Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality

An addition to the good electrical analogy: ISPs want to be able to charge the websites you visit for "fast lane" access. This is the exact equivalent of your electrical company blackmailing the company that produces your oven in order to have the oven you bought get the power it needs, that you paid for.

Say no to internet blackmail.

the problem in the comparison is that it makes sense for electricity because its an actual resource that needs someone to make it, but not so much for data, why the heck are we paying middlemen for this? look at it this way, I want to connect with you, and you want to connect with me, why on earth do we have to pay a 3rd party for that? why cant we connect directly instead and do whatever we want? thats how the internet should be, a huge LAN

internet should be free because it can work the same way as p2p networks do, get a ethernet cable to each of your closest neighbors and ask them to do the same until we reach global interconnectivity, free software communities will develop whatever protocol we need for that to work and we will have free unlimited communication only limited by someone's crappy switch, no more bs

Noce Half-life reference at :50

They may take our lives... but they'll never take our INTERNET!

corporatism's a bitch

Technically we're denizens, not citizens.

We thought it was over. Now it's 2017 and we're facing the same problem again.

Sounds good but is there a redistribution of access that causes big internet channels to even out their competition thus disincentive big content developers?

I don't want to support a socialist or communist thing.

you can't handle the information.

#defendnetneutrality

I don't know... I am more worried about Google as the only search engine we use to look for information than Internet providers who are many in the end and therefore, less powerful because of competition.
They can't really do whatever they want, but Google sometimes is showing you top sites according to your own profile stats.

Aren't ISP's private companies who have the right to block what they want so long as the customer continues to buy their product?

NET NEUTRALITY = COMMUNISM

If you have a have a youtube account under your school email in Canada (or at least Alberta), this rule is not exercised and it sucks, it feels like being slowly brainwashed

So much incorrect information in this video, starting with the entire premise that "all data is treated equally". This is absolutely not true, never has been, and never was intended to be. This video also completely ignores the role that CDNs (Content Delivery Network) play in delivering content to people, which is basically ignoring how the internet actually works to deliver content. While it is true that ISPs have the capability to speed bump traffic (this hasn't happened), or block or throttle traffic selectively (this happens with some ISPs with torrent traffic), and that some degree of net neutrality would make this illegal, you must also consider that CDNs are the ones who lay big enough pipes to get the content to the ISPs in the first place. Content providers get access to a CDN only by paying for it (early Netflix), or by building their own (Google). You might say, "net neutrality means that anyone can get access to this without paying for it", but you would be wrong. These aren't free to build and maintain, so the costs would transfer to other sectors, most likely to an increased cost to get internet access, for residential and/or business access. "But at least you can get into the game". Well, sort of

Net Neutrality laws would actually make it more difficult for startups to get access to reasonable bandwidth for their content because their only mechanism for getting reasonable bandwidth for their content is to pay for a CDN slice, which would be illegal. Your shaky startup trying to build a reputation in the marketplace does not have the means to guarantee good performance for your site/service, and you have to hope for good performance. The only companies that will continue to have good performance for their sites are those already entrenched, with caching relays already in place at ISPs (not cheap), or those that can afford to build their own CDN (really not cheap). Google is heavily behind Net Neutrality because they already have their own CDN, and they have the financial resources to build whatever else they need as it arises.

The fallacy of net neutrality arguments is the premise that there is plenty of bandwidth for all who want to use it, and the greedy ISPs put up barriers to block traffic unless you pay for it. The reality is that the pipes are congested and content providers pay to make sure their content gets through. The ability to pay for CDN access allows new companies to get off the ground. To use the electricity example, it is more realistic to say that hospitals pay to ensure they always have the power they need, others are subjected to brown outs. Net neutrality means that when Clark Griswald turns his lights on the hospital will have brown outs, and this is fair and desirable under net neutrality. Substitute "hospital" for "grocery store" if you like, and watch the store lose power so Clark can have the best looking house on the block

If the ISP provides you the pipe and owns the pipe, why shouldn't they be allowed to control what goes through the pipe?

Did my YT crash!?

HOW DARE THEY?!?

Ahh capitalism, fucking over people for almost as long as civilisation has existed.

I'm really disappointed with Grey in this video. Net Neutrality isn't about neutrality, but it's about government control and censorship of the internet (at least in the US). None of this was even mentioned in the video.