Reason.tv: Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?

Advocates say that "Net Neutrality" will "save the Internet."

But does the Internet need saving?

Net Neutrality is a proposed set of regulatory powers that would grant the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the ability to control how Internet service providers (ISPs) package their services. Proponents argue that such rules are necessary to ensure that ISPs treat all data on the Internet equally and don't slow or even restrict access to various websites and other parts of the Internet.

However well-intentioned, the practical effect will be to limit consumer choice and grant the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet, all in the name of fixing a problem that doesn't exist in any meaningful way. Indeed, examples of the behavior that Net Neutrality will combat are few and far between.

Approximately 4 minutes. Produced and animated by Austin Bragg. Written by Zach Weissmueller.

Visit Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Related videos: "Net Neutrality for Dummies" and "Nick Gillespie Talks Net Neutrality, Teen Mags, & More."

Comments

[JCalton]

Yeah, hopefully the first thing they do is constrict access of websites that are home to critics of the government, the only permitted political parties, and mainstream media coverage of it all.
If I was a massive telecom trying to protect my government-maintained oligopoly, that's what I'd do.

[Mr FIFY]

Don't give 'em any ideas.

Then again, this IS the Obama admin...

[Brandybuck]

We need government regulation of the internet. The fact that the internet has worked exceedingly well until now is just a lucky happenstance.

Think of the children!

[Id]

I'd be happy to have the concept of net neutrality disappear as soon as the FCC, government supported communication monopolies, and subsidies do.

[Bucky]

damn! i do want my intersex net neutered!

[JCalton]

Exactly.

[R C Dean]

I'ld, I believe you are saying that the gross overreach that is net neutrality is justified because of the lesser overreaches that have preceded it, yes?

[Id]

I wouldn't say that, but I do think the prior overreach causes significant confusion.

[Erin Viral]

Children be damned! Think of the whales!!

[Realist]

The fucking last thing we need is any government control of the internet or ANYTHING else!

[Realist]

What's wrong with nipples???

[bigT]

Are they real?

http://www.yaiupload.com/?s=nipples

[Mr FIFY]

If I can touch 'em... they're real.

[BigT]

WTF? Identity theft on H&R?

I don't understand why anyone would want to pretend to be me.

[Corning]

So distressing that the nipple link does not work in 2014.

We need massive government intervention to save the nipple links from ever disappearing.

[James W - Hosted PBX Service]

I certainly don't like the idea of any more government regulation because it always seems to go wrong. However, when a company like Comcast starts asking for payments to Level3 to deliver their data, it is very troublesome. Cable TV provided Internet has an advantage in many markets as being the only available broadband service. DSL does not compete as well with speed and coverage. As long as cable tv companies enjoy a monopoly over the customers they serve and therefore enjoy a monopoly as the only true broadband provider, they need to not discriminate on the traffic they deliver (as long as it's legal). If they want to discriminate traffic, who will stop them?

I don't see a problem in charging heavy users for the amount of content they download.

[SFC B]

Didn't Level3 sign some sort of agreement to deliver Netflix VOD which was going to seriously increase its use of Comcast's network? And wasn't Comcast's response to use a clause in their contract w/ Level3 that allowed them to renegotiate their contract w/ Level3 in the event one of them (in this case Level3) did something which materially affected the relationship in the contract?

I'm no fan of Comcast, but Level3 is the one who suddenly found the Net Neutrality God when it was to their benefit to do so.

[David Shirk]

Not sure about any of these comments.
"However, when a company like Comcast starts asking for payments to Level3 to deliver their data, it is very troublesome. "
Level 3 and Nortel are both paid very large amounts by Comcast for the use of their fiber etc - i am thinking that there is more to this story.

[Fake Name]

The voiceover was pretty damn annoying. Was it another of those computer generated voices which are being used in more and more of those cartoon like videos?

[Id]

In fact, I'll go a bit further and argue that the overreaches of the past are linked to this current debate and that one cannot debate net neutrality in a vacuum.

[Id]

Squirrels.

[Id]

In fact, I'll go a bit further and argue that the overreaches of the past are linked to this current debate and that one cannot debate net neutrality in a vacuum.

[George Orwell]

Whenever there is a new government program or regulation, watch out. When said government program has an innocuous-sounding name? You can be assured it is diobolic: "Patriot" Act, "Net Neutrality" Act, etc. The more evil the program, the more likely they are to give it a nice-sounding name. Sheeple are much more amenable to "Net Neutrality Act" than, say, "Internet Command & Control Act". ?"Patriot Act" sounds much nicer than "Warrantless Domestic Spying & Snitching Act".

[shrike]

I also prefer "gas station neutrality" where I get to choose Racetrac, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc', without having my auto service company tying me up with only "Sinclair Oil".

Guess that concept is too advanced for the average libertarian idiot.

[AA]

Huh? Do you think before you speak?(or type)

[Mr FIFY]

I'm surprised he doesn't blame "Christ-fags" for the lack of net-neutrality support...

[DesigNate]

You are a fucking moron. Demfag.

[R C Dean]

I also prefer "gas station neutrality" where I get to choose Racetrac, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc', without having my auto service company tying me up with only "Sinclair Oil".

I would say the need for government control to ensure "net neutrality" is about on par with the need for government control to ensure "gas station neutrality."

So, thanks for the awesome analogy!

[shrike]

No.

Under my GM/Cadillac Service deal they only allow me to purchase Sinclair gas at $5.49/gl.

[Jingles]

So why didn't you buy a Toyota so you *wouldn't* have to lock yourself into one gas brand?

[shrike]

Because Toyota had a $6 a gallon deal exclusive with only Marathon Oil.

[SFC B]

While your usual assholeness means I tend to ignore most of your posts shrike, you usually at least have a clue, if not one I agree with. Here though you're just being a fucktard.

[Jingles]

I really fail to understand leftists sometimes. Do you actually think it's impossible for ANYONE to EVER be competitive by doing what his or her customers want?

[Rock Action]

I can actually see shrike's point. These companies are often given territorial exclusivity -- by municipalities and local governments -- and that distorts the market right off of the bat. The big problem with the video is assuming consumers can choose a competitor. Often, especially when it comes to cable, you can't.

That said, letting the FCC control anything is just...well, I'm not optimistic.

[SFC B]

But, in that case, the distortion in the market isn't that the cable provider has exclusive access, it is that the local (city, county, state, whatever) government is allowing them to do so. So shrike's (and the left side of the spectrum's) solution to a government-supported monopoly/duopoly is to have the government tell the monopolists/duopolists that they must treat all content exactly the same no matter the demands that the content places on their infrastructure.

That would be like charging 18-wheelers the same registration fees and taxes that automobiles pay.

It is also putting an amazing amount of faith into the hope that the christfags will never have the sort of congressional advantage that the Democrats had from 2008-2010.

It just amazes me how many people really, truly, believe that they will always and forever have people who agree with them in the position to make these judgments.

[Francisco d Anconia]

Bullshit can't choose a competitor.

TV-
Cable, Dish, Direct TV?

Internet-
Cable, DSL, satellite, 4G, dialup.

[Kreel Sarloo]

Under my GM/Cadillac Service deal they only allow me to purchase Sinclair gas at $5.49/gl.

So the plan where the manufacturer agrees to fix your car for free has some conditions? Wow, who'd'a thunk?

Yeah, great analogy. Do you ever apply any tests of logic or rationality to any of your thoughts before you let them pour out into the intertubes?

[Steven Hollingworth]

Once again Reason and the big telecomm lobbyists tell us to ignore the fact that there is little or no competition in the ISP business. That's The Big Lie. If you're lucky you might have a choice between your telephone company and your cable company but that's all. And many don't have any choices. Reason would have you believe that you have 8 or 9 choices - you don't. Not any more than you have a choice of electricity suppliers or water companies. If you want costs to go up then let the monopolies tighten their control.

What we need is a clean bill outlawing site blocking and slowing and at the same time banning government restrictions or interference in the internet.

[SFC B]

True. And the Net Neutrality working its way through the system isn't that law.

[Steve]

Then maybe instead of doing their usual carrying the water for the Internet monopolies and duopolies the Republicans in Congress should right a clean net neutrality law. But some in the party love monopolies.

[Steve]

Typo correction: Write.

[Alex]

A yes, and now people want to cement that monopoly through net neutrality. Let me give you a little lesson in the free market, b/c you are so obviously in desperate need of one.

Let's ignore the fact that a lot of these ISP monopolies are government created as it is (just look at the problems FIOS had in entering markets, having to have state legislatures overturn existing licensing laws that allowed for only cable to service internet needs, in NJ for example.)

Ok, let's now look at what happens if there was a truly free market in ISP services. Let's say Comcast is the only provider of ISP service in an area. Customers and fine and dandy with their internet presently. Comcast decides to start changing its pricing schemes, and consumers get upset, and demand is created for a rival that better serves their needs. Absent government regulation, a rival enters the market and undercuts comcast.

But instead, the solution to adopt net neutrality institutionalizes the monopoly. Comcast is forced into a certain method of business. Comcast starts working with government in crafting ever more "refined" net neutrality rules, probably making it much more expensive for a rival to enter the market and provide competition. As a result, you carve out territories for various ISPs, ISP providers have no incentive to innovate, as they control the local market, and the customer is the one fucked.

[Matt]

Look up the concept of "Natural monopoly".

[Alex]

Great, ISPs aren't natural monopolies. I have multiple providers to choose from. Thanks for playing.

[Herb]

Thank you for explaining how the telecom industry works in your head. Now would you like to attempt to do explain how it works in real life?

This comports with your philosophical beliefs, no doubt.

"Absent government regulation, a rival enters the market and undercuts comcast."

But it's not how the telecom market works.

You really think, absent government regulation, there would even be a rival? Look into the FCC regs again.

You'll see it's mostly about FORCING these companies to compete with each other.

Indeed, you should probably thank the regulators. Without them, we'd probably still be renting princess phones from Ma Bell.

[Todd Pollard]

Patriots, wake up, this is a plan by O-Mammy to take over the internet and sensor Glen Beck, Shawn Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Why should an ISP have to give their sericves away for a free market. This is socialism and comes at a price as we will not be allowed to hear anything other than O-Mammys socialist negrocentric propaganda. Listen to Glen Back and found out the truth about this sinister plot

[Jingles]

im 12 and what is this

[Matt]

Yeah, you literally have no idea what's being discussed here. This has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine, and it's actually the exact *opposite* of cutting of services. The idea is that ISPs should charge 1 rate for access to all internet services. The flat rate pricing of bandwidth is an entirely different issue that has no place in this video. All it says is that ISPs must guarantee access to all websites. No slowing of speeds, no locking them out except on special plans, etc.

Research the issues before spouting off please.

[Kurt]

Until I get some real choice between ISPs, I'll take all the Net Neutrality I can get. Perhaps we can blame the machinations of the state for the present lack of choice. Fine, but let's support pragmatic legislation that will mitigate the lack of choice we face.

[Matt]

Yes, because the pragmatic thing is to just ignore the cause of the problem and only treat the symptoms.

[jeff]

The problem with your argument is that, at least for me, I only have one viable choice for ISP. My local cable company. I have the same issue with television. I want to watch networks they don't carry. But my only choice is satellite which for a variety of technical reasons, isn't for me. I can't say, well I want the Cooking Channel so I'll switch cable providers to one who offers it. They have a de facto monopoly in my area. The same is true of high speed internet in my area as well.

[Matt]

A couple of issues with this video:

1) Flat rate pricing for bandwidth is a separate issue. This shouldn't even be in this video.

2) "Switch to another ISP" Gee, it'd be nice if most people could. Most places have a choice of 1 or 2 isps, not the half dozen your video represents. This is why I'm for regulation in the industry, because there *isn't* competition where there should be.

3) "Who knows what innovation..."
Good example of begging the question. Innovation will come from allowing ISPs to shut off or slow access to websites? Riiight. I think you have this backwards.

[DesigNate]

You know why there isn't competition retard?

[nike shoes UK]

is good

[discount mbt]

perfect

[topsbdunksale]

perfect

[Cheap adidas shoes]

perfect

[wubai]

How about mbt kisumu sandals this one: there are X driving deaths a year- what % of driving deaths (or serious injuries) involve alcohol, or other intoxicating substances? kisumu 2 People are pretty darn good drivers when they are not impaired.

[qiaofeng]

outlet

[xiaofeng]

outlet

[jiusuan]

outlet

[cajia]

outlet

[fantasy]

impairment" that corresponds to a probability nike shox tl3 of an accident. Standard psychomotor tests of impairment do not test driving habits. For instance almost *all* people over the age of 60 are "impaired" in terms of those tests, oakely sunglasses but these people do not have a higher accident rate. Older people develop compensatory driving habits

[Sevo]

My goodness! Whole lot of statists posting last time this played.

[Palin's Buttplug]

There was some actual debate back then.

[Acosmist]

If you call people falsely claiming there's not competition debate, well, yeah.

[pan fried wylie]

"actual debate" != "meaningful debate"

[Sevo]

Palin's Buttplug|1.19.14 @ 1:24PM|#
"There was some actual debate back then."

Yeah, dipshit, you were right in there pitching the government regs for your free shit.
Go fuck your daddy.

[Corning]

No worries Shrike.

There are still net neutrality statists pushing for more government to save us all:

http://kotaku.com/why-you-coul.....1502650001

[Corning]

Also shrike there is a Shrike post...with an email address.

Now that you know the email address to your old Shrike name why don't you reset you friggin password.

[pan fried wylie]

all in the name of fixing a problem that doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

Without legislation, how are those problems ever supposed to exist (to be solved by more legislation.)

[playa manhattan]

Does anyone know where I can get cheap counterfeit shoes?

[Francisco d Anconia]

The data must flow.

[Francisco d Anconia]

BTW, Austin/Zach... awesome job!

[Francisco d Anconia]

Okay, this is to the person at reason was who reposted an old article and left the old comments.

FUCK YOU!

I just did what I was flipping people shit for last night...replying to 18 month old comments.

Fuck you. Fuck your mom. Fuck all of your relatives and their moms. And fuck your pets.

In my defense, this wasn't identified as a second posting.

[General Butt Naked]

It's some Tarzan motherfucker that can't come up with original content.

At least write a new blurb for the old ass video and change the comments.

I will be retroactively cancelling my (nonexistent)subscription.

and where's my tee shirt?

[DesigNate]

God damnit, I just noticed the date stamps.

What. The. Fuck.

[Stilgar]

This thread is filled with a lot of naive comments about how things work now and what a future without some degree of net neutrality would be.

The large ISPs/telecos which provide nearly all the connectivity (your small local/regional is just a reseller) were happy to provide you service without any caveats until the average bandwidth available was able to support streaming video. That was the turning point where either the cry was 'these internet guys are ruining our tv biz!' or 'how dare customers use all the capacity we have'.

Clearly cable internet providers have a vested interest now in doing all they can to kill off the likes of netflix, youtube etc. by making it prohibitively costly for you to view those alternatives.

ATT/Verizon on the other hand are pissed they may not get paid by each end of the connection - never mind that the content providers already pay for their internet bandwidth as do the end consumers. The ideal world for these telecoms is that they be the entire route - in effect only providing their customers a private intranet, not a public, adaptive internet. In effect they want to go back to the wireless roaming model. Did you enjoy that?