The Internet Must Go
Excellent mockumentary about how and why Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T, Time Warner and Comcast are pushing to eliminate or suppress the net neutrality.
Over the years they've spent billions to build the pipes and towers that bring Americans the Internet. Today they face a crisis, there's just too much traffic. (Un)fortunately they have a solution - the Internet as it exists today must go.
Instead of everything going at the same speed, the way it does now, they will create a fast lane and the slow lane on the Internet. Giant companies who can pay them more will be in the fast lane where will be easier for people to find them. Everyone else can take the slow road. They'll also create innovative new ways to charge Internet users for the sites they want.
What's stopping them? Well you've probably heard a lot of hype about net neutrality and keeping the Internet open. What do those buzz words really mean? On an open Internet they're supposed to treat everything equally whether it is profitable for them are not. This stands in the way of their freedom to make the money they think they deserve, but the public wants the Internet to stay open.
That's why they need a market researcher (John Wooley) to get out there and talk to people and help them figure out how to sell their new vision so they can eliminate net neutrality and reach their maximum profit potential.
Basically is the way the Internet's been since the beginning. You wanna get FOX news and you wanna get a friend's blog at the exact same speed. And what certain Internet service providers have talked about now is charging for faster lane and the only people that could really pay for the faster lane would be corporations.
internet simply make people as stupid as they looks now, and now there is so much of them that it became the new standard, a worldwide standard of simplistic idiocy, push button touch screen lol screen lol me selfie me me lol watch watch watch, never stop, then you don't see the world collapsing around you, because you and we are all already dead inside
lol,,, the sad thing is this is what's happening anyway, so you got it, whether you want it or not... sometimes it takes an entire minutes to download sites that i want to visit,,, sometimes they time out... the answer is for everyone to get a longwave radio and upload over that... they'll make it illegal, they may have already,,, but they can't arrest us all... lol...
The problem the marxist socialist-communist-progressives have IS the free flow of information. They want to make alternative news sites too difficult to find, cut off their income. If they could they would ban all information except their lies.
You cannot transform a nation of personal responsibility and opportunity ...to a central planned and controlled welfare state hell hole of total control without being able to get the majority of the people to believe your lies.
The bankster's CIA propaganda machine controls the major media, proven by the Church commission years ago. Now they are looking for some way to control the internet. Marxists require control of the information; knowing people will jump to the conclusions they lead them to by limiting the information to what supports their agenda.
Bernie sanders would say that this is the equivalent of screaming Venezuela.
I hate it when a good message gets lost in a bad documentary.
this whole title is wrong. The internet must NOT go. We , the ordinary sheeple in the world, use this WWW to connect and share information to expose the truth about things. Without it, we go back to living in the dark age and there is not a sophisticated, well built platform besides the internet that can support millions of users today. Its a problem if we don't have the internet. Anyone who thinks the internet is evil, you are being brainwashed successfully by the Elite who run this world. WAKE UP.
i think he was being a little facetious with the title also...
Bull****. If anything its an attempted coup on the free flow of information, which serves no one but the system and the f***ers who milk it.
Amend the constitution. Take away personhood from corporations. There are a few different groups up and running and trying to do just that right now. It would take corporate money out of politics. I don't think very many of you really care tho. To much trouble to call state government and all that stuff, right? See,.......I was right. You'll get what's commin to ya too! This country has had too much college wreckin their head.
Mike mathwig, THAT is the only way the gigacorps can be slowed. But, fat chance. We tried that in Oz many years ago. Set up a "peoples' Bank", even called it the Commonwealth Bank. Became "privatised" and is at last under investigation for robbing its customers.
You have to love the Stephen Colbert approach of 'appearing to support while being against' satire that John Wooley uses to make his point. It really is sad (not unexpected) that ISP corporations will force their control over the population, even to the point of having 19 states prevent community broadband services, via manipulation of political powers. If this doesn't expose to the layman the fascist nature of corporate control, and greed, then I can only say that people deserve what they support.
Tim Wu's eyebrows seriously distract me everytime he pops up for a statement
Why not just smite him, and get on with the job at hand.
P.S: What took you so long to return?
He says we want to get Fox News, I would not be caught dead watching that batch of lies and garbage!
...but you would be caught dead watching the other propaganda garbage spewers?
If you don't know its ALL CIA controlled then you haven't watched the some years ago Church commission hearings. Last time I looked you could still view them on a popular video tube site.
why is everything in this video spooffed and fabricated. i find it hilarious but i'm worried that sarcasm and deceipt is the right path to explaining a valid concern
The only traffic on the internet is there because the isp providers are not allowing full potential of the equipment they have or are not building equipment that is capable of true hi speed internet
I lived in East Texas while working for a small college and I found our own "Death Hill" outside of town where I could get a 3-G phone signal. The rest of the area was a dead zone.
I honestly wish the corporations would just implement their ridiculous ideas already, so that the populace would revolt and force them into bankruptcy by immediately discontinuing their subscriptions. Perhaps we would see more competitors arise with a philosophy to actually entertain their customers and treat them well, rather than focusing everything around profits and invading privacy.
Without competition, corporations can misbehave and get away with poor service connectivity, poor technical support, overages on bills, and a plethora of every day misdeeds. The small town I live in used to have 5 different ISPs, now it is just one corporation that has monopolized the area. No one should be forced into doing business with a single company that is selling something that is a necessity by today's standards in the information age.
Well just three years later and teh FCC is looking at "rule" changes to allow companies, errr, corporations such as TIme Warner, Com Cast, DirectTV and AT&T to initiate the "tiered" system. Oh, btw, all COMCAST and Direct tv have approved a merger of 45 billion (with a B) making that "corporation" the largest holder of highspeed internet acces in the country. I bet the price goes DOWN for their customers; right?
Sigh, how come a 100 billion dollars a year, in pure, UN-TAXED profit, is not enough?
Hey, I'm just saying it's now time to bend over.
This doc rates higher than 7.94. It was very funny & informative. just what I needed after long week. Everyone should watch only 30min very eye opening.
You may think this is a new concept on ISP but I hate to brake the news to you. Your documentary is ten years to late. Just the first 30 seconds, listen.
"OK, not in professor speak"..."but what else" Absolutely brilliant!!!
I found the style in which this documentary was made to be demeaning. Who, What, Why, Where, When, How. You won't find any of those questions here, just a bunch of preaching and shouldsayers.
For *********** who think that there's too much traffic, a standard fiber-optic infrastructure can carry several terabytes of data per second. Just saying.
A capitalist, a real one.
Hey Miguel, in magician's talk it is called "prestidigitation". The art of fooling you by distracting the suck.... er people with the left hand while they pick our pockets with the right.
What is amazing to me is the blatant way Our Owners now don't even really bother with any pretense any more, but simply suck up the money in giant scams like Stocks & Shares fiascos, REGULARLY.
The worry that there's so much traffic in the net is just ridiculous, to put it lightly. Centers of political and financial power watch helplessly how new tech takes away their control over masses and start mumbling every possible nonsense they can think of. Panic just describes their emotional status perfectly and Inferno by Dan Brown artistically.
They can't get over the fact of how they lost their " divine " rights 500 years or so ago. It is just devastating to them to realize that what they thought of as a reversing trend is simply an illusion. Eons of efforts to undermine the liberties of societies and the democratic rights of the individual seem to be cancelled under an unprecedented sea of change. Cheerios, you won't be kings again!
Important message, some compelling story attached to it, but all in all not very good delivery. Senator Franken and even John Hodgman must have been able and willing to provide more insight on the issue than just be the butt end of the mockumentary angle.
a funny and sad parody on 'big medias' attempt to sell the idea of an internet that looks and charges more like cable tv... I am reminded of the fact that all information through media was once 'free'. Newspapers charged advertisers not their customer; when they did start to charge the fee was nominal. TV was free in the beginning (you needed an antenna - and almost every community, large and small had their own local station); again advertising paid the network costs. Radio is still free (if you can put up with the 10 minutes of program to 100 minutes of Ads...or thereabouts), until satellite radio came along, now we are invited to pay for that too. What has continually mystified me is how corps got away with this in the first place. Telephone costs did actually go 'down', but that trend is reversing, and now people don't just have the home phone they have one or more expensive cell phones as well. TV went from minor costs to huge costs for hundreds of stations that nobody watches, and now we are paying premium for simple access to the internet - more - if you want access on your phone or tablet or laptop, etc. away from home. So 'information' and basic communication is already costing most families hundreds every month, while the media moguls make embarrassingly large profits, and still don't want to have to maintain their infrastructure (so service continues to fail) or expand or improve it. Thats the "way the cookie crumbles" as my Mom would say. You buy their BS, they'll keep dumping it, and you soon need a shovel to get away from the smell ... cheers
Even the simplest things left to their own motion and duplication create complexity where we can never imagine the ultimate outcome.
Capitalism is an economic process, the formula might seem simple...but in reality what it is creating is a complex processes of interdependence and dynamics that were never intended. We are watching as the ocean is being killed, we are seeing year over year increasing carbon dioxide...etc..we are literally a victim of our own creation.
The faster the speed the more the ISP can charge you. Why wouldn't they want to build better and faster?
Oh, wait. Google is building that high speed system at rates about the same as slower providers and even giving away free 5mb service. I guess competition can be inconvenient for ISPs that like the profits of sitting on their laurels.
Well, at least the cost of internet will never go down. Even Google will eventually begin to inch up their rates. So there's that good news.
Great documentary... it really nailed how Telco monopolies are screwing with consumers.
Netflix and Youtube account for half of all internet traffic in North America. I just can't get fired up to defend someone's "right" to watch Honey Boo Boo and cute cat videos.
The reason those services consume so much bandwidth is based on the type of content being served - streaming video requires MUCH more bandwidth than loading hundreds of websites all at once. The entire idea behind net neutrality is the fact that it does not matter what service is being accessed - ISPs should not be able to prioritize traffic or restrict traffic based on payment tiers. Who's to say someone watching Honey Boo Boo is any different than me watching documentaries? I personally think watching documentaries is much better - but it's all data no matter what the contents are. Everyone should have equal access to information, entertainment, news, if they pay for basic access. Would you be OK with paying additional $$$ every month so you could go to some additional sites other than the basic google, facebook, flickr? I would not be.
My comment is mostly tongue-in-cheek and obviously hypocritical because I am watching this documentary on Youtube.
The statement about Netflix and Youtube being one half of internet traffic however is a fact. Add to that another bandwidth eater, pornography, and we are well over half of internet use, It is impossible to determine exactly how much porn is being watched but all agree it is massive.
With this in mind then all the other uses of the internet combined comprise less than half of internet use and more likely less than one-third. Think of that for a moment. All buying and selling, all social networks, all education, all communications, all news sources, all power grid control, and all other uses other than "entertainment" take up less than a third of internet usage.
When we say "internet neutrality" what are we really saying? Why say "internet neutrality" at all? It's little more than a buzz-word. It's not a solution.
Sarcasm goes right out the window on the internet. No use explaining yourself.
I hate it when a good message gets lost in a bad documentary.
I didn't like your comment when it first appeared, but...as much as I did enjoy this doc, you're right...the good message (the bigger story) was missed unfortunately: Why are these companies, who ALL have such huge profits, not investing in infrastructure as they should be? That question was glossed over and left in the dust.
I thought it was implied that corporations frown on investing for infrastructure simply because they want their profit to remain profit and not turn into expenses.
It has to do with industry agreements, quotas, and weakly imposed government regulations/requirements.
Hey, I'm no accountant, but capital investment in infrastructure becomes part of the company assets (and years of tax right-offs) that depreciates over time.
The reason I stress it was glossed over is this: imagine you are a courier company with a few vehicles. There are four other courier companies and they have the same amount of vehicles as you. Imagine also that there is unlimited demand for your services. So, because of that demand, you could reinvest all your profit in an attempt to outgrow your competition with a larger fleet to tap into demand...but they, your competition, could just as easily do the same as you, and profits are eaten away in the fleet growing race. Before you know it, there is a reinvestment war going on as one company tries to outgrow the other.
So instead you and your competitors sit done and agree not to do this. You agree to limit the number of vehicles you'll each have and thereby keep the maximum profit. This would be similar to running a cartel. Oil companies do this to prevent flooding the market with oil, and it keeps the price regulated.
It's another form of socialist central planning, but it is controlled by the companies themselves. It defeats competitiveness and stifles innovation and growth. The consumers get shafted with a poor, and likely overpriced, service.
You can call for net neutrality (a socialist centrally planned model of the same for all), but...growth and reinvestment goes out the window (as we see here with ISP service rollouts of their infrastructures). Importantly Capitalism has similar failings - if an area is non profitable (for whatever reason), that area will not get the service. If it does, then usually that's because of government regulation requiring the supply to those areas in order to keep their license (quotas), so in that case the bare minimum is supplied to meet requirements.
They also don't need to invest in infrastructure. They pressure/own those who pass the legislation which requires it to be payed for by the taxes of those who'll have use the slower lane!
Companies not investing in infrastructure is a key issue that was a mentioned but glossed over, though it seemed to me that the doc was written and edited to be an easily digestible 30min doc, something that people who don't usually sit through longer, more serious docs wouldn't struggle with. It does the job of spreading awareness about net neutrality in an entertaining way ^_^
I think they did a geat job explaining the issue!
very clever and also quite appropiate, as verizon and the other big boys are preparing the tort against the f.c.c
Pray for Google fiber to go nationwide -- and fast. Google fiber in KC is giving away broadband and charging only for 1GBps speed. This would knock the cable companies out of the broadband business which is what I would love to see happen. These cable companies were successful in buying off enough public officials to ensure their monopoly power and resulting obscene profits in cable tv. Since they created a monopoly over cable tv hasn't anyone noticed that the prices for this service have gone up and up while the cost of providing them has gone down every year. In Florida back in the 80's I had a choice of three different cable companies at about $10 per month each. They paid for an aggressive propaganda campaign saying that in some areas where there was only one cable company instead of two or three that the customers had to pay more. Well duh, this is where the free market would help encourage other cable companies to come in and steal customers from the first company by charging less. Back in the 80's I literally had people knocking on my door offering cable tv for less than whatever I was already paying and I switched several times saving money each time -- this is the way a free market is supposed to work. They passed this alleged consumer protection bill back in '93 which said that a cable company couldn't charge different prices to customers in different areas to "protect consumers" and they completely killed off any incentive for competition, and within a couple of years the other cable companies folded and now we have no choice only one company per district and basic cable tv is now $50 per month despite the fact that the cost of the electronic equipment they use has fallen drastically since the 80's. Now they are trying to do the same thing with broadband to make obscene profits while giving all of us americans much less bandwidth for our money than in other countries. They have already bought off enough state legislatures to make it illegal for you to set up your own competing broadband network even in areas that aren't profitable enough for them to service, thus ensuring their monopoly power. They have made competition illegal. God help us. This is not capitalism at work. It is a fascist monopoly enabled to exist by our corporatocracy form of government. The current propaganda campaign has the same goal -- obscene profits for providing less service while killing off any incentive to upgrade the infrastructure.
The issue right now with providers trying to exclude or compartmentalise certain web services from their networks has everything to do with video streaming, and the unwillingness to invest in network architecture to accomodate the bandwidth requirements for these services to reach their end-users. In the eyes of the internet service providers, unless they get a slice off the profit cake of commercialised video streaming, any future expansion of network capacity is technically a zero-return investment, charity in other words. Customer relations and goodwill is not part of that profit equation, and as far as I'm concerned that's what needs to improve. It's not going to happen through legislative means, so in the end it's up to consumer choice. Unless of course if you live in the US, where in large parts of the country you have no choice in what provider to use.
As far as the general concept of net neutrality goes, these companies have no interest in censoring or excluding our political blogs, small-business websites or lolcat pics. Why? Because they hardly take up any bandwidth at all. Obviously no one should take my word for that, but it's what I've concluded after doing a little bit of research into this isse.
Logic 101. First step - define the problem. You've got my up vote.
"if you are in favor of capitalism?"
every day I am less and less in favor...
we need a new system...
I hope they leave our internet alone!
sweet, loved the ending the best one ive ever seen. I dont know how the guy kept a strait face while doing the interviews. so awsome im going to forward this to all my friends and family. if the internet ever became fast tracked i would probly not even use it.
people do not want to live in a world where profit is more important than freedom, however in a monetary system those with the largest pockets "get what they want". if you feel like you can connect to the concept of net neutrality, imagine what the world could be like applying the same understanding of net neutrality to the rest of society to create a open source resource based economy. so instead of large corporations controlling the planets resources , the earths resources can become the common heritage of all the world's people. and instead of companies controlling patents and copyrights , open source could grant any individual the right to improve on any existing product to make a better world for us all. if you feel like the internet needs to be free, how do you feel about the entire world being free as well? because after all what is the difference between corporations and banks controlling all the money and resources on this planet, and corporations controlling all the internet on this planet?this topic grants us an opportunity to bring our awareness to the rest of the world where the same domination strategies are being employed in the sake of profit and at the expense of humanity.
Janeen your comment sounds a little utopian? I have always felt that our natural resources belong to all living creatures on this Globe?
Do you have any input on how we take control of Our Natural Resources for the common good?
I believe the only way to rewrite history is to dismantle what we have developed first.
How much money do you leave on the table. I don't know you but I know the answer to that is None.
I am not arguing with you I am just replying to words and concepts. Mostly because I am bored right now and TV is down right insulting I don't own one. and too I wonder about the synthetic society we have evolved into. Everybody wares a costume everybody has a tittle.
Ernest Hemingway wrote a short story titled, "Old Man At The Bridge". (I believe that was the name of that story)? In essence he along with the rest of the community was running from the enemy and getting out of town before they arrived. He stopped, sat down on the edge of the road and the passer by's were telling him he must go before the enemy arrives. He thought to his self, "but I am without politics". So he just sat there.
And that's what it is Janeen, just let it go.
what is more important even then the resources concept, is to have people begin to co-operate and let go of outdated notions like property control domination debt laws, if people can see that co-operation is logically superior in any situation , people will be able to look at the world in a more evolved way i intend to create a new movement to assist in this exact goal.
Start with the comment section on TDF? As much as we ALL enjoy the "debates", and that's what it always comes down to even on how to bake a pie type of docs? Depending on the one who is commenting at the time and how that persons day went or life's going and that's just one person? Good luck on the rest of the seven billion people on this Earth.
I am not much help am I with this attitude.
That's a worthy cause Janeen! You have your work cut out for you.
i agree with that , however i believe it is that way for a specific reason, and i am certain it can be overcome on a large scale
"People do not want to live in a world where profit is more important than freedom" - I agree, but those with the profit power would not...so it's not everyone, unfortunately.
As the programme suggests, we do have electrical neutrality, water, public education 'neutrality'...in the UK (and other countries) there is health care 'neutrality'. So its not necessary to imagine a world with similar neutrality, it does exist to an extent.
So what about applying that neutrality to all of society? All shops would have the same products (no variety of service allowed, since that would not be neutral). Why indeed have shops at all then? We could just buy our goods online (same goods available everywhere).
Vehicle neutrality?...we could all drive the same cars, same colour even. Don't confuse neutrality with varying standards and styles - each producer, to be be neutral, must supply the same thing (i.e. products and services, just as this net neutrality does). It seems this 'neutrality' applied socially could have a negative impact on variety...and therefore choice..no?
So neutrality does not necessarily work in all areas. Just as socialist economics can work successfully (imo, though capitalists would disagree) in areas like public healthcare, capitalism can work too in areas to bring healthy and desirable competition and variety.
It is not, therefore, a one solution fits all - neither in economics, nor in politics...balance (yawn), as always, is the key.
where did i say all shops have the same things and drive same cars nonsense? you created that in your head. i never said that , or anything as ridiculous as that . this is what you do you create a storyline out of what i say in your head, then beat down the storyline you created this is not new it is called a straw-man fallacy look it up
Hey I tried. Neutrality works for the 'boring stuff' (transportation infrastructure, energy supply, utilities, public education, public services and so on). It is a socialist perspective, and it has its place (capitalists would say it has no place, but I don't agree).
But here's the thing, you will not see a world 'evolve' through socialist 'neutrality'. There is no room or incentive for innovation. It will stagnate and eventually implode under its own weight.
Good luck with your venture though. I hope it succeeds...and evolves...and brings about a new sunny day of co-operation and enlightenment and...well...all that idealism nonsense you seem sold on.