Tags for this video have been changed from 'Net Neutrality, Americans, USA, US, United States, Now What, net, companies, control, bad' to 'Net Neutrality, Americans, USA, US, United States, Now What, net, companies, vihart' - edited by eric3579

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/fccs-wheeler-net-neutrality-106465.html?hp=l4 Looks like politicians (on both sides of the aisle) are wary about wading into the tech waters after SOPA. This Wheeler guy may be left holding the bag.

Your video, Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality - CGP Grey, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Congratulations! Your video, Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 4 Badge!

People miss the point with net neutrality.

The internet is a packet delivery system.
You are literally paying your ISP for a packets-per-second delivery rate across their network.

That literally means, that the ISP is obligated to make an honest best effort to route your packets at the rate you subscribed to.

Any action to deliberately throttle your packets down to below your subscribed rate, is deliberately not providing a paid for service - i.e. fraud/stealing/whatever.

Net neutrality is the concept that they deliver all packets without prejudice.

That they don't inspect your packets, and decide to treat them differently based on their content.

Kind of how the postal service charges the same to send a letter from point A to B, regardless of what you wrote in that letter.
The postal service doesn't say things like :
"This letter describes a picture. We only allow 3 'letters describing a picture' per month, and you already sent 3, so this one will have to wait.".



So for example, comcast v netflix.

Reports such as this build a case for deliberate throttling : http://www.itworld.com/consumerization-it/416871/get-around-netflix-throttling-vpn

We know comcast wanted netflix to pay for network integration/improvement.
One way to do that is by twisting their arm : deliberately throttle netflix traffic to netflix customers, until netflix pays up (and along the way, selectively not deliver paid for bandwidth to comcast customers)

That would be singling out netflix packets - a non-neutral action.

(blah blah, I changed ISPs because my own experience suggested netflix throttling.)

-scheherazade

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Hank-vs-Hank-The-Net-Neutrality-Debate-in-3-Minutes

Internet Citizens: Defend Net Neutrality - CGP Grey has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579 on that post.

Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

One thing this video (and every other pro-net neutrality video ignores) is that there are valid technical reasons to have some content faster than others. In an ideal world, we should be able to mark some content as more or less latency tolerant.

Static webpages for instance; if your online banking or facebook or even videosift takes half a second longer to load, no-one really cares. But if your video stops for a second or an online game lags, that can ruin the experience.

Right now, if two servers send two packets, they are treated the same, even if one is time dependant (video/game content) and one isn't (static text).

That is the core argument against net neutrality. The problem is that it should be the content providers who decide what data is time dependant, not ISPs. Ideally, ISPs shouldn't even know what content is going through their pipes.

Just in case it's not clear, I do not in any way support the idea that ISPs should be allowed to slow or speed up content on their networks, any more than a construction company should be allowed tell drivers who drives in what lane.

Your video, Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There's a certain irony that a video about net neutrality is region blocked here in the UK.

Your video, Colbert Report 1/23/14 - End of Net Neutrality, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This started long before 9/11, that attack just "created a threat" where every congressman was willing to hand out every right that people had accumulated to that day. NSA tried to stop 128bit encryption back in the 90s when the first rumors started circulating in tech community. Encryption was seen as a "threat" to national security. Sound familiar? 9/11 gave NSA the money to do what they were after, at the time they wanted it the most. I've known most about their goals for 15 years, just never thought it was going to be this bad so soon...

NSA used the basic principle of internet, which is trust between nodes to route data from A to B in the most efficient manner possible. In the future, this means that the open architecture has to be stripped in favor of trusted, fixed nodes. That means the end of net neutrality. It also means congestions, traffic jams, huge blackouts when regional nodes go out. And it's the end of freedom in the surface web and the absolute end of deep web.

We are screwed unless this system is taken out NOW and made in to the list "crimes against the humanity" at International Courts. A year from now is too late.

Well, the campaign finally put out their site to describe how it's all going to work: http://www.romneytaxplan.com/>> ^NetRunner:

Yeah, when you start thinking through the actual story conservatives tell about how tax cuts are supposed to help the economy, it stops making sense pretty quickly.
>> ^bareboards2:
That tax question that gobsmacked Colbert? I have been asking that for days.
If lower taxes are supposed to create jobs, then how does a net neutral tax cut do a dang thing?

Yeah, when you start thinking through the actual story conservatives tell about how tax cuts are supposed to help the economy, it stops making sense pretty quickly.

>> ^bareboards2:

That tax question that gobsmacked Colbert? I have been asking that for days.
If lower taxes are supposed to create jobs, then how does a net neutral tax cut do a dang thing?