6 evil lies about net neutrality that got it repealed | Complete history of net neutrality explained


There are two kinds of people. Those who want net neutrality, and those who
don’t know they want net neutrality. This guy wants it, this guy wants it, even
this guy wants it, he just doesn’t know it yet. Everybody talks about net neutrality and it
seems enough has already been said, so it might look like I am late to the party. But I am making this to say something that
hasn’t been discussed yet. Or not enough at least. Net neutrality is a bureaucratic warfare. I am going take you through the history and
legality of the net neutrality rules. Because I have no life, I’ve actually went
through the legal documents behind net neutrality, including but not limited to the 1934 Communications
Act, the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the Open Internet Order of 2010, net neutrality
order of 2015, and the most recent draft order to repeal net neutrality altogether. And I’d wholeheartedly appreciate if you
compensated for the lack of my social life by commenting on and sharing this video. Audience engagement doesn’t just make the
Youtube algorithm wet. It would also make my nether regions engorge. I split my talking points into 6 most evil
lies about net neutrality that are used as arguments against it and I present my counter-evidence
to all of them to be used as weapons in the battle for free and open Internet. The battle isn’t done until Trump signs
the bill so let’s not resign yet. We have plenty to cover so here we go! #1 Net neutrality is overreaching Perhaps the biggest lie that triggered the
whole repeal of net neutrality is that the FCC rules are overreaching and that the regulation
is just too long and complex. But let’s truly see how long the actual
net neutrality rules are. So you have this document coming from the
FCC in 2015 that they say is when Obama ruined the freedom of Internet. That is horrendous, that’s 400-page-long
piece of legislation right there. There is only one problem. This is not 400 pages of net neutrality rules. This is 400 pages of a very long, detailed,
and in-depth analytical report that the FCC had to make to justify their proposal in front
of the Congress. The vast majority of this stuff can be skipped
if you are not interested in learning about America’s bureaucratic history and their
arguments for net neutrality don’t matter to you. But if you want to go straight to the rules,
you just have to skip to the Appendix A, on page 283. This is what got voted on, and this is what
got written into the law. This is the very regulatory bit. The rest of this document has nothing to do
with being a regulation. So let’s count together how long this horrendous
net neutrality regulation really is. One. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Eight. That’s it. To put into a perspective, The Communications
Act that established the Federal Communications Commission in 1934 and gave this cunt a job,
is 333 pages long, and the 1996 Telecommunications Act is 128 pages of pure regulation. And to get even bigger picture on this, the
actual net neutrality rules don’t even span over the full 8 pages. They barely cover more than half a page of
text. There are only four short legal paragraphs
describing the rules of ‘no blocking’, ‘no throttling’, ‘no paid prioritization’,
and ‘no unreasonable interference or disadvantage standard for Internet conduct’. So the argument that the net neutrality rules
are just unnecessary micro-managing over the line regulation that needs to be cut off is
just a big BIG lie. Pai’s proposal straight out deletes all
of the net neutrality paragraphs, which cuts the regulation by impressive 6 pages. The commercial Internet started off of telephone networks, which were tightly regulated and
barred from any unreasonable blocking, interference, or preference in content, services, applications
and devices. But when this technology was replaced by high-speed
cable-broadband and DSL, the ‘96 Telecommunications Act deregulated these to stir up competition. This gave high-speed broadband providers strong
incentives and opportunity to block and throttle competitive traffic. The first to become a victim of such practices
were applications like “Voice over IP”, when Skype began offering telephone calls
over the Internet for a fraction of the cost of the landline or cell phone calls. Then, big broadband ISPs started to implement
termination fees to squeeze more money out of the system by charging websites extra for
connecting them to their customers. Some ISPs with broadband commenced to block
Virtual Private Networks, which were then popular among firms to connect off-site workers
to their company networks. Comcast released a statement that they will
block all VPN traffic, but offer their customers to use their equivalent @Home Pro for an additional
cost of $95 per month. AT&T went full retard when they said this
to their DSL customers in the early 2000s: Examples of prohibited programs and equipment
include, but are not limited to, mail, ftp, http, file sharing, game, newsgroup, proxy,
IRC servers, multi-user interactive forums and Wi-Fi devices
Customer shall not connect the Service or any AT&T Broadband Equipment to more computers,
either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in Customer’s account with
AT&T Broadband. Customer acknowledges that any unauthorized
receipt of the Service constitutes theft of service, which is a violation of federal law
and can result in both civil and criminal penalties. Throughout 2011 Verizon was blocking Google
Wallet which almost cost the mega-behemoth to kill their project. Google was only lucky that T-Mobile and AT&T
didn’t follow suit. And of course, Verizon did this to prioritize
their own mobile payments service, which was then called And then there is this whole Netfilx vs Verizon
saga. When you subscribe to Verizon broadband, you
technically didn’t get access to the Internet. You are paying for access to Verizon’s network. Verizon, invisibly to you, makes deals with
other bandwidth providers and edge providers, to exchange the traffic. But because they have such a monopoly on end
users, Verizon has the position to blackmail edge providers into higher costs for exchanging
the traffic between them and their customers. There is a lot of politics behind the closed
doors. When Verizon had a beef with Netflix, it was
because Netflix was competing with Verizon’s Redbox Instant. And they wanted their customers to have better
experience with Redbox rather than Netflix without actually making a better service. In the end, Redbox Instant shut down after
19 months since its release, because Verizon did a shitty job at offering a good service
and preventing criminal abuse. Literally criminals used Redbox subscriptions
to verify stolen credit cards. So when the ISPs start charging customers
for access to entertainment packages, the reality is that it doesn’t matter how much
you pay Verizon for better broadband speeds. Verizon wants to be a gatekeeper for edge
providers to their customers so that they can be the ones controlling the exchange of
Internet traffic. These deals depend solely on Verizon’s business
model and anti-competitive network management practices. No amount of your consumer money and begging
is going to influence how Verizon treats Internet traffic. Which leads me to predict that this whole
model of “Internet subscription packages” that we so fear after the repeal of net neutrality
won’t be feasible in the long run. That’s because ISPs simply won’t be able
to blackmail edge providers into paying more and ask customers to pay extra to access social
media and online video at the same time while breaking promises made to both. Which would make the Federal Trade Commission
to step in. They’ll either have to choose one, or they’ll
straight out give you a tightly limited ISP-filtered version of the Internet, where all you’ll
be able to access are your ISP products and affiliates. So instead of accessing the Internet, we’ll
all be accessing Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, or T-Mobile intranets. #3 Net neutrality is unprecedented . It didn’t
exist before Obama. This is so wrong on way too many levels that it’s unbelievable someone would say this with a straight face. The first commercial ISPs in the 1990s had
a special position as this was the time before broadband came to play. Most people had Internet access routed through
telephone networks. The FCC made a strong set of rules that were
protecting the ISPs from any unreasonable or unjust discrimination by the telecommunications
operators. If somebody wanted to become an ISP, they
would have to prove they abide by an FCC requirement called “Maximum Separation”. This was a principle decided on by the Commission
after decades long proceedings discussing how to regulate the new technology of computer
networks. These proceedings were called Computer Inquiries. The computer Inquires were initiated in the
1960s at the time when the Internet’s predecessor – Arpanet – was going online. The dilemma for the Commission was how and
whether to regulate computer networks. The source of authority for the Commission
had been the 1934 Communications Act that established the FCC to regulate the telecommunications
and information industry and infrastructure in the US. The Act wanted to ensure that AT&T wouldn’t
use its monopoly in telecommunications industry to hijack all other markets which depended
on the telecommunications infrastructure. The Act classified services between Title
I, which was a light regulation, and Title II bright-line regulation of common carriers. The Maximum Separation rule prohibited businesses
regulated under Title II to enter Title I markets under the same entity. “The FCC required that a carrier establish
a separate data processing corporation, have separate accounting books, have separate officers,
have separate personnel, and have separate equipment and facilities.” The Title II clearly specifies that all common
carriers are prohibited to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination
in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection
with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or
to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular
person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of
persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” The FCC was then free to define the specifics
of what’s reasonable and what isn’t, what’s a just practice and what’s a discrimination. But the most important aspect was defining
which providers of what service should be classified as common carriers and follow the
Title II regulations. And this is what started the bureaucratic
warfare that had both principles for and against net neutrality developing alongside each other. The FCC wanted all traffic to be treated equally,
while at the same time, they wanted to stir up competition and innovation that would boost
America’s economy. We have to remember that this was set deeply
in the Cold-War era when the US’s goal was to out-compete the Soviet Union. They couldn’t allow their enemy to have
any technological advantage over the US. Basing their logic on the authority of the
Act, the FCC sought for a dichotomy of classifications – to differentiate between services that
should be tightly regulated and those that shouldn’t. At first they started looking at this from
a technological standpoint. They identified communications processing
as a basic service that should be regulated and data processing as an innovation, an enhanced
service, that should be left to the competitive market. Basic services were communications networks,
and enhanced services were everything more built using the communications infrastructure. But this created odd problems. Technologies are used interchangeably as they
develop and innovate, until they become indistinguishable. Many basic services were both data and communications
processing and the same went for the enhanced ones. One thing that became clear though was that
the data processing market was highly competitive, but also completely dependent on the communications
market, which was monopolistic. Keeping this dichotomy logic in mind, the
Commission realized it had to look at the issues from the standpoint of different markets,
and not different technologies. The FCC took to focus on different markets
and identified three layers – the telecommunications market, the ISP market built on top of that
telecommunications infrastructure, and the Internet content market enabled by the ISP
market. The FCC then decided that its position should
be to protect competitive markets from anti-competitive practices of monopolistic markets. To protect other markets, the first layer
was decided to fall under the Title II regulations, because they were monopolistic and had both
incentives and opportunities to be anticompetitive. The second layer was vastly deregulated, because
the FCC saw the potential of thousands of ISPs entering this competitive market. Finally, the third market, which is were Google,
Skype, Facebook, or you and I operate, was completely left out of the Communications
regulations. If anybody from a monopolistic market wanted
to enter an unregulated competitive market, they would have to prove maximum separation. Finishing Computer Inquiries in 1986, it is
safe to say that without these safeguards, the commercial Internet might have never been
possible. It would’ve been immediately hijacked by
the monopolies in the communications market like AT&T entirely. The principle that the FCC should regulate
monopolies to protect innovation proved to be extremely successful for the 1990s Internet. At its peak year of 1998, households in North
America had access to over 7,000 independent ISPs. But when high-speed broadband entered the
market, things started to change. In 1996, the US government adopted new Telecommunications
Act, which took on the same dichotomy the FCC laid out in the Computer Inquires. To keep things simple, basic services were
classified as telecommunications, regulated under Title II, and enhanced services became
information services lightly regulated under Title I.
Exclusion of broadband from Title II meant Maximum Separation was no longer a requirement
for a monopoly to enter an unregulated market. The Bush Administration saw a rampage of ISP
mergers and acquisitions. When the courts upheld the FCC’s decision
to relieve cable and DSL broadband from Title II in the early 2000s, the Commission adopted
Internet Policy Statement where it outlined four principles to “encourage broadband
deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet”. These principles focused on the exclusive
choice of consumers and not the ISPs to: 1. access the lawful Internet content 2. run applications and services 3. and connect legal devices that do not harm the network the 4th rule entitled consumers to competition
among network, service, application, and content providers. These principles turned into policy rules
when the FCC subjected Verizon and AT&T to honor net neutrality, after they merged with
MCI and SBC. These rules were strictly codified in the
agreements made between the FCC and each of the corporations, but they eventually expired
in 2008. Newly appointed FCC Chairman Genachowski took
this Internet Policy Statement to codify net neutrality in the Open Internet Order in 2010. FCC adopted three net neutrality rules – no
blocking, no unreasonable discrimination, and the transparency requirement. However, the FCC based its reasoning on the
ancillary authority of the Title I regulations of information services. This means that broadband ISPs were still
classified under Title I. Title I doesn’t specify any concrete regulatory guidelines,
but the FCC can take various interpretations of different approvals from Congress to implement
its rules until somebody challenges them in court. When the Commission wanted to hold Verizon
and Comcast accountable for violating these rules, they were challenged in court and essentially
lost, because they were applying Title II regulations to services classified as Title
I. The ancillary authority proved to be insufficient. To end these shenanigans that could potentially
allow the FCC to regulate everything on the Internet under its ancillary authority, Anthony
Wheeler decided in 2015 to reclassify ISPs as common carriers under Title II. This gave net neutrality solid legal standing
and barred the FCC from overreaching. Under Title II, the FCC cannot use its ancillary
authority to regulate markets beyond this classification. Which means that edge providers are safe from
government regulation, but monopolistic ISPs need to be put in check. The net neutrality rules of 2015 didn’t
bring anything new to the table, but rather relied on the precedence that the ISPs should
be barred from blocking, throttling, paid prioritization, and unreasonable discrimination. The FCC never wanted to regulate technology,
but rather protect the markets from monopolies upon which innovation in other markets depended
on. So the most logical move for the Commission
today would be to reopen the proceedings, and consider implementing safeguards to protect
the Internet market from the ISPs. Because basically, the ISP market is controlled
by the same people who took over the telecommunications market. Instead, Pai is moving it into an opposite
direction, setting it back into the early Cold-War years. His proposal to repeal net neutrality altogether
goes against the logic of the FCC to prevent telcom monopolies from controlling the US
economy. Repealing net neutrality eliminates regulation No repealing net neutrality doesn’t eliminate regulation. All it’s doing is that it changes how the
agency defines ISPs. It’s a classification warfare. Yes classification does affect how they approach
things but in legal systems everything is about the right interpretation of the law. So for example, classifying ISPs under Title
II to make them follow net neutrality rules gives the FCC clear bright lines on what it
can and cannot do. But what’s more is that the mere presence
of these rules in the Title II doesn’t necessarily means the agency has to apply them at every
instance. There’s this clause about “the public
interest” in the Section 10 of the Act, which kind of opens the room for more adjusted
implementation of the rules. Likewise, classifying ISPs under Title I makes
it look like the FCC has to regulate less, but then again, the law is interpreted differently
depending on the agenda of those engaged. The Commission can take its ancillary authority
that grants its permission to justify certain regulations based on principles set by similar
preceding cases approved by the Congress. That’s how some net neutrality rules used
to be enforced before the reclassification of ISPs as Title II services in 2015. But what’s more troubling is that the FCC
sometimes relies too heavily on this ancillary authority to the point it can be much more
dangerous than in cases under Title II regulations. For example, using broad and open definitions
in its previous orders, the FCC was giving itself enough legroom to pressure ISPs to
enforce copyright law in their network management practices. Which is of course a dangerously slippery
slope, because ISPs are best at transferring bits and not interpreting the copyright laws. As the Electronic Frontiers Foundation warned
in 2011, such regulatory practices could make ISPs expediently target traffic that could
be regarded carrying infringing content. We know this would be a disaster because the
UK has been doing this for a while now and it sucks. Not so long ago, the FCC tried to implement
so called “broadcast flags” that could have made it impossible for people to make
digital recordings, make their own stations with hardware of their own choice, or burn
digital content lawfully. This would have given copyright holders immense
control over what people could and couldn’t own and could and couldn’t do with technology
they already own. Thanks to the digital rights advocates fighting
this at the court, the judges ruled that the FCC lacked the authority to enforce this regulation. But if nobody challenges the Commission in
court, they’ll do whatever they want. Pai doesn’t eliminate the FCC regulatory
overreach. He just positions the regulation where it
was found to be ineffective 5 decades ago. Free market will take care of net neutrality. That’s what the regulators thought in the
1990s when they forgot to not allow big ISP mergers. This lie is the easiest to dispute. 86 percent of Americans had access to fixed
broadband at top speeds of 25Mbps or greater but only 37 percent of them had access to
two or more providers. Only 3 percent of the US population could
get those speeds on mobile and all of them had only one choice of provider. 94 percent of Americans got at least 10 Mbps
as top speeds for fixed broadband but only 70 percent of them had at least one more option
than Soviet Russia. Which is a competition as strong as the possibility
of an oligopoly forming between those providers. So the meaningful number is that only 28 percent
of Americans who get at least 10Mbps have access to ISP competition of three or more
providers. Mobile is doing somewhat better, but only
for low speeds of 3 and 10 Mbps or more. There is no free market competition of broadband
Internet providers in America. Most providers enjoy either a monopoly or
a duopoly, which in either case, sucks for both users and edge providers. Net Neutrality is a leftist issue
Pai is a Republican, appointed as the chair of the FCC by Trump. The snake hates net neutrality so much, that
he took to call it “Obama’s heavy-handed regulation”. As if Obama invented net neutrality, or as
if net neutrality was somehow a leftist issue. Far from it. On February 8 2004, then-FCC chair Michael
Powel appointed by Republicans, gave his “Four Internet Freedoms” speech, where he listed
that users of the Internet should have: 1. Freedom to access lawful content, 2. Freedom to use applications, 3. freedom to attach personal devices, and 4. freedom to obtain service plan information. In other words, broadband Internet access
service providers shouldn’t discriminate traffic based on content, applications, or
devices, and that they should be transparent about their management practices. Sounds familiar? Following these principles, a North Carolina
DSL provider was fined for blocking a VoIP program then called Vonage under the Bush
Administration in 2005. The Computer Inquiries were initiated under
President Johnson and continued all the way to the Reagan’s time. They’re the ones that set the principle
that the FCC should prevent monopolistic markets from harming competitive markets. The architect behind the Internet Policy statement
of 2005 was a Republican appointee, and gave founding principles to the net neutrality
rules in the Open Internet Order of 2010 under Obama. So no. Net neutrality isn’t a leftist issue, it
isn’t a rightist issue, it isn’t a party-line issue. This principle is so universal and fundamental
as fuck… The bottom line
Are the net neutrality rules perfect? Probably not. There can still be some fine-tuning done. But no regulation is perfect and presence
of some debatable practices don’t justify dismantling a regulation altogether. In a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need
the government to regulate ISPs. We’d have the free market. I’d always prefer to vote with my wallet
than have a government agency somewhere deciding what’s right and what’s wrong for me. That’s my default position when it comes
to issues like this. But right now there is no free market at the
ISP level. Big ISP corporations were actively pursuing
monopolistic position for over two decades now, so that they’d get to this point where
they could dictate everything to everybody. I see net neutrality as a temporary solution
that should be repealed when and only when we develop a coherent strategy to bring back
free market into the telecommunications and Internet industry. This, however, is not achievable right now,
given the limits of the infrastructure. It’s hard to bring new providers into developed
cities only to dig over infrastructure again. But there could be a possible innovation in
the future that would allow more prudent Internet access service that could really bring competition
back to play. Until that time comes, let’s stick together
with this net neutrality as our social contract with the ISPs.

100 thoughts on “6 evil lies about net neutrality that got it repealed | Complete history of net neutrality explained”

  1. YouTube doesn't promote my videos. I guess we can all guess why. But there is so much more that needs to be done. If you'd like to support my channel and help make these videos possible, you can sign up for NordVPN at https://nordvpn.org/thehatedone or use my coupon code 'thehatedone' at the checkout to save 66%. NordVPN will help you protect yourself on the web and you'll be able to safely bypass censorship. Thank you for all the support.

  2. One of the big reasons I support net neutrality has to do with contracts that service providers enter in with local authorities, creating oligopolies that prevent competition with the oligarchy. Due to this effect, we need action by the state to correct/mitigate the problems the state(s) create through these contracts which have to do with physical building and construction concerns in each jurisdiction. Repeals of net neutrality do not address these problems, until federal laws are passed which prevent oligopoly in local jurisdictions then I would not support the repeal of net neutrality, because there is no real competition in internet service for the common person. Mesh networks is a big example, from what I understand it is not legal to set up mesh network technology in most jurisdictions i the U.S.
    Please correct me if I am wrong about this stuff, I am confused why it was never part of the conversation and I didn't even think about it until very late in the game.

  3. I think that you are as wrong as can be. Net neutrality was a solution without a problem to solve. There is enough competition between ISPs to keep thing from throttling service unreasonably. If someone is unhappy with one ISP, there are others available to switch to. There are ISPs that provide broadband internet by cable, others by fiber optics, some by satellite, and come by cellular networks. Net neutrality was pushing by bandwidth hogs like Netflix. ISPs should be able to charge content providers whose business model requires very high bandwidth, uninterrupted bandwidth, such as streaming movies for the cost of providing the priority treatment that such service requires. Your cartoonish denomization of Ajit Pai was annoying and not convincing.,

  4. Only 63,607 views on an outstanding, information rich video like this? No wonder we sheeple, err, Americans pay so much for lower quality bandwidth compared to most developed nations… Suckers. Oh, Ajit Pai can shove it…

  5. The video keeps hammering how we need Net Neutrality because there is no choice at the ISP level. And WHY is there no free market at the ISP level? I know! more legislation will fix it! The problem is not with net neutrality. Lots of countries already have lots of high speed competition, without any net neutrality laws. The video should focus on THIS topic, I don't understand why people were clamoring for this bandaid legislation that will fix nothing anyways. Net neutrality IS leftist, because layering more broken laws to fix the existing broken laws, instead of repealing the broken laws in the first place, is a leftist strategy.

    You hit it on the head in your UBI video earlier this year: the solution is decentralization. US ISP market is highly centralized. This is the central problem. The solution is clearly NOT net neutrality. It will do nothing. One reason, along your lines of thinking: infractions will only be punished when there is enough pressure from the public on government officials. But how will that happen, when all media (and ISPs) are owned by a small handful of the same companies, and they control all discourse? If you need to spread the word about some net neutrality abuse, how will you do it?

  6. why exactly are you putting subliminal messages in your videos, ive seen this across all your videos ive seen.. this is a bit disturbing

  7. I'm seeing a lot of idiots who are against net neutrality. They are parroting the dumb, fake "arguments" that the shills are saying. Without net neutrality these ISPs are going to censor what you see and charge you out the ass to get even decent speeds. It enrages me when I see people sucking the dick of the very people who are fucking them up the ass. WAKE UP YOU FUCKING IDIOTS. Besides making a ton of money and ripping you off… this is just the first step of censoring the internet. We all know corporations control politicians…. so when you want to see that anti-this or anti-that website… well guess what? It's censored now. Bye bye internet.

  8. I'm guessing this is more about monopolies than about net neutrality.

    Also it is pretty gay to dehumanize your opponents, just don't. Be the better man and not some fag who can only win by belittling their opponents.

  9. What the fuck is he doing here

    Trying to appeal to the young People especially the poorer among us showing that he is line with the dishes we make out of cheap materials (like ghetto nachos).

  10. US government and the FCC is fucked up on so many levels both of them need to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up to make this Nation great again pun intended🙄

  11. The problem is that you americans embraced "multiculturalism". So these arab/whatever bastards fuck you up at any given time. The U.S. was once an European Nation. Get back to that guys. And here in Europe we're having basically the same problems but with the difference that jews kinda look like Europeans.

  12. Plus a year later and that investment that they said would happen from the repeal didn't happen , also they didn't do any investment with tax cuts

  13. This fuck will end up with a job back at version after he's out of the f.c.c probley a higher position then he had before like head legal tucker

  14. Hold on, At the beginning of the Internet the FCC didn't want any part of the Internet, The FCC didn't want to get involved and govern or control it because they didn't believe it would grow or expand and be accepted, so they walked away. That means from the very beginning that was Net Neutrality, it was free and open to grow, one purchased the speed they could afford and providers were free to expand service.
    Obama was the one whom put regulations on the Internet using the FCC, and limiting providers from expanding. President Trump removed Obama's restricting regulations and returned the Internet back to Net Neutrality as it was in the beginning, free and open to expand.

    Today, Without Obama's restricting "Net Neutrality" We see no price increase, faster speeds, and more coverage in remote areas!

  15. It really comes down to affecting the First Amendment censorship is illegal under the First Amendment because it restricts people from what they can say and do which is a violation of your Birthright

  16. The state of US internet is a total mess and shit. In fact, every market where internet access is monopolistic it is total garbage.

    Here they have further regulations which enables competition, the large telcos are forced to rent their fibers at a set low rate to allow competition, and common Telco Pops have enforced open access for all telcos etc. So anyone with the cash and connections can build a ISP. Even then it's a bit closed community and getting into the market is hard as companies don't really want to let you in, and there are lots of small ways the big operators try to hamper small ones.

  17. He sure knows how to show Ajit Pai in the most negative light.
    The piece of 💩he has shown us he is,coupled with the goofiest of grins,on repeat.😆

  18. The reason why I am against NN is that it is not for the FCC to handle. It should be the FTC. The other problem I have is that regulatory agencies answer to no one. They aren't elected and can pretty much change the rules whenever they choose. The FCC could regulate content. – based on whatever party is in power. The FTC could only truly regulate fair practices. I also don't care for the way it was rushed and rammed down our throats, with no real public input or debate. Lastly, the gov't is incompetent – they can screw up a free lunch. A donkey is a race horse designed by congress.
    Outside of that, you provided a very good explanation of NN and the problem.

  19. "these deals depends solely on verizon's business model and anticompetitive network management practices". I don't think these practices are in any way "anticompetitive"; they are exactly the opposite. It's like, too competitive suddenly becoming anti-competitive. As if there will ever exist a moral line that separates the good from the bad practices in a market system that has at it's core, a competitive ethos. Or as if we want competition, but only within a set of rules that are off limits, when $billions are at stake.

  20. Anyone notice the picture of "Satan" placed at 9mins, 57secs (near the end of the 57th second)?
    Someone has to be a fan of the old film, "Exorcist" . Those producers had a repetition technique of satan(ic) imagery, shown in split seconds.

  21. Thanks for the good work. I'll be using some of your information for an upcoming article I'm working on for an A/V website and will link to this video as an FYI for more info.
    I found this while searching around for some history, suspecting Ajit Pai hasn't been completely honest about how he describes the "glory days" of the Internet past with no regulation. Pai has a tight little narrative he spews that hits all the right partisan notes to turn NN into a political issue.
    I agree with your summary at the end, NN doesn't deserve to be politicized. In fact, I don't think it is among the American people. An overwhelming majority on both sides of the political divide seem to support it. Although, I haven't seen any recent statistics.

  22. have you ever heard of the expression if you can't beat them join them…?
    Create an ANTI
    Stop bitching and do something about it and make a buck or two

  23. I was going to watch this but at around 2:27 you spliced in a quick frame and I dont like that shit, dont slip shit in like that its not cool

  24. As a tech pro, I was for net neutrality at first and then I realized that ports literally don't matter. I can scramble and re-route my traffic using a VPN or any of a host of other means. Net neutrality is BS.

  25. Net neutrality is an illusion, created by those with power, to those without it.
    You may not throttle or restrict access to content based on expected payment, like a "mobster provider", but you also not compelled to enhance anyone's speed to compensate the money one can invest on making sure they content is better received, and then charged as a service by being better. The money it generates can grant the infrastructure to make sure it is still better.
    In our epoch, anyone with money to get the means of production of goods and services will always have an edge over those without it.
    These ideals of "Internet is a democratic free space" are dreams of the likes of socialism or communism ever working in the long run.
    And it would be worse if it did, by what it would demand to work.

  26. For someone with a bullet list of lies for NOT Neutrality, you seem to be failing to be honest yourself. Right at the first one, you say the argument is the rules are overreaching, then you add to it that they are overly long and complex (which is totally different), then you spend ~2.5 minutes disproving the second part of the argument, and from there you jump to the non sequitur conclusion that the first part is a lie.

    Like, really…

    In number 2, I find it amusing that you don't realize that if companies aren't fair, consumers will choose others. Consumer dissatisfaction is not a good business strategy! Net neutrality was never really a thing in my country and we never had problems. Internet here started out severely capped (speeds and GBs). As soon as one company removed the caps to gain over the customers to themselves, all other companies followed suit to avoid losing them. Business management 101? I mean really.

    Companies compete. And consumers are the ones deciding where the market goes, not the companies. If consumers don't have enough choices, then I urge you to look deeper into it, and you'll find government getting in the way with… guess what, costly regulations that prevent startups and favor monopolies — just what net neutrality is. And that's what's actually there: these companies were (are) aided by government: AT&T, Verizon, maybe Comcast too, they got tax breaks and subsidies. Consumers were always trying to get rid of them! They are monopolies thanks to government financial aid and all sorts of stupid regulations that hinder smaller competitors.*

    Without net neutrality, by now they wouldn't exist, or they would've learned the lessons and evolved their business to accommodate for consumer demand for better services. Instead, those bad business managers are still around today and are still bad at it, because they were never replaced by better ones because consumers have little choices because government is actually anti-competitive (and only the gov can ever be anti-competitive).

    You even show news articles about companies doing all the stuff you argue net neutrality should be preventing DESPITE NET NEUTRALITY BEING IN PLACE. You show that it's useless.

    You demonstrate it yourself in the video, that the evil lie here is that net neutrality is a necessity.

    Basically you spend the entire video showing how the FCC and the gov keep getting in the way, regulating the shit out of everything. No wonder there's little competition and much monopoly.

    By the way, anti-competitiveness is bullshit. Anything a company does is inherently detrimental to its competitors, apart from mutually beneficial collaboration. So there's no distinction between what is anti-competitive and what isn't. Anything a company does affects competitors; anything they do is competitive, and not the opposite. Moreover, companies don't control the market, they only control their own slice of it. They can't take out competition in any other way than merely serving the consumers better. Only the government has the power to be anti-competitive by either artificially favoring and disfavoring competitors, or by prohibiting competition altogether.

  27. Wow. I knew only a part of it. I hope your social life comes up. You have done some work here. I am happy to not live under your friggin free companies.

  28. Stopped watching vhdeo at 11 mins after what I think is second 'subliminal' image in video so far. I don't believe in subliminal messages working but the very fact you felt the need to put them in the video for no apparent reason makes me doubt your integrity. Shame. The video was interesting up until then.

  29. 1. Who cares
    2. It's handled with anti-trust laws
    3. It was literally repealing the Obama rules
    4. Net neutrality leads to regulation is usually the argument
    5. Don't really disagree
    6. I don't understand how this is even an argument against it (I guess technically the video was lies about net neutrality, but it is essentially a leftist position in the US because it's the government stepping in)

  30. “Their competing payment system at the time called… I lost it. Well played sir, well fucking played. From my understanding it was one of the worst designed systems ever. You had to give them your debit/checking account info, and then you’d have some app on the phone, but you didn’t use NFC, oh no. you opened the app, it displlayed a QR code, this was scanned, then I think, (yes, this is still going!) you had to scan a QR code with your phone as well. Honestly, it sounded so clunky, you might as well have just payed with a traditional swipe card or cash. Utterly absurd.

  31. Ah but under international act differs subquentl. So as a incorperation they know by stock price to target those that are just obliged to account after all Ip's are independent on net accountant there for does not state otherwise. Sk they win. How ever diversification is the best option meaning it inst blocked just rated. And open net under net nurility does not state at all meaning there statement its self is molopoly subsqently unmining there choice to put all effects into play knowing there were going to take the ip and win to run not know the ip would be rated under regulations to rate the ipo seo performance under as follows M rated M15 rated M16 rated.

  32. Not if the cyber security device access call waiting>call wIting<call waiting>call. Meaning an ecripytion telecommunication devices encrypts calls relating to non server blockage retaining server calls and is registerd to call centers relating to call devices.

  33. These videos are incredibly well done. Thank you for an informed opinion on subjects that are clouded in misinformation. Keep up the good work!

  34. Google Twitter and Facebook censorship is unreasonable interference. These companies need to be fined a Billion dollars a week until they comply or die.

  35. I don't understand what's the big deal. All we do is Instagram food and take pictures of cute animals, right?

  36. I'm a Republican and I am disappointed with what this party has proposed doing regarding the repeal of net neutrality.

  37. Internet is not private it uses the roads that are public note stores are not public the land was sold

  38. Ajit Paij does NOT want net neutrality, hes not as dumb as he comes off, he makes those stupid mannerism and dumb fucking jokes on purpose. Im sure hes aware of the long term consequences, but they wont affect him. Hes cashing out, future consequences be damned.

  39. can always respect a person who can make cogent points without insulting other people to do it. well…. except for the full retard parts I guess

  40. 9:55 I fucking hate this one, such a obvious lie that caught on so easily too. After this and the downturn in our group identity politics… made me even more apathetic that I was. Gave up hope on a lot of people. But, I still try to act as if there is some. Its all or nothing after all (end of the world or not, long term I mean ofc)

    Ok nvm you went hard on Ajit, but I guess thats understandable

  41. 10:00 just like freedom of speech is actually a heavy handed regulation by the government how the entirety of human interaction operates.

  42. Thanks for saving us time heres my solution get Elon or another billionaire have em investment in creating a public but private company complete with towers cables satellites ect. Develop new phones and new software no no android no iphone bias search engine no google or maps no facebook all software must be recreated without the extra bs no advertisement period visit a page that his it or they opt in lol pretty much create americas freedom and privacy. No corrupt keep it all secure encrypted with the latest anti spyware built into no extra shit or apps u need. my browser should be like tor running on vpn automatically built into the isp and browser.
    Ultimately we are censoring the govt from using surveillance to spy on its people. Sure theyd just hack us or use lawsuit to get leverage but whatever tmobil att verison sprint mpcs are to far gone and google fb are committed to its own agendas.
    Thats the cure

  43. AMAZING! I am a new subscriber and I feel as if this video tends to be Anti Trump and is very anti Republican, Thus I shall consider keeping my subscription. check you political bias at the door or I will close my door.

  44. $"US government and the FCC is fucked up on so many levels both of them need to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up to make this Nation great again pun intended"$

    Then we must rebuild it on our own…can't keep turning to elite politicians and large corps. for help. We must help ourselves and Deep Learn

  45. You do realise, that many of these corrupt big tech companys" you say would be stoped by Net Netrality, actually ENDORSE Net-Netrality! This is because Net-Netrality will choke-out their compitition!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *