months ago
@gibblets17 actually if you read it, that was a supreme court decision and it now stands to protect women
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD roe vs wade was more about a persons right to abort if they so choose or if they're life is in danger. that has more to do with life and death and what constitutes a life then regulation by far. im telling you regulation kills innovation and industry. i mean if a company does something bad sue them. what happened to people defending themselves. why do we need boards of super powerful assholes who think hey have the right to rule the world controlling everything?!
gibblets17 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
Sorry Gibblets was meant to post at Kyuubi ^^
christube1989 11 months ago
@gibblets17
Yes, there's no cost tagged directly onto the regulation, but this is business.
Fact being that if ISP's can't boost their own sales by coaxing customers into using products exclusively, then they can introduce premium rates and loyalty discounts for not going to competitiors material.
Add that onto p2p/spam slowing which need to be monitored under the bill and you suddenly have huge expenses. Plus this also begs the question of who decides what passes and what doesn't?
christube1989 11 months ago
@christube1989 or they can increase their rates or offer different packages of things.
This market of internet is near perfect competition where competitors cannot really offer anything different.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
It's only perfect or fair competition because of the current, totally equal and totally available version of the internet currently out now.
With forced neutrality companies can turn to exclusive contracts [for example the latest vevo videos] and hike prices accordingly based on what content they can offer their customers.
christube1989 11 months ago
@christube1989 the idea of net neutrality is to prevent ISP's from slowing down other websites so that their customers will use their websites that sponsor the ISP
say I like to use Yahoo, but Verizon is sponsored by Google, Verizon would stop or slow down service to the IP address of Yahoo, and then attempt to redirect me to google,
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
Correct, and the whole point is that forcing them to treat all data equally will
#1 incur costs
#2 encourage stratified versions of larger sites
The data would be treated equally -yes- that's not to say it's a good thing or that it would actually be more equal service. ISP signing contracts for intellectual property will just result in videos, artwork, news etc. being exclusive to one network.
christube1989 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
Have you also ever considered that this is a national congress attempting to lineate a global pehnomenon such as the internet?
Would you prefer internet regulations like China? [No more naruto for you!] Antartica? Vietnam?
All of these would get a say if it came to forced neutrality by a governing body.
christube1989 11 months ago
@christube1989 the Net Neutrality bill only gives the FCC the power to enforce Net Neutrality.
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD
Yes, I just don't think you are considering what that will mean.
christube1989 11 months ago
@christube1989 it will prevent ISP's from limiting the flow to other websites that do not sponsor them.
Its not fair essentially
they have been treating the data equally since ever
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Net neutrality will only stop -data- from being slowed. *We know*
The point is that banning data discrimination between ISP's wont solve the problem and could even make it worse.
The only reason ISP's treat it equally now is because other ISP's treat their data equally, so everyone wins. Once the threat of having their own data slowed/blocked is gone the companies are free to pull any intellectual property they have available on the internet and make access exclusive.
christube1989 11 months ago
@christube1989 no, it can't make it worse if its a preventative for something that hasn't happened yet,
The idea was thrown around about net neutrality because ISPs strange price hikes and lack of FCC power already
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 11 months ago
@KyuubiNaruto1337XD That's wayyy too shortsighted.
Don't believe everything Sarah Palin tells you through the tv.
christube1989 11 months ago
It's my choice, THEY make me use something different, Im kinda skeptic...
Gaomon752 1 year ago
Wait, I dont get it.
Is net neutrality in effect NOW, or is it something new that needs to be passed by congress?
It sounds like the message is : get congress to pass it!
but then people are talking like its in effect now and it might go away.
Im confused....
nimrodicus420 1 year ago
It's complicated. Large ISPs want to make websites and organizations pay MORE to use a "fast lane" so to speak, while smaller websites and organizations are forced to use the slow lane. It hurts big companies, because they have to pay, and small companies because they have restricted access, but most importantly, it hurts YOU the most because in order to make up for the costs large organizations will charge you in some way (ads or fees) and the ISP ultimately benefits. Congress has to protect us
sciences8 1 year ago
@nimrodicus420
No, net neutrality isn't a law it's just the name of internet packets [data] being sent impartially by competing ISPs.
That is the original, and current state of the internet. What is starting to creep in is the idea of hostile bias [ISPs blocking, slowing or charging premium for access to competing company's material].
The debate in congress is over whether or not to moderate these actions or not - do we really need government consorship/capitalist corner cutting online?
christube1989 1 year ago
@christube1989 Ok thanks for the clarification, that makes sense now.
I just worry that the gov. regulators will try to limit our Net freedoms (like in Egypt now!) and will call it "Net Neutrality"
Just like the "Bailouts" and "Patriot Act" all the really great sounding deals they have tricked us with before, only to find out later that we have lost our freedoms forever. But thats just me...
nimrodicus420 1 year ago 11
@nimrodicus420
Government regulations will mean 1). budget cuts 2). higher taxes 3). less internet space 4). the death of P2P sharing
And *countless* other no no's. Giving the government control over the internet will just be one more thing that will be turned over to multi-national corporations, just for them to cut enough corners to turn a profit.
Think Vevo is annoying on youtube? Wait until they own the entire interwebs and you have to sit through ads just to read your email.
christube1989 1 year ago
@christube1989 No, all this regulation does is give the FCC to prevent ISP's from blocking certain websites like the examples in the video
KyuubiNaruto1337XD 1 year ago
I think the "Digital Divide" project is part of government-controlled internet. Taxpayers already provide free cell phones for those on government assistance. You can get internet service at any public library. Tax payers are ALREADY paying for free internet for anyone that can’t afford it! The government wants to control the internet. What happened to freedom of speech? With only 49% of the USA paying taxes, seems to me "too many are riding in the wagon and not enough PULLING!"
vechorik 5 months ago
All i ever see with these so called "net Neutrality" laws are hypthetoicals and "what if" scenaros. This is total statist propoganda based on assumptions and lies.
Reckless3057 1 year ago
I think I've had this. I could connect to every website besides google (I got a DNS error.)
waypastthat 1 year ago
Propaganda in full effect!
Booozsht 1 year ago
Propaganda in full effect!
Booozsht 1 year ago
all you bitches that dont like this , get yr ass real. XD these companies control a whole lot of the way we . yr damn fucking right they should be controlled by us! not anyone else! i dont give a shit what kind of vain fucking schemes theyre hatching! cause they can suck my dick! yes right here in missouri! they can suck my dick! in missouri! suck my dick! hehe^^
communistfun 1 year ago
Fuck all this Net Neutrality. There will be many ways around any system that is implemented on the people. All it takes is knowledge.
H4x1990 1 year ago
@H4x1990 Yeah proxy and private servers.... The net neutrality that I heard of is internet providers blocking most websites and filtering them, and making you charge extra to use them. This website fee is on top of the monthly fee that they normally charge you.
rawjokes 1 year ago
Why support net neutrality? Simple:
1. You don't think bandwidth hogs should pay for excessive use of service.
2. You don't think ISPs should give a hospital sending an MRI priority over some idiot downloading porn.
3. You don't want the ability to switch to a new ISP in order to get fairer service.
4. You want the same "neutral" internet as China or Pakistan.
5. You think the government (which can't keep a budget together, or follow it's own rules) can manage the web without risk.
HexTest 1 year ago
@HexTest "3. You don't want the ability to switch to a new ISP in order to get fairer service." All of these are pretty laughable, but this one takes the cake. Americans have far fewer options to "switch to a new ISP" than other countries in the first world, let alone as if ISPs being forced to let us all see the same internet would mean we are less able to switch providers. Some of these are just so silly that it's hard to believe someone isn't paying you to say it.
rujiel17 1 year ago
(reffering to HexTest)
oh crap another idiot falling for scare tactics
see people, this is how prop 8 got passed!
wark wark
Ultrox007 1 year ago
@Ultrox007 - (Referring to himself)
HexTest 1 year ago
brianwaashing video
ReadWriteAccess 1 year ago
It is clear that the intention of BT is to reshape the internet as an extension to traditional broadcasting. BT are aiming to privatise the internet for the commercial benefit of BT and selected 'Content Providers'. Ordinary citizens will be placed in the slow lane of a two-tiered internet and will find it increasingly difficult to broadcast their own video material. The Internet was built on the principles on net-neutrality where all content is treated equally. BT want to put an end to this.
rogerdek 1 year ago
so the goverment is going to make everything okay? Why cant the consumer just choose not to buy the internet service if they are pulling stunts like that. My internet has been working fine for all sites. Companies have to compete which means they need to please you the goverment has no competition so you might not like what you get but hey thats to bad. Consumers need to demand a product that works for all sites.
FernandoTorrera 1 year ago
@FernandoTorrera Might as well be "the government" providing the service for how little competition there is in the US broadband market right now. According to several consecutive OECD studies, the US has been continually falling behind in broadband quality, pricing and choice/availability. If the market is going to be so shitty, I'd at the very least hope the incumbents (who are going nowhere) are at least somewhat obligated not to limit what any of us can see on the internet. That's all NN is.
rujiel17 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Unity - not War
Unity - not world order
Unity - not net Neutrality The only ones that will benefit from internet censorship is the corrupt government as the people will no longer know what’s really going on.
We need to Unite we the people so we can hold Governments accountable , we don’t have to force them to comply to our rules or wishes we just have to stop complying to theirs. It’s backwards, we need a constitutional government not a democracy that is all about mob rules
411American 1 year ago
When has this already happened? I mean an ISP degraded or refused access to website so it can sell you it's product?
pliskin100 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
longlivecrow 1 year ago
net neutrality is evil
hornick18 1 year ago
This will never happen, If any internet provider tried to do this it would not be long until its millions of users started to realize this was happening and it would cause a mass un-subscription from the internet provider and they would prob go out of business. Net neutrality is a scam from the illuminati to try and filter off the only connection to the real truth to try and save their butts. (Research)
day7creation 1 year ago
@day7creation A mass un-subscription, so the former subscribers could seek out a provider (and there aren't many here in the US, especially compared to elsewhere) that would now have more reason to limit content, given there's one less competitor? When Adelphia went down in flames where I live, Comcast and Time Warner bought up their assets and negotiated to ensure the former subscribers could not have a choice between the two--they split the map. Either way the consumer loses. Some free market.
rujiel17 1 year ago 2
The free market is what regulates the internet providers because the free market is you the people not the FCC! If you don't like that Internet Service provider you choose not to do business with them. It is democracy in its purest form. The big corporations are the ones who love regulation because it eliminates competition. NET NEUTRALITY IS BULLSHIT!!!
conanthebarbarian333 1 year ago
@conanthebarbarian333 There isn't a "free market" in this country insofar as broadband is concerned. Today's cable and phone incumbents are more or less here to stay. "Big corporations love regulation" Wow, who the heck told you that? AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Qwest have all thrown massive amounts of money towards fake grassroots (astroturf) against net neutrality.
Why the hell would they want to be obligated to provide everyone equal access to content? That's laughable
rujiel17 1 year ago
@conanthebarbarian333 im glad there are still people who understand the power of the people in a free market. in this age of technology the internet is the final frontier that would allow for peaceful protest on a mass scale against oppression whether it be corporate or political.
z0r 1 year ago
@z0r ISPs would LOVE a walled-garden internet like what Apple has now with the iPhone. Why wouldn't a content access provider want to control your access to content completely? And what does regulation that would limit their control of our traffic (which they have absolutely abused, Comcast is a great example) do to oppress us, the consumer? You're essentially claiming that's the ultimate goal of the FCC here is "massive oppression", when in reality the FCC has balked from preventing oppression.
rujiel17 1 year ago
@rujiel17 read my comment of how these bills get passed. understand politics first
z0r 1 year ago
@z0r What "bill"? The FCC's passed rules, there wasn't a bill and there won't be in this congress. Way to address absolutely none of my points.
rujiel17 1 year ago
@rujiel17 in order for these rules to stick there going to have to legislate them. there's a bill thats been in the works for years now that they have been trying to slip through. my point is if we allow the fcc to plant their seed they will grow and over the years you will start to see them do what they do best.. censorship, thats how they make their money. government cannot solve every ailment and the more you give the more they will take.
z0r 1 year ago
@z0r Even in Australia where legislation to censor the internet came about, there was such negative feedback that they couldn't see it through. I find it hard to imagine the FCC mandating censorship of the internet, especially now that the notion's been demonized since China's doing the same thing. We have much more to fear from corporations in this regard than a commission like the FCC, especially considering the FCC, even Obama's,is beholden to none of us and all of the telecos/cable providers
rujiel17 1 year ago
@rujiel17 and the same is even more true of the senate and house, to respond to your point--they have only ISP's best interests in mind, not ours, and that equates to far less regulation.
rujiel17 1 year ago
@rujiel17 i find it very easy to imagine the FCC censoring certain sites. they would start off with something deemed illegal like internet gambling or terrorist recruiting sites, then over the years they would start with sites like wikileaks and so on and so forth until u dont know what hit you. and for what? the potential of corporations cutting deals? fuck that!
z0r 1 year ago
@z0r any how exactly would they go about this? When has the FCC ever had the authority to censor everything, let alone being involved in censoring content? In the early days of the internet they were certainly interested, but I'd like to know just what how they'd get the DHS or somesuch to block website access. I think people would roll over far more easily if corporations limit us than the government. The rhetoric of the former as of late has certainly turned people against the latter.
rujiel17 1 year ago
listen you have to understand that when these bills are passed its not 1 or 5 pages, its about 2,000 to 9,000 pages long riddled with fine print and ambiguous one liners that give the government alot more power than what was originally intended. Supporters of the bill read the title and think thats all it is.as years pass by more and more of the truth comes out and they realize how very wrong they truly were. politics101.
z0r 1 year ago
Tell your member of congress to keep their dirty mittens of net..or any free enterprise, unless you want your internet to be as efficient and successful as our public schools currently are
mowgly3000 1 year ago
Then I say we start developing a way around those firewalls.
TheZenoid 1 year ago
I don't want the goverment to control the net
AnimeFanPan 1 year ago
Thanks to poor public education, the federal government assumes it can put out a piece of bs video and the gullible public will swallow it. Those days are gone. We're alert, educated and involved. As another video (Peter Shiff) explained in plain English, this a solution looking for a problem - and a WRONG solution at that. I also couldn't help but notice they couldn't even use a human voice, but some computer-generated robotic crap. Pulleeze!
astroterf1 1 year ago
@astroterf1 "Solution looking for a problem" Untrue. Comcat, for example, has been caught time and time again shaping traffic (limiting torrents) and is now trying to coerce a tier 1 backbone provider into ponying up more money to make up for Netflix' data load. Of course ISPs shouldn't be able to determine what internet content we can reach. "Then switch providers!" Broadband options are abysmal in this country. Don't trust pundits like you are now. trust Tim Burners-Lee, creator of the W3.
rujiel17