Posted on 05/24/2011 8:06:56 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Steven Crowder finally delivers his long-awaited video on Net Neutrality — and it’s worth the wait. Steven traveled to Austin for the annual SxSW convention to hear the arguments for government intervention in Internet bandwidth allocations, and comes away less than impressed. It’s a debate drenched in technobabble, but the basic principles are clear and unmistakable. Who gets to control the operation of private networks — those who own them, or the government?
This is a debate drenched not only in technobabble, but analogies as well. That’s because it’s difficult for most people to grasp the technical details, and so both sides have to rely even more on argument by analogy than we usually see in politics … and that’s saying something. Steven’s analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. Net Neutrality, if applied to postage and shipping, would force the USPS to treat a 50-pound barbell the same as an envelope of less than one ounce. That’s what’s meant by content neutrality.
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
Great video. It sure explained net neutrality.
Great video!
Steven Crowder gets it.
bump for later
No, it wouldn't. Net Neutrality, if applied to postage and shipping, would force the USPS to treat a 50-pound barbell sent by Walmart the same as it treats a 50-pound barbell sent by Amazon (and the same as it treats a 50-pound barbell sent by Joe Schmoe).
Even with net neutrality, ISPs are more than welcome to charge more for more bandwidth, they just can't charge more or less depending on the content of that bandwidth.
I can’t name very many...... I can’t name any promise off of the top of my head in which the government was truthful.
Why would you think net neutrality is any different?
But besides that, more than any others that he makes, Crowder brings up an incredibly valid point.
All the big corporations support net neutrality, but the smaller companies aren’t so much. The costs of regulation(all regulations have cost) is the obvious first stop answer.
No, it would force a barbell that is being shipped from Google to have a higher priority than a letter from Joe Schmoe.
Because Google can give more to the candidates who would be in control of who gets the bandwidth.
Because Google can give more to the candidates who would be in control of who gets the bandwidth.
No candidate would be "in control of who gets the bandwidth." A law enacting net neutrality would simply say that the ISP could not give preference to Google over Joe Schmoe (or, as a more likely example, Hulu over Netflix). It would not give preference to Google - doing so would require a new law, which would (rightly) be opposed by everyone but Google.
Because Google can give more to the candidates who would be in control of who gets the bandwidth.
No candidate would be "in control of who gets the bandwidth." A law enacting net neutrality would simply say that the ISP could not give preference to Google over Joe Schmoe (or, as a more likely example, Hulu over Netflix). It would not give preference to Google - doing so would require a new law, which would (rightly) be opposed by everyone but Google.
>>No candidate would be “in control of who gets the bandwidth.” <<
Correct, no single candidate would. However, if you truly think that having a majority of people in power on your side would not give you an advantage, you’re not paying attention.
That is the case with or without net neutrality. If anything, net neutrality would slow that, since it would make the legal "default" that providers cannot charge more for certain content.
True, but only in the sense that an inequality cannot be artificially produced by the ISP. If they have a slow server, or you just bought the lowest-end slow connection, net neutrality does not apply.
His analogy of phone apps is also heavily flawed. Traffic shaping in order to maintain network performance has been allowed for in all network neutrality proposals.
Steven’s analogy to the postal service is the most apt in this video. Net Neutrality, if applied to postage and shipping, would force the USPS to treat a 50-pound barbell the same as an envelope of less than one ounce.
Absolutely false, a strawman. The kettle bell will obviously take more time since it's more data, and nothing in net neutrality affects this. Nothing in net neutrality prevents charging by amount of data sent. Nothing in net neutrality prevents data caps. What it does say is that the ISP can't artificially slow down or stop your shipping of the kettle ball or the envelope because, for example, they compete with the ISP's own kettle ball service.
Then he goes on to talk about how companies that operate on the Internet would be burdened with the costs of government regulation. What a load of BS! Net neutrality doesn't address the operations of companies that do business on the Internet -- it addresses the operations of the ISPs to make sure they can't interfere with their business.
It's simple: Winners without neutrality: The ISPs. Winners without net neutrality: Everyone else, businesses big and small on the Internet and the people who do business with them. It is the anti-neutrality crowd that would burden businesses with extra costs, in the form of having to pay off the ISPs in order to be able to reach consumers. Businesses like Google could afford to pay them, not the little guy.
I think it's impossible for the anti-neutrality to say anything without lying.
All the big corporations support net neutrality, but the smaller companies aren’t so much.
Absolutely, provably, factually wrong. You know a position is untenable when its supporters constantly have to lie.
The costs of regulation(all regulations have cost) is the obvious first stop answer.
Name one net neutrality law or regulation that regulates the business of an e-commerce company from Google down to mom-and-pop, or non-commercial sites such as FreeRepublic.
——————it addresses the operations of the ISPs to make sure they can’t interfere with their business.—————
There’s nothing to prevent the marxists from interfering with their business.
-————It is the anti-neutrality crowd that would burden businesses with extra costs———————
Every government regulation incurs a burden of extra cost.
————We work on logic and facts, you work on scare tactics.—————
No you don’t. You work solely on scare tactics.
The proof is simple. You act as if all these paid for astroturf groups are just third party rabble rousers on the side. They aren’t.
They are in the FCC. They are in the Whitehouse. They are in the Senate. They have the ear of the law and regulation makers.(I have already demonstrated this several times)
You never address that. You can’t. If you did, your whole distorted reality on net neutrality would fall apart. Instead, you scaremonger about telcos as if lawmakers influenced by marxists are less of a threat than a corporation who doesn’t yet have the power of law on their side.
—————Name one net neutrality law or regulation that regulates the business of an e-commerce company from Google down to mom-and-pop, or non-commercial sites such as FreeRepublic.—————
We know the proposals. The marxists have been honest behind closed doors, thinking we wouldn’t know where to look.
It’s a good thing the leftist media doesn’t have a monopoly anymore.
Is this the same FCC that just had a commissioner leave to take a high-paying job at Comcast? Even Rep. Issa is wondering about that one. So who's cozy with the FCC again? Do you see a revolving door between the EFF and the FCC as there is with Comcast? Or do you recognize the one between industry and the FCC?
Who's on what side? Genachowski is loaded with ties to Internet businesses. Copps has no direct ties either way, but he did work for Fritz Hollings, who was a wholly owned subsidiary of the entertainment industry. McDowell is a Republican who was a telco industry lobbyist. Clyburn has no industry ties, but is a Dem political hack in the utility regulators.
And the aforementioned Baker, the telco lobbyist who supported Comcast against net neutrality. Then Obama (yes, Obama) put her on the FCC where she pushed decisions in favor of Comcast, and now she's leaving to take a job with Comcast as the Senior VP for Government Affairs, i.e., in-house lobbyist.
But you probably see nothing wrong with that.
We know the proposals.
Blah blah blah, show me a law or regulation. Even show me a law or regulation proposed anywhere in the government.
And I've shown you many ways they are doing that, and those are completely unrelated to net neutrality. They have their own laws and regulations, their own proponents in Congress. I recently mentioned two that were downright draconian, and you didn't seem to care.
Every government regulation incurs a burden of extra cost.
For those it regulates. The guy lies in saying that it would incur costs for content providers, because it does NOT regulate them.
—————Is this the same FCC that just had a commissioner leave to take a high-paying job at Comcast?-————
Yes, that’s the comcast.
Obama loving comcast?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/01/14/comcast-broadcast-all-obama-channel
Comcast who wants to become a public utility?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2646969/posts?page=17#17
Yes, that comcast. And yes, that FCC.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703886904576031512110086694.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop=#articleTabs%3Darticle
————Even Rep. Issa is wondering about that one. So who’s cozy with the FCC again?——————
The progressives at the FCC are cozy with the progressives at comcast. That’s incredibly easy to understand if you follow the ideology.
It makes absolutely no sense if you follow the money.
I choose to follow the ideology.
-————Do you see a revolving door between the EFF and the FCC as there is with Comcast?-—————
The revolving door with the EFF and the FCC has already been established via the Berkman center.(see the above WSJ link) Both Berkman and the EFF are soros funded.
—————Who’s on what side? Genachowski is loaded with ties to Internet businesses.—————
He’s also tied directly to Free Press marxists. See the above WSJ link.
It was Genachowski who defended Mark “Hugh Chavez” Lloyd:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49843.html
It’s all about culture. Culture, culture, culture. A guy like Lloyd going over to the FCC doesn’t make any waves? He fits in there. That’s the only conclusion.
—————but he did work for Fritz Hollings, who was a wholly owned subsidiary of the entertainment industry.-—————
Hollings is a regular contributor to the Huffington post. The question now becomes, which specific companies in the entertainment industry? Are they progressive corporations? I’d bet they are. I bet if you look, many of them are in bed with the tides foundation.
This is your problem. You haven’t yet figured out how to follow the ideology. You’ve only yet learned to follow the money.
They’re very similar. Once you learn that, this will all make sense.
—————McDowell is a Republican who was a telco industry lobbyist.—————
And isn’t in the majority. In other words, he has no power.
—————Clyburn has no industry ties, but is a Dem political hack in the utility regulators.—————
Dem political hack? Dig deeper. Being as Clyburn has no industry ties(your words) she is probably the best one for you to test your ability to “follow the ideology”.
Once you learn how to follow the ideology, things will start to make more sense.
—————Then Obama (yes, Obama) put her on the FCC where she pushed decisions in favor of Comcast, and now she’s leaving to take a job with Comcast as the Senior VP for Government Affairs, i.e., in-house lobbyist.
But you probably see nothing wrong with that.-————
I see a big problem with that, because there’s plenty of evidence that comcast is a progressive company.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000461
Look at who and where their contributions go to.
—————show me a law or regulation.——————
Due to the history of progressivism, by the time they reach that point it will be too late.
They play this like a football game. I can’t tell you what yard line they are currently at, but the last thing we need is for them to get a touchdown. They do that it’s over. It’s their own history.
-—————And I’ve shown you many ways they are doing that——————
You have.
-————and those are completely unrelated to net neutrality.-—————
Not yet. Cest le coup de grâce
——————For those it regulates. The guy lies in saying that it would incur costs for content providers, because it does NOT regulate them.-—————
They’ve already made it clear that they have a target on content providers. The real question is when are they going to tighten the screws.
I’m looking forward. Because they are looking forward.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.