Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube)   Vi Hart explains net neutrality the only way she can   ( youtube.com) divider line
13
    More: Interesting, Vi Hart, Communications Act of 1934, telecommunications service, net neutrality  
•       •       •

2841 clicks; posted to Video » on 10 May 2014 at 3:40 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



13 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
OnlyM3
2014-05-10 10:53:08 AM  
It's almost like the fools the president appoints (via bribes) matters.
 
Benevolent Misanthrope [TotalFark]
2014-05-10 12:12:25 PM  
Yay, US Government and lobbying system.  Way to go, guys.
 
crozzo
2014-05-10 05:27:30 PM  
Politics is business and business is politics. They both agree that bribery is bad, but if it can ensure that some action will have a profitable result, then a bribe is certainly the way to go. You don't think twice about slipping the maitre d' $50 for a nice table near the window, do you? Have you ever told a cab driver he'd get an extra $20 if he can make the airport in 45 minutes? Never given your Senator a free trip to Ibiza in exchange for a little fancy editing on the Such And So Act? Come on, tell the truth.
 
BumpInTheNight
2014-05-10 07:04:47 PM  

crozzo: Politics is business and business is politics. They both agree that bribery is bad, but if it can ensure that some action will have a profitable result, then a bribe is certainly the way to go. You don't think twice about slipping the maitre d' $50 for a nice table near the window, do you? Have you ever told a cab driver he'd get an extra $20 if he can make the airport in 45 minutes? Never given your Senator a free trip to Ibiza in exchange for a little fancy editing on the Such And So Act? Come on, tell the truth.


That's all we need, Comcast employees idling about on your lawn waiting for a gratuity after you've streamed something and it only paused to buffer a half dozen times instead of the usual dozen.
 
I Like Bread
2014-05-11 12:55:36 AM  
The solution to this bullshiat is the same solution to the healthcare mess. Offer a government alternative, then deregulate. Give the oligopolies all the rope they want to hang themselves with. If people can buy reliable 4Mb/s internet at $10/mo, you'll find the other ISPs pricing competitively REAL quick.
 
lohphat
2014-05-11 05:36:57 AM  
The simple solution is to declare ISPs common carriers so in exchange for not being liable for content and data in transit, they cannot discriminate and classify content.
 
Zap_Rowsdower
2014-05-11 07:37:01 AM  
I certainly don't have any love for the ISP monopolies, nor for the FUBAR'ed mess our country's internet system is quickly becoming, but I have to say that the delivery truck analogy is flawed.

With the delivery trucks, you pay the delivery company for each book you order.  Someone who gets one book per month will pay less than someone who gets 100 books per month.  The delivery company gets paid by volume - more books actually DOES equal more revenue, more business, and more profit.  But that's not how ISPs work.  They tried that in the early days.  I remember being on AOL and having the counter in the corner keeping track of how many minutes I'd used.

But now we pay to have "unlimited" internet access, and the ISPs make the same amount of profit off Grandma who uses it to check her email once a month that they do off someone who's going through 40 gigs per day of data transfer.  More data being moved does NOT translate to more business and more profit.  Instead, the ISPs have a vested interest in moving as little traffic as possible to maximize their profits.

When Netflix came along, and people started streaming all this content, it totally changed the structure on which they had based their strategies.  It'd be like if I were running an all-you-can eat buffet.  I did my research to figure out how much of which foods the average person liked to eat in one sitting, and based all my prices and ordering and strategy on that.  Then someone invented an e-stomach that allowed people to cram down 10x the amount of food, which threw all that planning out the window.

Now, that said, these "solutions" they're trying to cram through the government are horrible and evil, and I'm way on board for true net neutrality.  I just don't like flawed arguments.
 
gottagopee
2014-05-11 08:21:36 AM  

Zap_Rowsdower:  I just don't like flawed arguments.


From the video description:
"Time is of the essence, so forgive my inevitable errors."

It's close enough for the vast majority of people without a clue as to why this is an issue. They have no idea that 'fast lane' internet means actually slowing down others, *not* improving speed.

Plus I am madly, deeply in love with Vi Hart. After watching this, how could you not be?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTwrVAbV56o
 
Gunther
2014-05-11 01:02:37 PM  

Zap_Rowsdower: With the delivery trucks, you pay the delivery company for each book you order.  Someone who gets one book per month will pay less than someone who gets 100 books per month.  The delivery company gets paid by volume - more books actually DOES equal more revenue, more business, and more profit.  But that's not how ISPs work.  They tried that in the early days.  I remember being on AOL and having the counter in the corner keeping track of how many minutes I'd used.

But now we pay to have "unlimited" internet access, and the ISPs make the same amount of profit off Grandma who uses it to check her email once a month that they do off someone who's going through 40 gigs per day of data transfer.  More data being moved does NOT translate to more business and more profit.  Instead, the ISPs have a vested interest in moving as little traffic as possible to maximize their profits.


So the metaphor is like someone running a delivery service who offers a flat rate to deliver everything to you, then (when you use that to order a bunch of stuff) doesn't keep their end, because even though they offered that deal and you paid for that deal, they decide it isn't in their interests. And then they try to extort money out of the shipper in exchange for doing what they already agreed they'd do.

The video simplified the situation, but the main point still holds true; ISPs are dicks, anti-Net Neutrality rulings are dicks and the FCC are dicks for siding with them.
 
ActionJoe
2014-05-11 01:53:00 PM  

I Like Bread: The solution to this bullshiat is the same solution to the healthcare mess. Offer a government alternative, then deregulate. Give the oligopolies all the rope they want to hang themselves with. If people can buy reliable 4Mb/s internet at $10/mo, you'll find the other ISPs pricing competitively REAL quick.


LOLOLOLOLOLOL........and which cable lines will the government be using to provide this alternative? Basically, if you want this government option to happen the government would basically need to pay the cable companies a certain price and then get subsidized by the US government to allow a lower price for consumer. All the while losing money. The similar situation to this is Amtrack. Government doesn't own the railroads but the cargo carriers put up with it enough to allow passengers trains through at a huge cost to the government.
 
I Like Bread
2014-05-11 02:08:41 PM  

ActionJoe: I Like Bread: The solution to this bullshiat is the same solution to the healthcare mess. Offer a government alternative, then deregulate. Give the oligopolies all the rope they want to hang themselves with. If people can buy reliable 4Mb/s internet at $10/mo, you'll find the other ISPs pricing competitively REAL quick.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL........and which cable lines will the government be using to provide this alternative? Basically, if you want this government option to happen the government would basically need to pay the cable companies a certain price and then get subsidized by the US government to allow a lower price for consumer. All the while losing money. The similar situation to this is Amtrack. Government doesn't own the railroads but the cargo carriers put up with it enough to allow passengers trains through at a huge cost to the government.


And if cable lines were the only possible way to transfer computer data, you might have a point.
 
anfrind
2014-05-11 10:29:22 PM  

I Like Bread: ActionJoe: I Like Bread: The solution to this bullshiat is the same solution to the healthcare mess. Offer a government alternative, then deregulate. Give the oligopolies all the rope they want to hang themselves with. If people can buy reliable 4Mb/s internet at $10/mo, you'll find the other ISPs pricing competitively REAL quick.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL........and which cable lines will the government be using to provide this alternative? Basically, if you want this government option to happen the government would basically need to pay the cable companies a certain price and then get subsidized by the US government to allow a lower price for consumer. All the while losing money. The similar situation to this is Amtrack. Government doesn't own the railroads but the cargo carriers put up with it enough to allow passengers trains through at a huge cost to the government.

And if cable lines were the only possible way to transfer computer data, you might have a point.


What's the alternative?  The government has already auctioned off all but the most undesirable parts of the radio spectrum, so they won't be able to set up a nonprofit wireless service any more easily than they could roll out a wired Internet service.  They'd either have to use eminent domain to seize existing network infrastructure or roll out an expensive (and high-latency) satellite-based service.

The only workable solution I can see at this point is some variation on the "pre-breakup AT&T" model: let the telecoms have their local monopolies, but impose strict regulations (including the existing "common carrier" rules) so that they are forced to continually upgrade their networks.  Unfortunately, even that would only ever happen if every telecom lobbyist were to suddenly drop dead.
 
Porous Horace
2014-05-12 12:46:21 AM  
I'd like to hear what Emacs Hart has to say on the subject.
 
Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

Total access
Total knowledge
Total Fark

learn more | sign up

Report
On Twitter

Report
Top Commented
Top Commented ▼
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.
Report