Cable companies are trying to create an unequal playing field for internet speeds, but they're doing it so boringly that most news outlets aren't covering it.
John Oliver explains the controversy and lets viewers know how they can voice their displeasure to the FCC.
(www.fcc.gov/comments, for any interested parties)
Connect with Last Week Tonight online...
Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/user/LastWeekTonight
Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would:
Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news:
Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once:
This is where I feel sorry for Americans. People universally wanted to keep it when they tried to push the new laws before. They just waited until people forgot about the issue then snuck it though anyway. For people with online businesses, websites and such who now realize what they've lost, it must be like waking up with a prolapsed rectum and then realizing you got bum raped in your sleep.
The internet is a public good and should not give competitive advantages to any organization willing to pay more. It would be an inherently unjust system, with established companies having the capital to secure high speed data traffic highways, while start ups with possibly improved products or business models, that have less capital, left with slower traffic lanes. You really want to make it fair, give the businesses that pay an extra surcharge a short term advantage but use those extra funds to build gigabyte per second nation wide internet highways that will, in the long term, flatten the disadvantage of companies with less capital because the basic infrastructure would be developed to provide gigabyte per second download and upload speed, which would level out any advantages for large cap companies would get in the short teem for paying to build out a better/faster data system made of fiber optic cables. First gigabyte (GB)/per sec, then terabyte (TB)/per sec universal speeds nation wide.
Not sure i'm clear what you mean by short term advantages, but It's kinda moot now anyway. the ruling was passed last year by the FCC. The potential (impending reality?) of a tiered system isn't the only problem anyway. ISP's could now muscle in on the content market and crush all beneath them.
*READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!*
A few weeks ago the FCC announced NetNeutrality ends on June 11 unless we stop it.
Click the link to write your lawmakers https://www.battleforthenet.com/
yo is there a way that people can find the transcript from this video online without having to contact HBO directly? i've looked online but all i find is news reports from when FCC site crashing after this came out.
5 Things You Need to Know About Fake Net Neutrality
by Free Our Internet 3 Apr 2018
In 2015, Google used its influence over the Obama administration to pass sweeping federal government regulations over our modern internet networks. So-called “net neutrality” was subsequently sold to the public through a massive disinformation campaign, asserting that the rules as devised by Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) were necessary to ensure a “free and open internet.” Unfortunately, that description couldn’t be further from the truth.
So-called net neutrality rules instead gave a false illusion of neutrality online and a false sense of protection. If anything, those rules singlehandedly weakened the free flow of information by empowering the world’s most powerful online companies like Google, Facebook and Twitter to censor speech, filter and manipulate information and abuse the collection of your personal data with absolutely no transparency or accountability. Here is how.
Fake Net Neutrality Doesn’t Apply to Google and Facebook
Net neutrality rules only apply to internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon and Comcast. They do not, nor have they ever, been applied to the largest internet companies in the world – Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon.
Net neutrality is the principle that all data on the internet should be treated the same. However, the fake net neutrality purposefully excluded Silicon Valley internet companies, rendering them free to block and discriminate against content.
Fake Net Neutrality Allows for Online Censorship and Less Transparency
Fake net neutrality only applies to ISPs, not massive communications platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google. Those platforms now have almost total control over online information and are now blocking access to content, censoring or shutting out users and manipulating what data consumers can and can’t see online. This is increasingly becoming standard practice for Silicon Valley.
Proponents of Obama’s net neutrality often cite a dozen “examples” of ISPs blocking or throttling since 2005, but each case is extremely weak, was immediately fixed, or was a network management issue. However, in the 2.5 years the fake net neutrality rules were in place, social media giants like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter have repeatedly been caught censoring content (primarily from conservatives), blocking, banning or demonetizing users, and abusing user data with little transparency. They even work with foreign governments to silence voices online that don’t fit political agendas.
Fake Net Neutrality Was a Result of Google’s Cozy Relationship with Obama
Google was the closest corporate ally of the Obama administration – enjoying more access to the former president, staff and regulators than any other business in America. In fact, then-Google Chairman Eric Schmidt helped to elect the former president, ironically by scraping the same type of personal data Cambridge Analytica accessed.
The fake net neutrality rules were passed in conjunction with Google’s frequent lobbying visits to the Obama White House. It was during all of these visits that Obama instructed the FCC – an independent agency – to adopt rules put in place in 1934 for government monopolies. After this unprecedented meddling, the FCC changed course and adopted Google’s Obama’s preferred regulations.
During the short time that those rules were in place, Google and Facebook censorship skyrocketed, transparency continued to take a nose dive, and deep-hidden algorithms continued to manipulate the information users see online.
Fake Net Neutrality Ignores the Near-Monopoly Power of Google and Facebook
Google’s Chrome browser enjoys 65 percent market share in the US, with Internet Explorer coming in second at only 9 percent. Google’s search engine dominates with 88.26 percent of the market. Facebook dominates social media with nearly 80 percent of the market. And Google and Facebook account for 73 percent of all digital advertising in the United States. Google’s dominance across platforms, services and hardware alone is an unprecedented demonstration of power.
Fake net neutrality was pushed on the premise that it was necessary to deal with monopolistic internet gatekeepers. If we are to take that seriously, then clearly real net neutrality must apply to those with actual market power – Google and Facebook. Not only does their power demonstrate an ability to harm competition, but more importantly, we have already seen how they exercise this power to tamper with unfettered access to information online.
Congressional Efforts to Protect Fake Net Neutrality by Passing the CRA Undermine Any Chance of Real Net Neutrality Protections
Democrats led by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) are seeking to reinstate the Silicon Valley/Obama fake net neutrality rules by the use of an obscure legislative tool – the CRA. Any successful use of the CRA would continue to exempt Facebook and Google from any rules that; prohibit blocking and censoring content; require enhanced transparency; or discriminate against lawful online users, services and applications.
The Internet Association (which represents Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) states that net neutrality is necessary to ensure there is “no unreasonable interference/disadvantage” and that “practices that unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers to reach the internet content, services, and applications of their choosing,” should be examined or prohibited, if necessary.
That sounds great, so why are lawmakers trying to carve out the largest global companies that have a hand in virtually all online communications? The only way to have real net neutrality is to apply these rules to the internet’s largest information gatekeepers, so Congress should do what they were elected to do and write legislation that protects their constituents, not their corporate donors out west.
To learn more about the fake net neutrality being considered by Congress, go to www.FreeOurInternet.org
For all of you millions and millions of Americans who don't at all understand net neutrality, economics, or freedom, this is a better explanation of why netflix service was throttled. If you don't think that the companies using the most bandwidth should pay the most, who do you think should be subsidizing them? Should smaller startup companies be footing the bill? Perhaps tax dollars that don't exist?
When this video was posted 3 years ago, Jon Oliver was heavily criticized for misleading his audience as according to his critics, the federal courts and government would never allow net neutrality to be repealed.
HAAHAHAHAHAHAH THE IRONYYY
That night when the show aired, the FCC website crashed with folks petitioning in favour of net neutrality and a few years later a law was enacted reinforcing net neutrality. Its because of this show that the conversation on net neutrality became global. In my country India too net neutrality became the rage when it was exposed it was already affected and things changed for better all triggered by this show. That's the power of comedy!
It's a humorous look at American politics and the status of a free and open internet. It's also a well researched and intelligent piece that few other popular media outlets have done justice.
A number of John Oliver's shows are like this - they use comedy to inform the wider audience of a serious and pressing issue. If you found it engaging, it may be worth checking out some of his other shows.
This is gate keeping power. Information, and the control of its distribution is deadly serious. Just wait and see. This can effect elections and disenfranchise millions.
Elected officials should not be permitted to golf. Lobbying should be illegal. Wake upAmerica. Comcast is paying pennies on the dollar for every person who uses the Internet. It's not just spead, but content that shall be effected.
Until their Netflix and porn gets cut off I doubt most will put down their poor and lube, and do something about this disaster.
Good luck, America. You're going to need it!
There are quite a few idiots of the internet, constantly commenting being the dumb things that they are. Unfortunately the dumb of man, are to stupid to understand when, there own stupidity and stupid internet actions, can be used by the horrids of man and their stupidity can be guided to favor whatever the horrids of man want. Even becoming under the thumb of the horrids of man. Whether it is for someone else to win an election or whatever one of the many horrids of man want. Which amongst man, there are quite a few horrids of man. Also amongst man there are quite few idiots. The horrids of man, will always use the idiots of man. Which there are alot more examples I can put in this comment of the horrids of man using the dumb of man, manipulating the dumb of man.
I am all for the removal of Net Neutrality regulations! Here’s why:
1. The claim that the regulations make the Internet “neutral” are false, in fact it’s the opposite. The US Government is directly inhibiting the supply and demand that drives competition. This is not neutral in the least.
2. Competition is necessary for an environment to be innovative, especially in technology.
3. Further on the claim that the use of the term “neutral” is false: The big tech companies, companies such as Netflix, Google, Facebook, etc., massively benefit from the amount of money and content control that net neutrality regulations provide.
4. The barrier to entry in the e-commerce marketplace as a whole is so low that competition is almost completely wiped out.
5. Big tech companies lobby for these types of regulations for the sole purpose of further retaining profits and content control at the cost of the rest of the market place.
Basically, although net neutrality regulations claim to provide a healthy market place, the reality is clearly the exact opposite. The businesses and consumers that are claimed to be protected are actually being exploited when these regulations were in place.
Let me know if some of this logic is off, otherwise it is a sound argument!
1. This argument could be made about literally any regulation. It is no more applicable to information than it is to food, debt, or education.
2. Are you trying to argue that the internet isn't sufficiently innovative? o.o
3. Net neutrality doesn't provide any content control. As you note, it minimizes barrier to entry, which maximizes competition.
4. As barriers to entry decrease, competition increases. It's why the idea of perfect competition requires zero barriers to entry and why there tends to be much less competition in something like telecommunications than there is in a low barrier industry like, for example, a pizzeria.
5. Repetition of point 4.
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.