https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4
The video is over an hour long, but I'm curious as to what people here will think of the argument laid out.
Sorry, I didn't watch the video but basically what I say to anyone who is against net neutrality is
sounds too edgy for me, don't even wanna watch
I watched segments, and some of the conclusion. I am familiar with this YouTube channel, I rarely draw the same conclusions as Stefan. However, I am from a different part of the world, where things work differently.
I can't agree or disagree with Stefan. He's identified parts of America's arse-backwards version of capitalism. The solution is really a matter of public opinion. Pass a law to share a cable infrastructure -which was blocked by ISPs. This will certainly drive up costs due to costs of line rental. Alternatively, capitulate and play by ISP rules. Both solutions will still allow consumers to vote with their wallets.
I didn't watch the video, so I don't know what the arguments were.
Reason: I'm not going to waste an hour or more on arguments against something that doesn't exist and has never existed.
Net neutrality is not real, it was never real, and it's not realistic. It's not the correct answer to the question: "what do we do about derailed US corporations and their puppet government?". The government has the services, the laws are in place, why is nothing done against abusive monopolists in the US? Because there is no net neutrality? Lolz, yeah, as if y'all need more rules, right?
"Net neutrality" is just one of those dumb advertising slogans that means the exact opposite, it's something hyped up by Netflix to sell subscriptions and harvest user data, just like everyone else does. If they could destroy net neutrality to their own benefit, they most certainly would. Net neutrality as advertised by Netflix and co is not a real right, it's the equivalent of Eric Schmidt's "the right to know is higher than the human right of privacy" (the "right to know" is also a right that doesn't exist, "people have the right to know" was a slogan used by reporters before WWII).
People should realize that fighting for slogans is a complete waste of time. The real thing that has to be fought for, is that human and consumer rights that already exist are respected, and that courts enforce them in a lawful fashion. Everything else is shouting around like a headless chicken.
If net neutrality means that the automated backups of enterprises aren't going to complete overnight because the neighbouring suburb has watched game of thrones on netflix instead of on satellite, then it's a good thing that net neutrality doesn't exist in my opinion, because there is a higher principle, and that is "you have the right to get the services that you pay for". If you want fluid Netflix, AND pay for an enterprise grade connection, that's just fine, BUT, if you suck more bandwidth through a residential cheap connection than an enterprise that pays for a commercial connection, then you're just not being serious.
Netflix is one of those detrimental 'Murican services based on superficial entertainment content with no real cultural value that only achieves one thing: it makes internet connections expensive for everyone.
I don't want net neutrality. I don't want to pay for someone else's superficial entertainment addiction. I don't want to bog down the internet with some cheap media dumpster like Netflix, that doesn't offer valuable artistic or cultural content, and is just a mindless mental idling service basically.
There is nothing Netflix offers that a satellite PVR like Sky or Canal+ don't also offer, in better quality (because harddisk copy), and with respect for the rules regarding cultural and educational and linguistic content, as set for TV providers. Netflix is just the product of an extreme form of nihilism and laziness, for which others have to pay a dear price, in the form of having to subsidize the bored addict's connection and in the form of cultural decay. That also reflects in the remuneration of the content creators, and the chances valuable artistic content creators get for access to the market, which had already been reduced to almost nothing, and with Netflix are even further reduced.
THERE ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THINGS TO FIGHT FOR THAN THE RIGHT TO WASTE TIME!
It's not edgy, it's a man talking about the history of telecommunications law and how it relates to the market.
Censorship?
I don't really understand your comment. You say you don't draw the same conclusions as Stefan often, does that mean you accept his premises?
Net neutrality exists as an abstract concept, even you argued against it, although you did frame it mainly in the scope of Netflix. Thanks for your perspective though, I appreciate the time you put into typing it.
Havent watched the whole thing, but basically the bottum line is that the idea that it is expensive to provide this bandwidth and it must therefore be sold at high prices is silly, furthermore it doesn't make much sense to be charged for both line speed and data usage, they are both a measurement of bandwidth. It would make more sense to pay a lines charge and then a bandwidth fee.
Reality is most costs are fixed irregardless of levels of output, its meerely a matter of installing more routers in most cases, in some cases more fibre between major routers.
I didnt read your comment but how can you write so much about a video you didnt even watch.
hope you get the irony in my comment. lol
NSA shilll anyone?
I said I rarely agree with his conclusions. Take that to mean "I don't necessarily agree with the solutions that he might propose, but he can certainly identify a problem". I don't share his political/philosophical position, but I can agree with some of the observations that he might make, from time to time.
In the ISP market there's a lack of competition, he and I both agree on that. Where he and I differ is how to deal with that. Now, I can appreciate his sentiments, his scathing criticism of the US government. Personally, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the government promoting competition through a set of fair rules. Which I believe we have achieved in Europe - which is why our ISPs are upgrading their infrastructure. Major ISPs are making record profits, so they have the capacity to do so. They're just abusing some measure of monopoly power, over in the US.
Anyway, it's for the people of the US to decide if they wish to throw away net neutrality. US politics appears more corrupted than most other developed countries. So Stefan's idea might be more welcome, in the US.
I actually thought libertarians were pro-net neutrality? At least, the libs I have talked to were pro-net neutrality. I could be wrong. It is one reason why Stefan has surprised me with this video. Libertarians expect the government to do government things. Stefan is so vehemently anti-government, that he doesn't want them involved in anything. Though, this bit of regulation should promote fair competition, which is what we all want.
*Sarcastic Voice* Yes, everyone that doesn't agree with my point of view should be censored.
I just watched the first 12 minutes of the video and to me it seemed like he really doesn't grasp the fact that it's the job of ISPs to use their massive profits to improve their networks. Although I don't know if he mentioned that later on.
Thanks for posting. For those who say they won't waste time watching it- Molyneux makes some of the most intellectually honest videos on youtube, so don't advocate for Net Neutrality unless you know the arguments against it.
I just read the first 2 lines of your post. It seems to me like you don't like the concept of discussion.
Stefan is anarcho capitalist, so naturally he would prefer a market solution to a government solution on the basis that market solutions are solved through voluntary negotiation and contracts. Government solutions rely on force at a fundamental level which is in direct opposition to Stefan's philosophy (Non-aggression principle), which he bases all his videos on. He discusses the more technical objections in his video though.
You make a point I was about to before reading this.
If you're so confident that your position is right, you have even more reason to have an interest in objections to it. If someone had an argument against a fundamental scientific theory and presented it like Molyneux presents his arguments I'd be all over it.
Here's the same man speaking against the NSA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZPtNe8iKAA
Fair enough. That is an important distinction. I am on the mindset of helping that particular sector to maturity. In the UK, our ISPs utilised an existing public infrastructure. You can argue that the tax revenue used to lay that infrastructure was coercion, but I see it as a necessary evil. It meant that consumers enjoyed choices, from the get-go. I can see that it distorts market prices, because of the charges placed on line-rental. Now, ISPs are laying their own fiber infrastructure, so we are moving away from that. In the long-term, we have all the benefits.
I'm not dictating what America should do. If I am not mistaken, the US government tried to do something similar. ISPs were supposed to share networks, under a new piece of legislation, but this was blocked. The government was lobbied, and the conditions became unfavourable and anti-consumer. So I understand Stefan's sentiments. America is just a very er... difficult political sphere.