Skip to comments.HBO Pseudo-News Anchor John Oliver Gets Net Neutrality Fundamentally Wrong
Posted on 06/23/2014 7:24:18 AM PDT by ConservingFreedom
So it turns out there that something doesn't have to be true to be funny.
Many a thinking American - who knows media bias - finds the following perversely appropriate.
Young Get News From Comedy Central
Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather ... and Jon Stewart?
Readers over 30 might scoff at Stewart's inclusion - assuming they know who he is. For many under 30, the host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" is, improbably, a source for news.
Looking to further ride the wave (beyond just Real Time with Bill Maher), HBO hired away Comedy Central reporter John Oliver to anchor a new news show - Last Week Tonight. And on June 1, Oliver spent thirteen minutes on Network Neutrality. And the pseudo-news pseudo-consumers were thrilled.
John Olivers Hilarious Net Neutrality Piece Speaks the Truth
Watch John Olivers Brilliant, Concise Primer On Net Neutrality
Still Confused About Net Neutrality? John Oliver Explains
Except Oliver doesn't explain Net Neutrality - he gets it fundamentally wrong.
Olivers segment was start-to-finish Leftist rote. Unwittingly Im guessing, hes carrying the water of the Internets bandwidth hogs. Particularly video-streaming companies like Netflix, Google (who owns YouTube) - and, perhaps, movie channel HBO? - who want the government to mandate that they get a free ride for being bandwidth hogs.
And Oliver omits a panoply of contravening information.
Oliver begins his piece by incorrectly asserting that huge-bandwidth-using-companies paying for the bandwidth they use is the creation of an Internet fast lane. Thus leaving the rest of us consigned to the slow lane.
Only there will be no such thing. What Oliver and Company report as brand new fast lanes- are in fact regular lane deals that have existed as long as has the Internet. It is all a part of what is called peering.
Internet Peering is typically settlement-free, meaning that neither party pays the other for access to each others customers, reflective of the underlying notion that peering is a relationship of approximately equal value to each party.
If either party perceives that the benefit derived from peering is asymmetric, one party or the other may deny peering or suggest an alternative paid arrangement.
With the likes of Netflix - peering is anything but asymmetric.
Netflix Gobbles a Third of Peak Internet Traffic in North America
Netflix for years had no problem paying middle men for their monster bandwidth use - companies like Level 3 and Cogent. Who are Internet Service Providers (ISPs) - just for these guys rather than us.
Then it occurred to Netflix that it made more business sense to cut out these middle men - and deal directly with our ISPs.
Netflix Signs Streaming Traffic Deal with Verizon
Comcast and Netflix Reach Deal on Service
Except Netflix suddenly, disingenuously claimed these very ordinary deals were Net Neutrality violations.
Netflix Blasts Comcast and Verizon on Net Neutrality: 'Some Big ISPs are Extracting a Toll'
But again, Netflix has always paid someone for their bandwidth hoggishness (as well they should). The only thing new here is their trying to get the government to mandate they no longer have to.
Netflix dishonesty doesnt end there.
Netflix Error Message Blames ISP for Slow Streaming Service
Netflix Uses Social Media To Blame Verizon For Slow Downloads
Verizon Purposely Slowing Down Netflix Video Streaming, CEO Says
Verizon Isn't Slowing Netflix
The Media is unquestioningly buying Netflix garbage. Is the Barack Obama Administration? Sadly, unsurprisingly
(Federal Communications Commission) FCC to Examine Netflix, Other Peering Deals Between Providers
Working with thirteen minutes, Oliver never got to any of this.
So we should congratulate Oliver and his pseudo-news colleagues. They are just as reliable - reliably Leftist - as the Jurassic Press they are slowly supplanting.
I don’t understand what made HBO think that America was looking for yet another Leftist hack comedian to analyze the news. His Global Warming segement was the only part of his show that I saw and it was one of the more offensive things I’ve ever seen. So now he’s got another issue wrong. So what? That’s par for the course with these shows.
But ‘net neutrality’ sounds so fair, doesn’t it?
I fixed my kids of this thinking..
I asked them if they would vote for the “be kind to puppies” act... and pressured them into agreeing by saying “what are you a puppy hater” and stuff like that over and over until they said “yes”
then I said “Great- the ‘be kind to puppies’ act mandates that you give half your income to me for the rest of your life so I can build luxury air conditioned dog houses for every puppy on the planet....”
They screamed “Whaaaat???” and I said “YOU SHOULD HAVE READ IT FIRST”
People who subscribe to Netflix and want to see the movies with as much crystal clarity as possible have to purchase higher bandwidth plans which cost more money. Despite paying for this higher bandwidth, customers never get the bandwidth they pay for, and often get nowhere near what they pay for.
I pay for 3Meg, but often get just 0.25Meg. Yes, the agreement I made with AT&T clearly states I have paid for "up to" 3Meg so technically AT&T is not violating the terms of the agreement, but in spirit they definitely are.
The additional money that my provider is getting from me, along with all of the other folks that are paying for even higher bandwidths, should provide them with the funds they need to expand capacity, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If net neutrality goes away, then yes maybe Netflix will finally be paying what they "ought to" pay and will have to transfer those costs to their customers making them go back to illegal downloads or back to the theaters. But it could also mean that connecting to places like FreeRepublic, even with its relatively low bandwidth requirements could become painfully slow.
Capitalists are keen to be as efficient as possible. Saving even 1% here or there by throttling traffic to rightwing sites would represent a twofer for them: they could extract a bit more money from customers that want to visit those sites, and they could limit the effectiveness of Tea Party groups.
> who want the government to mandate that they get a free ride for being bandwidth hogs.
Comcast, et. al. are “carriers” who ostensibly deliver the content that their “customers” request from providers like Netflix, YouTube, Google, etc. Oliver had it right in that the ISPs are using their monopolistic position between the customer and the provider to extort both sides.
Unlimited was a great deal: companies usually got higher rates than what users would pay if they bought by the gig. (Think of all-you-can-eat restaurants, you usually pay more for lesser amounts of subpar food than you get from an ala carte restaurant.)
People were happy because they didn't have to watch their data meter.
Then came Netflix. Currently Netflix accounts for a third of all internet traffic. Companies like Comcast and Verizon were unable to keep up with the data demands and wanted to charge more for Netflix customers versus non-Netflix users. Lawsuits ensued. The government got involved and proposed a fix: Net Neutrality.
Verizon eventually 'won' their lawsuit but it doesn't matter since they have mostly went to a metered plan, anyway. Comcast is still trying to offer unlimited plans that exclude or cap Netflix.
My take: The worst thing you can do is involve the government, so no Net Neutrality. These laws are never what they say in the title. Companies can offer unlimited with no differentiating for Netflix, or metered, or maybe a hybrid, such as Charter, which offers a higher cost unlimited plan for Netflix users.
I also agree that this is not a left/right issue. There are numerous conservative organizations that support net neutrality as they fear that allowing the telephone/cable companies to control traffic could lead to throttling of traffic to conservative web sites such as FreeRepublic.
This is basically a fight between two industries: content providers and content distributors. They are couching it as some grand philosophical debate. Either it is framed as free market vs. nanny state government, or free expression vs. corporate control of speech. Depends on which industry is providing the briefing material.
To be overly excited about either side of this debate is to become an unpaid shill for one industry or the other.
Eventually all of the content providers will be absorbed/merged into the content distributors and this debate will go away.