WEBVTT - Revisiting Net Neutrality

0:00:04.160 --> 0:00:07.520
<v Speaker 1>Get in touch technology with tech Stuff from how stuff

0:00:07.520 --> 0:00:14.560
<v Speaker 1>works dot com. Hey there, and welcome to text Stuff.

0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:18.400
<v Speaker 1>I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland, senior writer for how stuff

0:00:18.440 --> 0:00:21.680
<v Speaker 1>Works dot com, and today's episode is going to be

0:00:21.760 --> 0:00:26.160
<v Speaker 1>about the concept of net neutrality and the battle of

0:00:26.200 --> 0:00:29.920
<v Speaker 1>the nature of the Internet itself. Now, this is a

0:00:29.920 --> 0:00:34.960
<v Speaker 1>complicated topic, particularly since the Internet is a global system

0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:39.080
<v Speaker 1>and different countries deal with this in different ways. As

0:00:39.280 --> 0:00:42.680
<v Speaker 1>per usual, I'll be focusing on the United States in

0:00:42.720 --> 0:00:45.760
<v Speaker 1>this episode as that is where I am from. It

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:49.760
<v Speaker 1>is also the birthplace of the Internet itself. But keep

0:00:49.800 --> 0:00:52.720
<v Speaker 1>in mind that net neutrality is an issue that is

0:00:53.080 --> 0:00:56.319
<v Speaker 1>dealt with in various ways all around the world. Some

0:00:56.400 --> 0:01:00.560
<v Speaker 1>countries are a little more um a man double to

0:01:00.680 --> 0:01:05.800
<v Speaker 1>net neutrality than others. Some countries are infamously about as

0:01:05.840 --> 0:01:08.839
<v Speaker 1>far away from net neutrality as you can get, like China,

0:01:08.959 --> 0:01:12.960
<v Speaker 1>for example, in the Great Firewall there. But we're gonna

0:01:12.959 --> 0:01:16.480
<v Speaker 1>focus mostly on the US. Also, I should add that

0:01:16.520 --> 0:01:19.959
<v Speaker 1>I have covered this topic a few times before. If

0:01:20.000 --> 0:01:22.839
<v Speaker 1>you'd like to listen to earlier episodes of tech Stuff

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:25.000
<v Speaker 1>in which I go into further detail for some of

0:01:25.080 --> 0:01:27.800
<v Speaker 1>the concepts i'll talk about today, You can check out

0:01:27.840 --> 0:01:32.319
<v Speaker 1>the following shows. The first is How Net Neutrality Works,

0:01:32.760 --> 0:01:37.559
<v Speaker 1>which published way back in December two thousand and eight.

0:01:38.480 --> 0:01:42.360
<v Speaker 1>That means that was in the first six months of

0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:48.600
<v Speaker 1>tech Stuff and it shows, but it also has my

0:01:48.960 --> 0:01:52.120
<v Speaker 1>former co host Chris Palette on there, and together we

0:01:52.160 --> 0:01:54.920
<v Speaker 1>try to explain what that neutrality is all about and

0:01:54.960 --> 0:01:58.400
<v Speaker 1>why it was such a contentious topic then and even

0:01:58.400 --> 0:02:02.160
<v Speaker 1>more so now, you could argue. Next, I have The

0:02:02.200 --> 0:02:05.520
<v Speaker 1>War on Net Neutrality, which published on February twelve, two

0:02:05.520 --> 0:02:08.880
<v Speaker 1>thousand fourteen, so much more recent, And then almost a

0:02:09.000 --> 0:02:12.880
<v Speaker 1>year later, on February nine, two thousand fifteen, we published

0:02:12.880 --> 0:02:17.119
<v Speaker 1>the episode what is a Common Carrier, which talked about

0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:23.320
<v Speaker 1>the FCCS decision to change the classification of Internet service

0:02:23.400 --> 0:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>providers into common carriers. Uh, if you want to know

0:02:27.240 --> 0:02:29.760
<v Speaker 1>more about that, you can check out those episodes. I'll

0:02:29.760 --> 0:02:33.280
<v Speaker 1>cover some of that today because it's impossible to talk

0:02:33.320 --> 0:02:35.880
<v Speaker 1>about this topic and get you guys up to speed

0:02:35.919 --> 0:02:37.799
<v Speaker 1>without covering that. But if you want to look at

0:02:37.840 --> 0:02:42.760
<v Speaker 1>more specifics, check out those episodes. So, the battle of

0:02:42.760 --> 0:02:45.560
<v Speaker 1>net neutrality has been making headlines again recently, which is

0:02:45.600 --> 0:02:48.359
<v Speaker 1>the reason why I'm recording this, and I think it's

0:02:48.360 --> 0:02:52.120
<v Speaker 1>a topic that not everyone totally grasps. So today we're

0:02:52.120 --> 0:02:55.560
<v Speaker 1>going to cover the basic definitions for net neutrality. We're

0:02:55.560 --> 0:02:59.560
<v Speaker 1>gonna talk about the different entities that are in disagreement

0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:03.160
<v Speaker 1>over net neutrality and their arguments and where things seem

0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:05.680
<v Speaker 1>to be headed. And I should also point out that

0:03:05.720 --> 0:03:08.960
<v Speaker 1>I record Tech Stuff episodes about a month before they

0:03:08.960 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 1>come out, so it is entirely possible that some of

0:03:12.880 --> 0:03:14.960
<v Speaker 1>the stuff I covered today will already be a bit

0:03:15.000 --> 0:03:17.480
<v Speaker 1>out of date by the time the show publishes. But

0:03:17.560 --> 0:03:19.160
<v Speaker 1>you can always tune in to watch me do a

0:03:19.200 --> 0:03:22.239
<v Speaker 1>show live on twitch dot tv slash tech Stuff, except

0:03:22.280 --> 0:03:25.040
<v Speaker 1>for today when it isn't working, but most days it

0:03:25.120 --> 0:03:27.560
<v Speaker 1>is working and you can check me out. Just go

0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:30.079
<v Speaker 1>to twitch dot tv slash tech Stuff and you'll find

0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:32.800
<v Speaker 1>a schedule when I stream and record the show. All right,

0:03:32.880 --> 0:03:36.760
<v Speaker 1>enough of all that, let's talk about the Internet. It's

0:03:36.760 --> 0:03:39.160
<v Speaker 1>a little box with a light on top, and it's

0:03:39.160 --> 0:03:42.280
<v Speaker 1>stored at the top of Big Ben according to the

0:03:42.280 --> 0:03:45.040
<v Speaker 1>I T crowd. All right, but before there was even

0:03:45.080 --> 0:03:48.720
<v Speaker 1>an Internet, there was the ARPA net. Now, this was

0:03:48.760 --> 0:03:53.360
<v Speaker 1>a project launched by ARPA. ARPA was the Advanced Research

0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:57.600
<v Speaker 1>Projects Agency. Today we call it DARPA. The D stands

0:03:57.640 --> 0:04:01.760
<v Speaker 1>for Defense, so now it's the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:05.040
<v Speaker 1>DERBA is in charge of research and development for the

0:04:05.080 --> 0:04:07.920
<v Speaker 1>Department of Defense in the United States, and they look

0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:12.000
<v Speaker 1>at lots of different things that could potentially have use

0:04:12.760 --> 0:04:15.920
<v Speaker 1>in matters of defense. It doesn't necessarily have to be

0:04:15.960 --> 0:04:19.039
<v Speaker 1>the primary purpose for it, but that's always part of it.

0:04:19.240 --> 0:04:23.920
<v Speaker 1>So some other big DARPA initiatives besides the ARPA NET

0:04:24.240 --> 0:04:28.520
<v Speaker 1>include the driverless car initiative, which is what really got

0:04:28.600 --> 0:04:32.920
<v Speaker 1>us into the early days of autonomous cars. Google's driverless

0:04:32.960 --> 0:04:36.840
<v Speaker 1>car really got its start as a project under this

0:04:37.000 --> 0:04:40.599
<v Speaker 1>uh there was a team from Stanford that competed in

0:04:40.640 --> 0:04:43.599
<v Speaker 1>a DARPA Grand Challenge, and a lot of those folks

0:04:43.600 --> 0:04:45.640
<v Speaker 1>went on to work for Google. But there are other

0:04:45.640 --> 0:04:49.000
<v Speaker 1>ones as well, including some interesting stuff about ways to

0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:51.800
<v Speaker 1>bio hack a brain so that you can learn better.

0:04:52.240 --> 0:04:54.320
<v Speaker 1>You'll have to check out Forward Thinking to learn more

0:04:54.320 --> 0:04:58.920
<v Speaker 1>about that. But ARPA was really interested in developing technologies

0:04:58.920 --> 0:05:02.000
<v Speaker 1>that would allow computer systems to communicate with each other.

0:05:02.520 --> 0:05:07.520
<v Speaker 1>This would obviously increase the value and power of computer systems.

0:05:07.520 --> 0:05:11.120
<v Speaker 1>If you could have different research facilities that are across

0:05:11.200 --> 0:05:14.560
<v Speaker 1>the United States from one another sending information back and

0:05:14.560 --> 0:05:18.080
<v Speaker 1>forth via computer directly. Then that would be a very

0:05:18.080 --> 0:05:21.800
<v Speaker 1>powerful tool. And uh, ultimately you could even see other

0:05:21.920 --> 0:05:26.720
<v Speaker 1>applications such as having a decentralized network where if part

0:05:26.720 --> 0:05:30.120
<v Speaker 1>of the network were to fail for some reason, let's

0:05:30.120 --> 0:05:32.440
<v Speaker 1>say there was a massive power failure on part of

0:05:32.480 --> 0:05:35.279
<v Speaker 1>the United States, the rest of the network could continue

0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:38.320
<v Speaker 1>to function, but they needed to invent it. There wasn't

0:05:38.640 --> 0:05:41.240
<v Speaker 1>anything in place at that time that could allow it,

0:05:41.320 --> 0:05:43.599
<v Speaker 1>and so to do this they had to hire a

0:05:43.600 --> 0:05:47.240
<v Speaker 1>whole bunch of really smart people to design the algorithms

0:05:47.240 --> 0:05:50.720
<v Speaker 1>and protocols that would allow for communication even between computers

0:05:50.760 --> 0:05:54.039
<v Speaker 1>that didn't use the same programming languages. So, in other words,

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:56.760
<v Speaker 1>if you had two different computers that worked on vastly

0:05:56.839 --> 0:05:59.800
<v Speaker 1>different architectures and languages, you still had to be able

0:05:59.839 --> 0:06:02.360
<v Speaker 1>to let them communicate with each other. So you had

0:06:02.400 --> 0:06:05.479
<v Speaker 1>to invent kind of a common set of rules that

0:06:05.600 --> 0:06:11.360
<v Speaker 1>both could follow and have meaningful communication. So these techniques

0:06:12.000 --> 0:06:16.760
<v Speaker 1>eventually would evolve into the foundation for the Internet itself, um,

0:06:16.800 --> 0:06:20.120
<v Speaker 1>although some of them would go through many evolutions before

0:06:20.160 --> 0:06:23.280
<v Speaker 1>they turned into the stuff that is, you know, kind

0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:26.919
<v Speaker 1>of the the software backbone for the Internet. Now, this

0:06:27.120 --> 0:06:29.839
<v Speaker 1>entire project started here in the United States, and that's

0:06:29.920 --> 0:06:31.839
<v Speaker 1>kind of why I mentioned the US is where the

0:06:31.880 --> 0:06:35.159
<v Speaker 1>Internet was born, because the Arpanet was sort of a

0:06:35.160 --> 0:06:40.080
<v Speaker 1>predecessor to the Internet UH and eventually was incorporated into

0:06:40.160 --> 0:06:42.960
<v Speaker 1>the Internet in some extent to some extent rather and

0:06:43.160 --> 0:06:47.359
<v Speaker 1>UH before it was dismantled officially, it was in the

0:06:47.480 --> 0:06:50.080
<v Speaker 1>U S where engineers built this technology that makes the

0:06:50.120 --> 0:06:52.480
<v Speaker 1>Internet possible. Though it's important to point out that other

0:06:52.560 --> 0:06:55.080
<v Speaker 1>key elements of today's Internet, such as the Worldwide Web,

0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:58.080
<v Speaker 1>those originated in other countries. So it's not like the

0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:02.520
<v Speaker 1>US had a lock on all things Internet, but this

0:07:02.600 --> 0:07:05.760
<v Speaker 1>is where it got its start. Now, one thing that's

0:07:05.800 --> 0:07:10.400
<v Speaker 1>our relatively simple concept is just the basic idea of

0:07:10.480 --> 0:07:15.600
<v Speaker 1>net neutrality. The term was popularized and possibly coined by

0:07:15.680 --> 0:07:18.600
<v Speaker 1>Tim Wu who is a law professor, although originally it

0:07:18.640 --> 0:07:21.840
<v Speaker 1>was called network neutrality. He wrote a paper in two

0:07:21.880 --> 0:07:24.520
<v Speaker 1>thousand three about this idea, and he defined it in

0:07:24.640 --> 0:07:28.800
<v Speaker 1>terms of assuming a non discriminatory stance on Internet traffic

0:07:29.120 --> 0:07:32.720
<v Speaker 1>at the Internet service provider level. So that's a fancy

0:07:32.760 --> 0:07:36.040
<v Speaker 1>way of saying that Internet service providers I s p

0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:39.640
<v Speaker 1>s the companies that actually provide the access to the

0:07:39.680 --> 0:07:42.320
<v Speaker 1>Internet so that you can get on there and watch

0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:45.880
<v Speaker 1>your YouTube videos and subscribe to your podcasts, and do

0:07:45.960 --> 0:07:47.520
<v Speaker 1>your work and send your email and all that kind

0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:51.720
<v Speaker 1>of stuff. They wouldn't be allowed to discriminate against any

0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:55.080
<v Speaker 1>type of traffic, no matter where it was coming from,

0:07:55.200 --> 0:07:57.240
<v Speaker 1>if they were part of the Internet. That's the idea

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:01.800
<v Speaker 1>of net neutrality. Everyone plays fair. Everyone allows everyone else

0:08:02.120 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 1>to UH to send information across the networks. Otherwise than

0:08:07.080 --> 0:08:11.000
<v Speaker 1>the Internet breaks. If you don't have net neutrality, then

0:08:11.040 --> 0:08:15.520
<v Speaker 1>you have all these different UH relationships between entities that

0:08:15.680 --> 0:08:19.640
<v Speaker 1>make it difficult, if not impossible, to operate the Internet

0:08:19.680 --> 0:08:23.400
<v Speaker 1>in a reasonable fashion. So net neutrality in part is

0:08:23.840 --> 0:08:29.920
<v Speaker 1>kind of a necessity, at least at a certain level. Now.

0:08:30.040 --> 0:08:34.559
<v Speaker 1>Lawrence Lessig, who's a Harvard law professor, said net neutrality

0:08:34.600 --> 0:08:37.120
<v Speaker 1>was all about single principle he called E two E

0:08:38.240 --> 0:08:40.760
<v Speaker 1>and that's E the numeral two and the letter E

0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:44.720
<v Speaker 1>again that stands for end to end. So in other words,

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:47.480
<v Speaker 1>he's saying, it doesn't matter what entities you're talking about,

0:08:47.559 --> 0:08:50.760
<v Speaker 1>whether it's a server and a server, whether it's an

0:08:50.760 --> 0:08:53.080
<v Speaker 1>I s P and an I s P, whether it's

0:08:53.120 --> 0:08:57.800
<v Speaker 1>a computer and a web server or a handheld device

0:08:57.880 --> 0:09:01.040
<v Speaker 1>like a smartphone and an application and server. It doesn't

0:09:01.040 --> 0:09:04.640
<v Speaker 1>matter what the entities are. It should just be neutral.

0:09:04.800 --> 0:09:08.559
<v Speaker 1>The Internet should be a dumb neutral conduit for information,

0:09:09.440 --> 0:09:14.280
<v Speaker 1>no matter whether information starts or ends its journey. In practice,

0:09:14.559 --> 0:09:17.200
<v Speaker 1>this means that you, as an Internet user, should be

0:09:17.240 --> 0:09:22.480
<v Speaker 1>able to access any and all information without discrimination. Now,

0:09:22.880 --> 0:09:26.839
<v Speaker 1>one little complication in this is that not all information

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:30.439
<v Speaker 1>is strictly legal, at least not in every country, or

0:09:30.559 --> 0:09:33.920
<v Speaker 1>it might be illegal to distribute the information. Maybe saying

0:09:33.920 --> 0:09:38.040
<v Speaker 1>the information is illegal itself is a little weird, but

0:09:38.120 --> 0:09:41.920
<v Speaker 1>it's illegal to distribute it uh, or, as is more

0:09:41.960 --> 0:09:44.400
<v Speaker 1>common in the United States, some uses of the Internet

0:09:44.400 --> 0:09:48.680
<v Speaker 1>are illegal because they involve other illegal activities. So using

0:09:48.679 --> 0:09:52.200
<v Speaker 1>the Internet to sell illegal goods like weapons or drugs

0:09:52.280 --> 0:09:55.840
<v Speaker 1>without the proper licensing and the proper authorization, that would

0:09:55.840 --> 0:09:59.800
<v Speaker 1>be a good example there. So those would be exceptions

0:09:59.840 --> 0:10:02.960
<v Speaker 1>to of this idea. But let's eliminate all the illegal

0:10:02.960 --> 0:10:05.680
<v Speaker 1>stuff for the time being and just talk about legal data.

0:10:05.679 --> 0:10:09.040
<v Speaker 1>We're gonna make an assumption that the information we're talking

0:10:09.080 --> 0:10:11.640
<v Speaker 1>about for most of this podcast is all on the

0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:15.000
<v Speaker 1>up and up. So this isn't like stolen information. It's

0:10:15.080 --> 0:10:20.000
<v Speaker 1>not uh, you know, illegal for other means, it's standard

0:10:20.040 --> 0:10:23.319
<v Speaker 1>stuff and it should be treated neutral e. Net neutrality

0:10:23.360 --> 0:10:25.640
<v Speaker 1>is a state in which all of this data gets

0:10:25.640 --> 0:10:28.199
<v Speaker 1>treated the same way. None of it gets preferential treatment,

0:10:28.640 --> 0:10:31.760
<v Speaker 1>none of it gets penalized. So it shouldn't matter what

0:10:31.840 --> 0:10:34.880
<v Speaker 1>sort of device you use to access the Internet, whatever

0:10:34.880 --> 0:10:36.960
<v Speaker 1>it is, it should work just fine on every I

0:10:37.160 --> 0:10:40.120
<v Speaker 1>s P. That's another aspect of net neutrality. Whether it's

0:10:40.120 --> 0:10:44.840
<v Speaker 1>a laptop, a desktop, tablet, smartphone, console, or other device,

0:10:45.160 --> 0:10:46.959
<v Speaker 1>you should be able to connect it to the Internet,

0:10:47.000 --> 0:10:50.320
<v Speaker 1>assuming of course, that the device itself isn't breaking any laws,

0:10:50.440 --> 0:10:52.800
<v Speaker 1>or there's not some other issue like you're trying to

0:10:52.840 --> 0:10:57.120
<v Speaker 1>overload the network or whatever. Net neutrality covers all of

0:10:57.120 --> 0:11:00.680
<v Speaker 1>those different aspects. You should be able to act, says,

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:05.439
<v Speaker 1>any information originating from any web server, on any device,

0:11:05.679 --> 0:11:08.880
<v Speaker 1>on any network. Now, the history of net neutrality has

0:11:08.920 --> 0:11:11.280
<v Speaker 1>been a really bumpy one. Back in two thousand seven,

0:11:11.720 --> 0:11:16.880
<v Speaker 1>the Associated Press published accusations that Comcast, a major Internet

0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:19.920
<v Speaker 1>service provider here in the United States, have been blocking

0:11:20.040 --> 0:11:24.840
<v Speaker 1>some customers from using BitTorrent software to download videos, and

0:11:24.920 --> 0:11:28.280
<v Speaker 1>that Comcast really wanted to stifle anything that competed with

0:11:28.360 --> 0:11:33.320
<v Speaker 1>its own video on demand service. So using BitTorrent by

0:11:33.320 --> 0:11:37.559
<v Speaker 1>itself is not illegal. You could use BitTorrent to download

0:11:37.679 --> 0:11:40.800
<v Speaker 1>perfectly legal content. Let's say that someone has produced a

0:11:40.920 --> 0:11:46.240
<v Speaker 1>video that isn't isn't violating copyright law. It's their own

0:11:46.240 --> 0:11:48.480
<v Speaker 1>original work and they've decided they wanted to distribute it

0:11:48.559 --> 0:11:52.160
<v Speaker 1>via BitTorrent. BitTorrent is just ap peer to peer sharing service.

0:11:52.200 --> 0:11:55.600
<v Speaker 1>It has nothing to do with the actual content, sort

0:11:55.600 --> 0:11:59.000
<v Speaker 1>of like the Internet itself. You wouldn't say the Internet

0:11:59.200 --> 0:12:02.679
<v Speaker 1>is all about ending illegal stuff from one place to another,

0:12:03.000 --> 0:12:04.959
<v Speaker 1>even though a lot of people use the Internet to

0:12:05.080 --> 0:12:08.439
<v Speaker 1>do that. That's not what the Internet actually is. The

0:12:08.520 --> 0:12:11.360
<v Speaker 1>same is true for bit Torrent. BitTorrent is a method

0:12:11.640 --> 0:12:16.360
<v Speaker 1>of sending information using peer to peer networks. It doesn't

0:12:16.559 --> 0:12:19.960
<v Speaker 1>necessarily mean that you're using it to steal stuff. Well,

0:12:20.280 --> 0:12:25.760
<v Speaker 1>Comcast was being accused of throttling the data transfers of

0:12:25.880 --> 0:12:31.160
<v Speaker 1>people using BitTorrent software. Essentially, the accusation said, Comcast detected

0:12:31.640 --> 0:12:36.720
<v Speaker 1>these customers, Comcast customers, we're using bit torrent software. They

0:12:36.760 --> 0:12:39.679
<v Speaker 1>were connecting with other bit torrent users, and so they

0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:43.120
<v Speaker 1>would find their connections slowed down dramatically whenever they were

0:12:43.200 --> 0:12:47.600
<v Speaker 1>using BitTorrent, And meanwhile Comcast was pushing its own video

0:12:47.760 --> 0:12:50.280
<v Speaker 1>on demand service saying, hey, you should just buy the

0:12:50.360 --> 0:12:54.559
<v Speaker 1>videos straight from US. Public interest groups would eventually get

0:12:54.600 --> 0:12:56.719
<v Speaker 1>in touch with the f c C here in the

0:12:56.840 --> 0:13:02.880
<v Speaker 1>United States, the FCC kind of sort of oversaw I

0:13:03.240 --> 0:13:05.199
<v Speaker 1>s p S. And I say kind of sort of

0:13:05.280 --> 0:13:09.840
<v Speaker 1>because at the time there wasn't a real strong argument

0:13:09.880 --> 0:13:12.800
<v Speaker 1>to be made that the FCC had that sort of domain.

0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:18.240
<v Speaker 1>It was sort of in their domain, but there were

0:13:18.280 --> 0:13:23.760
<v Speaker 1>no formal laws or regulations that put the FCC in charge. Now,

0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:26.559
<v Speaker 1>the FCC argued that Comcast, which was supposed to act

0:13:26.640 --> 0:13:30.040
<v Speaker 1>as a neutral carrier of information, was using anti competitive

0:13:30.080 --> 0:13:34.079
<v Speaker 1>practices to suppress a competing service. And so there was

0:13:34.160 --> 0:13:36.760
<v Speaker 1>a vote and the f c C passed a three

0:13:36.880 --> 0:13:40.800
<v Speaker 1>to two vote against Comcasts. So f CC's board, as

0:13:40.920 --> 0:13:44.160
<v Speaker 1>you know, five members, and what they would vote on

0:13:44.240 --> 0:13:48.560
<v Speaker 1>these issues about whether or not a company had violated

0:13:49.080 --> 0:13:52.640
<v Speaker 1>some rule or regulation and then determine what what steps

0:13:52.640 --> 0:13:55.160
<v Speaker 1>should be taken in response to that. In this case,

0:13:55.679 --> 0:13:59.079
<v Speaker 1>it was a close vote three to two. Two Democrats

0:13:59.120 --> 0:14:03.040
<v Speaker 1>and a Republican voted against Comcast. It was actually a

0:14:03.040 --> 0:14:07.480
<v Speaker 1>majority Republican board at that time. So the f c

0:14:07.600 --> 0:14:11.120
<v Speaker 1>C said to Comcast, hey stop it, use guys, but

0:14:11.200 --> 0:14:15.079
<v Speaker 1>they didn't find Comcasts. They just demanded that Comcast halt

0:14:15.280 --> 0:14:20.240
<v Speaker 1>this behavior, that they stopped throttling customers. Comcasts response was

0:14:21.000 --> 0:14:23.320
<v Speaker 1>you aren't the boss of me, and I'm gonna sue you.

0:14:24.160 --> 0:14:28.200
<v Speaker 1>And that's exactly what happened. So this lawsuit last several

0:14:28.320 --> 0:14:33.000
<v Speaker 1>years and in two a federal court dismissed the fccs

0:14:33.360 --> 0:14:37.080
<v Speaker 1>earlier ruling. Now why did they do that, Well, the

0:14:37.200 --> 0:14:40.640
<v Speaker 1>FCC was claiming that under Title one of a Communications

0:14:40.680 --> 0:14:42.720
<v Speaker 1>Act they would be able to do this, but it

0:14:42.840 --> 0:14:48.600
<v Speaker 1>really was a pretty loose interpretation of the law, and

0:14:48.680 --> 0:14:51.000
<v Speaker 1>the federal court said the FCC just did not have

0:14:51.160 --> 0:14:55.080
<v Speaker 1>the authority to slap Comcasts risks in the first place.

0:14:55.600 --> 0:14:59.280
<v Speaker 1>So even though Comcast wasn't fined, the essentially what the

0:14:59.280 --> 0:15:03.000
<v Speaker 1>federal court was say was, you can't even reprimand Comcast,

0:15:03.080 --> 0:15:05.680
<v Speaker 1>you don't have that authority. You're not you're not in

0:15:05.920 --> 0:15:10.040
<v Speaker 1>charge of this. Uh. It would be like someone you

0:15:10.120 --> 0:15:13.160
<v Speaker 1>know telling you that you need to pull over for speeding,

0:15:13.200 --> 0:15:16.040
<v Speaker 1>but they're not a police officer. It would be weird.

0:15:16.840 --> 0:15:20.280
<v Speaker 1>It's not really their job. Well, later that year, the

0:15:20.440 --> 0:15:23.520
<v Speaker 1>f c C passed some official regulations on net neutrality.

0:15:24.480 --> 0:15:27.080
<v Speaker 1>So essentially, what the FCC was trying to do was say, hey,

0:15:27.200 --> 0:15:30.200
<v Speaker 1>we totally have the authority to do this. They were

0:15:30.200 --> 0:15:34.400
<v Speaker 1>attempting to codify rules they had set up for real zes.

0:15:34.800 --> 0:15:38.120
<v Speaker 1>But then Verizon sued the f c C and said,

0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:40.480
<v Speaker 1>you can't do that. You don't have the authority to

0:15:40.760 --> 0:15:44.840
<v Speaker 1>set these regulations, and you're passing rules that you don't

0:15:44.880 --> 0:15:48.280
<v Speaker 1>get to pass, so stop it now. The Federal Court

0:15:48.320 --> 0:15:52.080
<v Speaker 1>agreed once again with the industry and said the FCC

0:15:52.280 --> 0:15:56.400
<v Speaker 1>does not have that authority now. Eventually, this led to

0:15:56.560 --> 0:15:58.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of pressure on the FCC to create real

0:15:58.880 --> 0:16:01.240
<v Speaker 1>rules for net neutrality deep and there was talk for

0:16:01.280 --> 0:16:04.000
<v Speaker 1>a while of something that was more of a conciliatory approach,

0:16:04.440 --> 0:16:07.680
<v Speaker 1>but the Obama administration in two thousand and fourteen put

0:16:07.720 --> 0:16:10.440
<v Speaker 1>a lot of pressure on the FCC to draw up

0:16:10.520 --> 0:16:14.960
<v Speaker 1>more stringent rules about net neutrality, and so that eventually

0:16:15.080 --> 0:16:19.560
<v Speaker 1>led to the Open Internet Order of I'm gonna talk

0:16:19.720 --> 0:16:22.080
<v Speaker 1>more about that later in this episode and give you

0:16:22.160 --> 0:16:25.080
<v Speaker 1>more details about what that Open Internet Order really was

0:16:25.160 --> 0:16:28.200
<v Speaker 1>all about. But The important thing to remember right now

0:16:28.520 --> 0:16:33.400
<v Speaker 1>is that the industry responded by challenging this order and

0:16:34.040 --> 0:16:37.080
<v Speaker 1>trying to take it to courts, but so far the

0:16:37.120 --> 0:16:42.120
<v Speaker 1>courts have upheld the FCCS ruling. They said that everything

0:16:42.360 --> 0:16:45.920
<v Speaker 1>is technically legal here with a recent court decision declining

0:16:46.000 --> 0:16:50.800
<v Speaker 1>to re hear the arguments. So essentially, the industry appealed

0:16:51.240 --> 0:16:54.840
<v Speaker 1>this decision. The higher court said, no, we're not gonna

0:16:54.920 --> 0:16:57.480
<v Speaker 1>bother listening to this because we agree with the lower court,

0:16:58.320 --> 0:17:01.320
<v Speaker 1>or rather, we don't see an to re hear this case.

0:17:02.080 --> 0:17:04.159
<v Speaker 1>And a lot of big is s p s got

0:17:04.160 --> 0:17:06.280
<v Speaker 1>a little mad about this, and there's now a move

0:17:06.440 --> 0:17:08.440
<v Speaker 1>to move this case all the way up to the

0:17:08.520 --> 0:17:12.399
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court. Now, in addition, with a change of administrations

0:17:12.440 --> 0:17:15.000
<v Speaker 1>in the United States government, you may have heard something

0:17:15.119 --> 0:17:18.640
<v Speaker 1>about that over the last year or so, we're looking

0:17:18.720 --> 0:17:21.919
<v Speaker 1>at yet another revision of the rules. But I'm going

0:17:21.960 --> 0:17:23.879
<v Speaker 1>to get into all of that a bit later in

0:17:23.960 --> 0:17:26.400
<v Speaker 1>this podcast. Now, the reason all of this is important

0:17:26.560 --> 0:17:30.360
<v Speaker 1>is because the Internet is a network of networks. That's

0:17:30.400 --> 0:17:33.240
<v Speaker 1>how it started and that's what it is now. Although

0:17:33.320 --> 0:17:36.879
<v Speaker 1>the details have changed significantly. The network of networks doesn't

0:17:36.960 --> 0:17:40.119
<v Speaker 1>work exactly the same way it did when the Internet

0:17:40.280 --> 0:17:43.440
<v Speaker 1>was a brand new, little baby. You could make a

0:17:43.480 --> 0:17:46.480
<v Speaker 1>persuasive argument that the old definition of net neutrality isn't

0:17:46.560 --> 0:17:50.160
<v Speaker 1>really an accurate argument to make these days. And that's

0:17:50.280 --> 0:17:55.040
<v Speaker 1>because many entities like Google or Amazon or Netflix have

0:17:55.280 --> 0:17:58.800
<v Speaker 1>their systems embedded into the infrastructure on the Internet in

0:17:58.880 --> 0:18:01.920
<v Speaker 1>ways that weren't the case in the early days. So

0:18:02.560 --> 0:18:06.200
<v Speaker 1>this gets back to Internet service providers. These networks that

0:18:06.400 --> 0:18:10.480
<v Speaker 1>allow the connections of customers, whether those customers are people

0:18:10.520 --> 0:18:13.080
<v Speaker 1>like you and me, if their businesses, if there are

0:18:13.119 --> 0:18:15.119
<v Speaker 1>other I s p s that are lowered down on

0:18:15.200 --> 0:18:18.440
<v Speaker 1>the chain, they there. These are the companies that allow

0:18:19.080 --> 0:18:22.119
<v Speaker 1>the inner connections on the Internet. So let's take a

0:18:22.160 --> 0:18:23.960
<v Speaker 1>look at how things used to be and compared to

0:18:24.000 --> 0:18:26.520
<v Speaker 1>how things are now to kind of understand why the

0:18:26.640 --> 0:18:30.560
<v Speaker 1>argument of net neutrality is changing a little bit. First

0:18:30.600 --> 0:18:32.680
<v Speaker 1>of all, no one owns the Internet as a whole,

0:18:33.440 --> 0:18:37.000
<v Speaker 1>because the Internet is a bunch of different components owned

0:18:37.040 --> 0:18:40.800
<v Speaker 1>by a bunch of different companies. So it's it's not

0:18:40.920 --> 0:18:43.639
<v Speaker 1>like a car where you could have one person be

0:18:43.720 --> 0:18:45.920
<v Speaker 1>the owner, or even one person to be the manufacturer.

0:18:46.920 --> 0:18:51.800
<v Speaker 1>It's a it's a huge complicated machine and different intoities

0:18:51.840 --> 0:18:56.119
<v Speaker 1>own different parts of this machine. No one has the

0:18:56.280 --> 0:18:59.920
<v Speaker 1>say of how it should be run. Like there's no

0:19:00.080 --> 0:19:03.600
<v Speaker 1>one who has controlling interest in the Internet, but the

0:19:03.680 --> 0:19:07.920
<v Speaker 1>actual infrastructure is owned by a bunch of different companies

0:19:08.080 --> 0:19:11.760
<v Speaker 1>and other entities. Internet service providers run the networks that

0:19:11.800 --> 0:19:14.800
<v Speaker 1>allow customers to connect transmit received data over the Internet.

0:19:15.160 --> 0:19:18.159
<v Speaker 1>So if each I s P was totally independent, as

0:19:18.200 --> 0:19:20.920
<v Speaker 1>in it was its own network and it did not

0:19:21.119 --> 0:19:24.520
<v Speaker 1>have any connectivity to other networks, so this is not

0:19:24.640 --> 0:19:28.720
<v Speaker 1>an Internet, this is just a a single network, well,

0:19:28.760 --> 0:19:30.639
<v Speaker 1>you would only be able to access the stuff that

0:19:30.720 --> 0:19:36.120
<v Speaker 1>was connected through that specific I s P. So let's

0:19:36.160 --> 0:19:38.920
<v Speaker 1>say you are a customer of I s P A,

0:19:40.080 --> 0:19:44.280
<v Speaker 1>but Netflix was only on I s P B. Well,

0:19:44.320 --> 0:19:47.360
<v Speaker 1>that would mean you wouldn't be able to watch Netflix. Fortunately,

0:19:47.440 --> 0:19:50.320
<v Speaker 1>the Internet is the network of all these networks together,

0:19:50.560 --> 0:19:54.240
<v Speaker 1>and so they connect to each other through network access

0:19:54.359 --> 0:19:58.080
<v Speaker 1>points or n A P S naps. Man and NAP

0:19:58.200 --> 0:20:01.879
<v Speaker 1>sounds good right about now? Well, naps are exchanges that

0:20:01.960 --> 0:20:05.000
<v Speaker 1>allow traffic to switch from one network to another in

0:20:05.119 --> 0:20:09.840
<v Speaker 1>its journey from origin to destination. So using the Internet,

0:20:10.200 --> 0:20:12.480
<v Speaker 1>you could watch Netflix even if you're on I s

0:20:12.560 --> 0:20:16.200
<v Speaker 1>P A. Netflix is on I s p B. When

0:20:16.240 --> 0:20:18.600
<v Speaker 1>you send that request, it goes through one of these

0:20:18.640 --> 0:20:22.240
<v Speaker 1>network access points, switches over from one network to another,

0:20:22.920 --> 0:20:25.480
<v Speaker 1>gets the go ahead from the server on I s

0:20:25.560 --> 0:20:29.360
<v Speaker 1>p B. The information is sent back more or less

0:20:29.400 --> 0:20:32.600
<v Speaker 1>in a reverse path from the one that your request took.

0:20:33.040 --> 0:20:36.639
<v Speaker 1>Keeping in mind that the way the Internet works, the

0:20:36.840 --> 0:20:39.160
<v Speaker 1>information branches out in all sorts of different ways. It's

0:20:39.200 --> 0:20:41.920
<v Speaker 1>not like it's a single pathway from point A to

0:20:42.040 --> 0:20:45.040
<v Speaker 1>point B and you would still be able to watch it.

0:20:45.240 --> 0:20:48.320
<v Speaker 1>That's in the old days. Uh. These naps are exchanges

0:20:48.400 --> 0:20:51.639
<v Speaker 1>that allow all that journey to happen, you know, for

0:20:51.760 --> 0:20:55.400
<v Speaker 1>the data to switch from one network to another. Routers

0:20:55.600 --> 0:20:58.960
<v Speaker 1>are the devices that take care of traffic control, sending

0:20:59.080 --> 0:21:01.639
<v Speaker 1>data where it's need and not sending it where it

0:21:01.760 --> 0:21:05.440
<v Speaker 1>is not needed. That's equally important because you don't want

0:21:05.480 --> 0:21:09.479
<v Speaker 1>to have superfluous data running around the Internet gumming things up.

0:21:09.600 --> 0:21:13.479
<v Speaker 1>There is a limited carrying capacity to the Internet. Uh,

0:21:13.640 --> 0:21:16.840
<v Speaker 1>it's huge, but you know, if you were to send

0:21:16.920 --> 0:21:20.240
<v Speaker 1>an enormous amount of data to a very specific section

0:21:20.400 --> 0:21:23.920
<v Speaker 1>of the Internet at a specific time, you could overload things.

0:21:24.000 --> 0:21:26.760
<v Speaker 1>You can make stuff slow down, you can make systems crash,

0:21:27.359 --> 0:21:30.040
<v Speaker 1>so rollers are very important to make sure that that

0:21:30.160 --> 0:21:32.840
<v Speaker 1>data is going where it needs to go and only

0:21:32.960 --> 0:21:36.159
<v Speaker 1>where it needs to go. In the early days the Internet,

0:21:36.240 --> 0:21:39.040
<v Speaker 1>there were hundreds of companies that were interconnected to create

0:21:39.160 --> 0:21:46.760
<v Speaker 1>this network, and the distribution of traffic was pretty you know, decent,

0:21:46.840 --> 0:21:50.560
<v Speaker 1>it's pretty even. There weren't a few, just a few

0:21:50.720 --> 0:21:56.719
<v Speaker 1>entities dominating traffic across the Internet. It was distributed fairly evenly,

0:21:57.600 --> 0:22:00.280
<v Speaker 1>and that neutrality was real concerned because if someone didn't

0:22:00.320 --> 0:22:04.200
<v Speaker 1>play ball, it kind of ruined it for everyone else. Well,

0:22:04.200 --> 0:22:07.600
<v Speaker 1>I got more to say about the basics of the

0:22:07.720 --> 0:22:10.639
<v Speaker 1>Internet and how net neutrality plays into it, but before

0:22:10.680 --> 0:22:13.200
<v Speaker 1>I jump into more of that, let's take a quick

0:22:13.320 --> 0:22:24.040
<v Speaker 1>break to thank our sponsor. Okay, Now, for the Internet

0:22:24.119 --> 0:22:28.879
<v Speaker 1>to work, these various Internet service providers have to agree

0:22:28.960 --> 0:22:32.480
<v Speaker 1>to carry each other's traffic, and typically we call this

0:22:32.680 --> 0:22:36.760
<v Speaker 1>process peering, where companies will peer with one another, whether

0:22:36.840 --> 0:22:38.480
<v Speaker 1>it's two I s p s or an I s

0:22:38.560 --> 0:22:40.879
<v Speaker 1>P and an edge provider. Edge providers being like the

0:22:41.320 --> 0:22:44.159
<v Speaker 1>content providers that are creating the stuff that people are

0:22:44.160 --> 0:22:47.840
<v Speaker 1>actually trying to access. So the I s P s

0:22:47.840 --> 0:22:49.040
<v Speaker 1>you can think of that as like almost like a

0:22:49.119 --> 0:22:52.080
<v Speaker 1>highway system and the the edge providers being like all

0:22:52.119 --> 0:22:54.000
<v Speaker 1>the stuff along the highways that you want to go to,

0:22:55.600 --> 0:22:59.720
<v Speaker 1>and peering involves drawing up an agreement where the various

0:23:00.119 --> 0:23:03.120
<v Speaker 1>decent question will allow for the transfer of data coming

0:23:03.200 --> 0:23:06.600
<v Speaker 1>from one source to pass over to the other source,

0:23:06.760 --> 0:23:11.600
<v Speaker 1>for one network to pass over into the other network. Basically,

0:23:11.840 --> 0:23:14.880
<v Speaker 1>if you were a smaller Internet service provider, you would

0:23:14.880 --> 0:23:17.440
<v Speaker 1>have to pay a certain amount per chunk of data

0:23:17.960 --> 0:23:21.399
<v Speaker 1>up to larger Internet service providers that are further upstream

0:23:21.480 --> 0:23:25.120
<v Speaker 1>of you. If a smaller I s P gets big enough,

0:23:25.200 --> 0:23:27.879
<v Speaker 1>if it grows over time, it could end up creating

0:23:27.920 --> 0:23:30.200
<v Speaker 1>that same arrangement with smaller I s p s that

0:23:30.240 --> 0:23:33.520
<v Speaker 1>are downstream of it, and it could arrange for a

0:23:33.560 --> 0:23:36.680
<v Speaker 1>more favorable rate with the larger upstream I s p s.

0:23:36.800 --> 0:23:38.679
<v Speaker 1>If it got big enough, it could have the leverage

0:23:38.720 --> 0:23:41.159
<v Speaker 1>to say, hey, let's rework this deal, or even if

0:23:41.200 --> 0:23:45.160
<v Speaker 1>they got big enough, arrange for free transfers of data

0:23:45.320 --> 0:23:47.320
<v Speaker 1>if the size and traffic between the two I s

0:23:47.400 --> 0:23:50.920
<v Speaker 1>p s is similar enough. Alright, so let's say that

0:23:51.040 --> 0:23:54.040
<v Speaker 1>you are the head of a big old Internet corporation

0:23:55.000 --> 0:23:57.119
<v Speaker 1>and your company has assets and several different parts of

0:23:57.160 --> 0:24:00.080
<v Speaker 1>the Internet so your computers and connections make up to

0:24:00.119 --> 0:24:03.399
<v Speaker 1>the Internet's backbone, and data crosses over your machines all

0:24:03.440 --> 0:24:07.520
<v Speaker 1>the time, so you are actually part of the infrastructure

0:24:07.800 --> 0:24:11.440
<v Speaker 1>that information uses in order to get from point A

0:24:11.560 --> 0:24:13.840
<v Speaker 1>to point B. Some of that data comes from you,

0:24:14.480 --> 0:24:17.680
<v Speaker 1>so you happen to have stuff within your own network

0:24:18.200 --> 0:24:21.639
<v Speaker 1>that you can deliver to people who are on your network. Uh,

0:24:22.119 --> 0:24:24.440
<v Speaker 1>you have your own servers services, maybe you have like

0:24:24.480 --> 0:24:27.760
<v Speaker 1>an email client, maybe some website sites, but a lot

0:24:27.840 --> 0:24:30.320
<v Speaker 1>of data actually comes from other sources, including people who

0:24:30.359 --> 0:24:34.560
<v Speaker 1>are in direct competition with you. Now, wouldn't it be

0:24:34.720 --> 0:24:37.479
<v Speaker 1>nice if you're the head of this large corporation if

0:24:37.480 --> 0:24:40.359
<v Speaker 1>you could steer people to using your own in house

0:24:40.480 --> 0:24:44.919
<v Speaker 1>products like your email services, your websites, etcetera, rather than

0:24:45.000 --> 0:24:49.160
<v Speaker 1>a competitor's services. You could have people use your email client,

0:24:49.400 --> 0:24:52.480
<v Speaker 1>visit your streaming video service, and go to your web

0:24:52.560 --> 0:24:56.240
<v Speaker 1>pages for news. You'd collect revenue from that through ads

0:24:56.320 --> 0:24:59.680
<v Speaker 1>served against the services. You'd end up saving money because

0:24:59.760 --> 0:25:01.760
<v Speaker 1>people are coming to you run then you going to them.

0:25:01.880 --> 0:25:04.840
<v Speaker 1>You can discourage people from using competitors products as a result,

0:25:05.480 --> 0:25:08.520
<v Speaker 1>or you could do something else, maybe you charge your

0:25:08.560 --> 0:25:12.080
<v Speaker 1>competitors a hefty premium to get access to customers on

0:25:12.240 --> 0:25:15.080
<v Speaker 1>your network. So you're the head of is s P

0:25:15.240 --> 0:25:18.400
<v Speaker 1>A and I s p B comes to you and says, hey,

0:25:18.640 --> 0:25:20.879
<v Speaker 1>we've got a lot of customers who want to access

0:25:21.440 --> 0:25:25.359
<v Speaker 1>these servers. Those servers are part of your network. What

0:25:25.440 --> 0:25:26.840
<v Speaker 1>do we have to do to make that happen? And

0:25:26.920 --> 0:25:30.600
<v Speaker 1>you say, well, uh, you'll have to pay me. If

0:25:30.640 --> 0:25:32.760
<v Speaker 1>you don't pay me, I'll make sure it's a super

0:25:32.840 --> 0:25:36.920
<v Speaker 1>slow connection and your customers will be able to access

0:25:37.000 --> 0:25:40.439
<v Speaker 1>the information, but it will be a very negative experience.

0:25:40.560 --> 0:25:42.640
<v Speaker 1>They will hate it, it will take forever, it will

0:25:42.680 --> 0:25:45.440
<v Speaker 1>buffer a lot for streaming video, or you know, you

0:25:45.560 --> 0:25:47.920
<v Speaker 1>pony up the cash and then everyone's gonna get super

0:25:48.040 --> 0:25:51.760
<v Speaker 1>fast internet access from me. It's gonna be awesome. So um,

0:25:52.160 --> 0:25:53.920
<v Speaker 1>if you were to say, hey, Netflix, I'm happy to

0:25:53.960 --> 0:25:56.840
<v Speaker 1>send people Season two a fuller house, but if you

0:25:56.880 --> 0:25:58.200
<v Speaker 1>want them to have a good experience, you got a

0:25:58.200 --> 0:26:00.440
<v Speaker 1>pony up that cash so the stream get the fast

0:26:00.520 --> 0:26:02.720
<v Speaker 1>length of traffic. Otherwise I'm just gonna throw all that data,

0:26:03.040 --> 0:26:05.640
<v Speaker 1>keep it on my own network, keep everything nice and clear,

0:26:05.720 --> 0:26:08.359
<v Speaker 1>and your customers will experience lots of buffering issues and

0:26:08.400 --> 0:26:10.640
<v Speaker 1>then everyone's gonna say, hey, why are we even using

0:26:10.680 --> 0:26:12.399
<v Speaker 1>this I s P. Let's use this other I s P.

0:26:12.560 --> 0:26:14.720
<v Speaker 1>Because I hear that I can watch Fuller House with

0:26:14.880 --> 0:26:18.560
<v Speaker 1>less buffering, And Jesse is gonna say, oh, mercy, well,

0:26:18.600 --> 0:26:20.480
<v Speaker 1>how am I going to see that if I'm not

0:26:20.720 --> 0:26:24.000
<v Speaker 1>logged in? But that would violate the spirit of the

0:26:24.040 --> 0:26:27.920
<v Speaker 1>net neutrality. If you gave your own data preferential treatment

0:26:28.200 --> 0:26:31.240
<v Speaker 1>and allowed it to stream faster to customers, and you

0:26:31.400 --> 0:26:35.320
<v Speaker 1>throttled anything from your competitors, then people using your service

0:26:35.359 --> 0:26:38.960
<v Speaker 1>wouldn't have fair equal access to all information on the

0:26:39.040 --> 0:26:42.199
<v Speaker 1>Internet when using your network. And that's how a lot

0:26:42.280 --> 0:26:45.240
<v Speaker 1>of people frame the net neutrality argument these days, that

0:26:45.800 --> 0:26:49.280
<v Speaker 1>there's just this one big problem with that framing. It's

0:26:49.440 --> 0:26:52.600
<v Speaker 1>not really an accurate description of what's actually happening. On

0:26:52.720 --> 0:26:57.840
<v Speaker 1>a large scale. Over time, a relatively small number of

0:26:57.920 --> 0:27:02.639
<v Speaker 1>companies began to dominate the amount of traffic that was

0:27:02.680 --> 0:27:05.800
<v Speaker 1>moving across the Internet. In other words, a smaller number

0:27:06.000 --> 0:27:09.199
<v Speaker 1>of companies were creating a larger amount of the data

0:27:09.520 --> 0:27:14.959
<v Speaker 1>that gets shuffled around across the Internet. Big companies like Google, Netflix,

0:27:15.080 --> 0:27:17.960
<v Speaker 1>and other major players began to establish what are called

0:27:18.160 --> 0:27:24.000
<v Speaker 1>content delivery networks or c d NS now content delivery

0:27:24.040 --> 0:27:26.520
<v Speaker 1>network is a network of computer servers that are within

0:27:26.680 --> 0:27:29.879
<v Speaker 1>an I s P S network and they can deliver

0:27:29.960 --> 0:27:33.359
<v Speaker 1>specific content directly to that I s P S customers

0:27:33.600 --> 0:27:37.000
<v Speaker 1>without the need for traveling across appeared network from another

0:27:37.119 --> 0:27:39.600
<v Speaker 1>I s P. So, going back to I s P

0:27:39.760 --> 0:27:42.639
<v Speaker 1>A versus I s P B, if you build a

0:27:42.760 --> 0:27:45.879
<v Speaker 1>c d N in both of those I s P

0:27:46.080 --> 0:27:48.560
<v Speaker 1>S networks, so you've got one in I s P

0:27:48.720 --> 0:27:52.640
<v Speaker 1>A and one in I s P B, those respective

0:27:52.960 --> 0:27:58.400
<v Speaker 1>Internet service provider customers can access your services very very

0:27:58.480 --> 0:28:02.920
<v Speaker 1>quickly because you've you've placed them close to the destination,

0:28:03.119 --> 0:28:06.600
<v Speaker 1>close to being a relative term, because we're talking about uh,

0:28:06.680 --> 0:28:11.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, networks which are not really it's not analogous

0:28:11.040 --> 0:28:15.760
<v Speaker 1>to a physical location. But if you have it within

0:28:15.920 --> 0:28:19.760
<v Speaker 1>that I s P there are fewer gateways to have

0:28:19.920 --> 0:28:22.720
<v Speaker 1>to pass through, so you speed up the process. You

0:28:22.840 --> 0:28:26.760
<v Speaker 1>create a better user experience, especially for stuff that uses

0:28:26.880 --> 0:28:29.760
<v Speaker 1>a lot of data and needs to stream very quickly.

0:28:30.200 --> 0:28:34.560
<v Speaker 1>So stuff like ultra high definition video, you obviously want

0:28:34.640 --> 0:28:37.440
<v Speaker 1>that to get to your customers as quickly as it can.

0:28:38.320 --> 0:28:40.520
<v Speaker 1>Otherwise you've got lots of buffering issues, and that's not

0:28:40.600 --> 0:28:43.000
<v Speaker 1>a very good experience from a consumer point of view.

0:28:43.080 --> 0:28:46.480
<v Speaker 1>So if you're someone like YouTube or Netflix, you want

0:28:46.560 --> 0:28:51.080
<v Speaker 1>to establish these uh c d ns, these content delivery

0:28:51.160 --> 0:28:54.160
<v Speaker 1>networks inside as many major I s p s as

0:28:54.200 --> 0:28:59.640
<v Speaker 1>you possibly can to get uh that information to customers

0:28:59.720 --> 0:29:03.760
<v Speaker 1>much more quickly. Uh So, let's compare the old way

0:29:03.800 --> 0:29:06.240
<v Speaker 1>of doing things with a new way. So back in

0:29:06.280 --> 0:29:08.520
<v Speaker 1>the early days of the Internet, your web company servers

0:29:08.560 --> 0:29:11.040
<v Speaker 1>would be connected to I s P A, and your

0:29:11.080 --> 0:29:14.480
<v Speaker 1>customers would access your service by connecting to your web

0:29:14.600 --> 0:29:17.520
<v Speaker 1>server over the Internet. Any of your customers who are

0:29:17.560 --> 0:29:20.160
<v Speaker 1>also I s P A customers would have a pretty

0:29:20.200 --> 0:29:23.880
<v Speaker 1>direct connection because you're all on the same network. But

0:29:24.000 --> 0:29:26.320
<v Speaker 1>if I were your customer and I used I s

0:29:26.400 --> 0:29:29.000
<v Speaker 1>P B, my request would have to pass through a

0:29:29.080 --> 0:29:32.400
<v Speaker 1>piered connection between my I s P and your I

0:29:32.680 --> 0:29:35.800
<v Speaker 1>s P before it reached your web server, and any

0:29:35.920 --> 0:29:38.080
<v Speaker 1>data you said back to me would likewise have to

0:29:38.160 --> 0:29:40.720
<v Speaker 1>go through that piered connection, And if my I s

0:29:40.800 --> 0:29:42.400
<v Speaker 1>P and your I s P got to a spat,

0:29:42.520 --> 0:29:45.120
<v Speaker 1>that could become a problem. But c d n s

0:29:45.320 --> 0:29:48.920
<v Speaker 1>allow entities to build web servers within different I s

0:29:49.000 --> 0:29:52.000
<v Speaker 1>p s, so you get that direct connection and you

0:29:52.120 --> 0:29:56.880
<v Speaker 1>can bypass this need for those peered connections, companies like Google, Netflix,

0:29:56.960 --> 0:29:59.160
<v Speaker 1>and Facebook, I'll have private c d n s to

0:29:59.240 --> 0:30:02.160
<v Speaker 1>help them get this stated to you quickly. There are

0:30:02.200 --> 0:30:04.760
<v Speaker 1>also other c d n s that are run by

0:30:04.800 --> 0:30:10.680
<v Speaker 1>other companies that essentially rent out space two tenants. So

0:30:11.080 --> 0:30:12.960
<v Speaker 1>let's say that you have a big c d N

0:30:13.160 --> 0:30:18.400
<v Speaker 1>within Comcasts network and you say, hey, if you want

0:30:18.520 --> 0:30:22.040
<v Speaker 1>your service to get to Comcast customers faster, you can

0:30:22.400 --> 0:30:25.760
<v Speaker 1>rent out space on our machines which are part of

0:30:25.920 --> 0:30:30.960
<v Speaker 1>this content delivery network within Comcasts network, and that will

0:30:31.000 --> 0:30:34.080
<v Speaker 1>get to the Comcast customers smoothly. You just had to

0:30:34.120 --> 0:30:37.760
<v Speaker 1>pay us and we'll host your stuff. So why does

0:30:37.840 --> 0:30:41.400
<v Speaker 1>this matter? Because the old argument about net neutrality doesn't

0:30:41.480 --> 0:30:45.400
<v Speaker 1>quite work in a world where thirty companies provide half

0:30:45.800 --> 0:30:50.560
<v Speaker 1>of all the Internet's traffic. Think about that. Just a

0:30:50.600 --> 0:30:55.600
<v Speaker 1>little more than two dozen companies comprise half of the

0:30:55.640 --> 0:30:58.560
<v Speaker 1>Internet's traffic, with Netflix leading the charge. Most of those

0:30:58.600 --> 0:31:01.560
<v Speaker 1>companies operate c d N or they partner with one

0:31:01.600 --> 0:31:03.400
<v Speaker 1>of those companies I just talked about that have their

0:31:03.440 --> 0:31:05.680
<v Speaker 1>own c d ns, and you don't have to worry

0:31:05.720 --> 0:31:08.560
<v Speaker 1>about I S p B throttling stuff coming from S

0:31:08.640 --> 0:31:10.880
<v Speaker 1>P A. Because both B and A have all the

0:31:10.960 --> 0:31:14.400
<v Speaker 1>information within their own respective networks. The fast lane argument

0:31:14.600 --> 0:31:16.400
<v Speaker 1>is less of a problem than it used to be

0:31:17.280 --> 0:31:22.000
<v Speaker 1>because we already have this established hierarchy of major companies

0:31:22.360 --> 0:31:26.320
<v Speaker 1>that in itself is its own problem because a lot

0:31:26.360 --> 0:31:30.400
<v Speaker 1>of people point out by having these enormous established companies

0:31:30.440 --> 0:31:34.680
<v Speaker 1>that are able to take advantage of this, it discourages

0:31:34.800 --> 0:31:38.640
<v Speaker 1>competition from smaller companies that don't have those same advantages.

0:31:39.720 --> 0:31:41.400
<v Speaker 1>So a different problem is on the rise, and this

0:31:41.520 --> 0:31:44.920
<v Speaker 1>one is more related to uh, well, it's kind of

0:31:44.960 --> 0:31:46.960
<v Speaker 1>related to the fast lane issue, but with some twists.

0:31:47.080 --> 0:31:48.840
<v Speaker 1>The big I s p s that have swallowed up

0:31:48.880 --> 0:31:51.400
<v Speaker 1>most of the smaller ones have a real tight grip

0:31:51.480 --> 0:31:54.280
<v Speaker 1>on access to the Internet. They would very much like

0:31:54.400 --> 0:31:57.200
<v Speaker 1>to build their own c d n s. So Comcast

0:31:57.240 --> 0:31:59.880
<v Speaker 1>has talked about this, making their own content delivery networks

0:32:00.040 --> 0:32:03.920
<v Speaker 1>within their their networks, and then they would charge companies

0:32:04.360 --> 0:32:06.800
<v Speaker 1>to use those c d n s. So, in other words,

0:32:07.080 --> 0:32:08.680
<v Speaker 1>they're doing kind of what I was talking about with

0:32:08.720 --> 0:32:11.520
<v Speaker 1>those other companies that would say, hey, we will rent

0:32:11.520 --> 0:32:15.080
<v Speaker 1>out space to you, except this would be the actual

0:32:15.120 --> 0:32:20.000
<v Speaker 1>Internet service provider allowing that, So kind of having your

0:32:20.040 --> 0:32:22.680
<v Speaker 1>cake and eating it too. If you were to launch

0:32:22.720 --> 0:32:25.480
<v Speaker 1>an internet startup company and you felt like you needed

0:32:25.520 --> 0:32:30.000
<v Speaker 1>to have that super fast access to Comcast customers, uh

0:32:30.680 --> 0:32:32.920
<v Speaker 1>you like, maybe you're trying to deliver that ultra high

0:32:32.920 --> 0:32:36.240
<v Speaker 1>definition videos experience. You might need to be in a

0:32:36.360 --> 0:32:38.440
<v Speaker 1>c d N to have reliable access to an I

0:32:38.640 --> 0:32:40.520
<v Speaker 1>S B S customers. But you're not big enough to

0:32:40.520 --> 0:32:42.920
<v Speaker 1>build your own one, so you can't be like Google

0:32:43.040 --> 0:32:45.400
<v Speaker 1>or Facebook or Netflix. You aren't haven't been around long enough,

0:32:45.440 --> 0:32:48.320
<v Speaker 1>you can't establish that, so you have to cut a

0:32:48.400 --> 0:32:50.560
<v Speaker 1>deal with someone who already has a c d N

0:32:51.240 --> 0:32:53.760
<v Speaker 1>and you have to rent space there. Essentially, the result

0:32:53.840 --> 0:32:56.640
<v Speaker 1>is that internet service providers could be getting paid twice

0:32:56.960 --> 0:32:59.920
<v Speaker 1>for all the data going across their networks. They get

0:33:00.200 --> 0:33:04.160
<v Speaker 1>one fee from their subscribers, their actual regular customers who

0:33:04.160 --> 0:33:07.960
<v Speaker 1>are consuming data, and another fee from the companies that

0:33:08.160 --> 0:33:12.600
<v Speaker 1>are providing data. So you can charge the for the

0:33:12.640 --> 0:33:15.920
<v Speaker 1>same message two times. It's like the old days with telegrams.

0:33:15.960 --> 0:33:19.240
<v Speaker 1>In fact, this story eventually goes all the way back

0:33:19.320 --> 0:33:22.240
<v Speaker 1>to the telegram days. If you listen to the Common

0:33:22.320 --> 0:33:25.680
<v Speaker 1>Carrier episode, you learn more about it, and it really

0:33:25.760 --> 0:33:27.280
<v Speaker 1>it goes back even further than that. It goes to

0:33:27.360 --> 0:33:30.479
<v Speaker 1>the railroad days, but telegram days. You know, there were

0:33:30.600 --> 0:33:34.280
<v Speaker 1>arguments about telegram companies charging once to send a message

0:33:34.680 --> 0:33:37.040
<v Speaker 1>at once for the receiving of the message, so each

0:33:37.080 --> 0:33:42.000
<v Speaker 1>message was getting billed twice. People said, that's not very fair. Well,

0:33:42.040 --> 0:33:44.840
<v Speaker 1>the same thing is kind of showing up here with

0:33:45.000 --> 0:33:47.840
<v Speaker 1>this concept of an I s P operating its own

0:33:47.880 --> 0:33:53.080
<v Speaker 1>content delivery network. So how can we avoid such a future. Well,

0:33:53.160 --> 0:33:55.360
<v Speaker 1>one thing that would be nice is more competition in

0:33:55.440 --> 0:33:58.760
<v Speaker 1>the internet service provider space. Competition would push Internet service

0:33:58.800 --> 0:34:01.280
<v Speaker 1>providers to stay nim bowl and they wouldn't be able

0:34:01.280 --> 0:34:03.880
<v Speaker 1>to throw their weight around so much because if they did,

0:34:04.560 --> 0:34:06.520
<v Speaker 1>customers could say, well, I don't want to work with

0:34:06.640 --> 0:34:09.840
<v Speaker 1>this company anymore. I'm gonna go and switch to their competitor,

0:34:10.480 --> 0:34:13.600
<v Speaker 1>who and their competitors not engaged in this kind of behavior.

0:34:14.080 --> 0:34:17.440
<v Speaker 1>So that that threat of competition, that threat of losing

0:34:17.520 --> 0:34:21.000
<v Speaker 1>customers to someone else that's not doing the messed up

0:34:21.080 --> 0:34:24.319
<v Speaker 1>stuff you're doing, would help a lot. But we don't

0:34:24.400 --> 0:34:26.880
<v Speaker 1>have a whole lot of competition, particularly here in the

0:34:26.960 --> 0:34:31.720
<v Speaker 1>United States. So short of breaking up companies or placing

0:34:31.760 --> 0:34:35.080
<v Speaker 1>hefty regulations on how Internet service providers operate, this is

0:34:35.160 --> 0:34:39.319
<v Speaker 1>a long shot. Now, as I record this podcast, there

0:34:39.360 --> 0:34:43.000
<v Speaker 1>are hearings in the United States Congress that could overturn

0:34:43.160 --> 0:34:46.680
<v Speaker 1>large portions of the two thousand fifteen Open Internet Order.

0:34:47.239 --> 0:34:50.440
<v Speaker 1>There's also discussions within the f c C itself that

0:34:50.880 --> 0:34:55.879
<v Speaker 1>would overturn this decision, this twenty decision. So the one

0:34:55.960 --> 0:35:02.960
<v Speaker 1>within the f c C is titled Restoring in Internet Freedom, which, um,

0:35:03.680 --> 0:35:06.759
<v Speaker 1>you know, I I like, there was a tweet I saw.

0:35:06.800 --> 0:35:08.560
<v Speaker 1>I wish I could remember the person who said it,

0:35:08.640 --> 0:35:12.360
<v Speaker 1>but the tweet said essentially, anytime you see a large

0:35:12.440 --> 0:35:17.600
<v Speaker 1>corporation using the word freedom within some legislation, or any

0:35:17.760 --> 0:35:21.360
<v Speaker 1>entity within politics using the word freedom within its legislation,

0:35:21.760 --> 0:35:26.520
<v Speaker 1>it usually means freedom for big companies, not for actual citizens,

0:35:27.280 --> 0:35:32.399
<v Speaker 1>which is a little cynical and a lot true. Bottom line,

0:35:32.440 --> 0:35:36.719
<v Speaker 1>Restoring Internet Freedom Act is some loaded language, but then

0:35:36.880 --> 0:35:40.640
<v Speaker 1>so is open Internet. So what's actually going on. Well,

0:35:40.680 --> 0:35:46.400
<v Speaker 1>back in the f c C reclassified broadband Internet Access

0:35:46.640 --> 0:35:51.560
<v Speaker 1>service or bias. That's not me being biased, that's just

0:35:51.640 --> 0:35:55.440
<v Speaker 1>what the acronym says, broadband Internet access service. They reclassified

0:35:55.480 --> 0:35:59.200
<v Speaker 1>them as telecommunications services, which meant that companies in that

0:35:59.400 --> 0:36:01.759
<v Speaker 1>field would be governed by the rules of Titled two

0:36:02.040 --> 0:36:05.720
<v Speaker 1>of the Communications Act of nineteen four. Now, you remember

0:36:06.840 --> 0:36:12.960
<v Speaker 1>before the FCC tried to uh to enforce regulations under

0:36:13.040 --> 0:36:16.520
<v Speaker 1>Title one of the Communications Act, but that didn't really

0:36:16.560 --> 0:36:19.080
<v Speaker 1>give the FCC the authority they needed to do that,

0:36:19.719 --> 0:36:23.560
<v Speaker 1>and that's why those decisions got overturned in federal courts.

0:36:24.080 --> 0:36:27.400
<v Speaker 1>So FCC said, well, that's fine, we'll just well, we

0:36:27.560 --> 0:36:32.400
<v Speaker 1>have to reclassify these companies, these broadband Internet access services

0:36:33.200 --> 0:36:36.080
<v Speaker 1>as telecommunications companies. That will put them under Title two,

0:36:36.160 --> 0:36:39.120
<v Speaker 1>which we have the authority to oversee that has been

0:36:39.200 --> 0:36:42.239
<v Speaker 1>established by law. And this was something that people have

0:36:42.320 --> 0:36:44.680
<v Speaker 1>been bandying about for a few years, but the FCC

0:36:44.840 --> 0:36:46.560
<v Speaker 1>hadn't really taken a move on it because it was

0:36:46.640 --> 0:36:50.640
<v Speaker 1>seen as being a little extreme. However, the Obama administration

0:36:50.719 --> 0:36:53.080
<v Speaker 1>was putting in a lot of pressure on the FCC,

0:36:53.719 --> 0:36:57.440
<v Speaker 1>so eventually they did do this. Now, these rules establish

0:36:57.760 --> 0:37:01.080
<v Speaker 1>the role of common carriers, and again that concept dates

0:37:01.120 --> 0:37:04.000
<v Speaker 1>back to the railroad days. Essentially, the rules said you

0:37:04.080 --> 0:37:07.520
<v Speaker 1>could not establish different prices for different people, So you

0:37:07.560 --> 0:37:10.720
<v Speaker 1>couldn't charge one group of people five dollars a ticket

0:37:10.880 --> 0:37:13.440
<v Speaker 1>just because of who they were, and then a different

0:37:13.480 --> 0:37:15.680
<v Speaker 1>group of people you would charge ten dollars a ticket

0:37:15.880 --> 0:37:18.080
<v Speaker 1>or fifteen dollars a ticket just because of who they were.

0:37:18.560 --> 0:37:21.800
<v Speaker 1>Nor were you allowed to discriminate against people and refuse

0:37:21.920 --> 0:37:25.080
<v Speaker 1>them service if they were following the rules and they

0:37:25.160 --> 0:37:27.879
<v Speaker 1>had the money for a ticket. So if I show

0:37:28.000 --> 0:37:30.120
<v Speaker 1>up to your train and I got five dollars in

0:37:30.239 --> 0:37:34.200
<v Speaker 1>hand and I'm not outwardly breaking any rules, you would

0:37:34.239 --> 0:37:36.320
<v Speaker 1>not be allowed to say, oh, no, I'm sorry, you

0:37:36.440 --> 0:37:38.680
<v Speaker 1>can't ride this train. And the reason for that was

0:37:38.800 --> 0:37:42.840
<v Speaker 1>because the railroads have been uh determined to be common carriers.

0:37:42.880 --> 0:37:45.000
<v Speaker 1>They were too important for the good of the United

0:37:45.040 --> 0:37:50.600
<v Speaker 1>States to operate as completely private entities. The same thing

0:37:50.680 --> 0:37:53.560
<v Speaker 1>is true for telecommunications, because you had all these different

0:37:53.560 --> 0:37:56.480
<v Speaker 1>communications lines that were stretching from state to state, and

0:37:56.560 --> 0:37:59.520
<v Speaker 1>you had state governments that were kind of getting into

0:37:59.640 --> 0:38:02.279
<v Speaker 1>argument with one another, and the federal government stepped in

0:38:02.320 --> 0:38:05.360
<v Speaker 1>and said, all right, here's the deal. You can't do

0:38:05.520 --> 0:38:08.440
<v Speaker 1>this because it's too important to the health of the country.

0:38:09.000 --> 0:38:11.680
<v Speaker 1>So this was kind of another step on that on

0:38:11.800 --> 0:38:16.400
<v Speaker 1>that pathway to classify Internet as that same sort of

0:38:17.160 --> 0:38:21.480
<v Speaker 1>um experience or service. Basically, you have to play nice

0:38:22.360 --> 0:38:25.480
<v Speaker 1>now putting bias operators under title to gave the FCC

0:38:25.640 --> 0:38:29.960
<v Speaker 1>authority to enforce rules. They could actually enforce the stuff

0:38:30.000 --> 0:38:31.840
<v Speaker 1>that they were creating. They could create rules and they

0:38:31.880 --> 0:38:34.880
<v Speaker 1>can enforce them because Title to gives them that authority

0:38:34.960 --> 0:38:38.600
<v Speaker 1>as long as it's classified under titled too. Uh So

0:38:38.800 --> 0:38:41.279
<v Speaker 1>that will allow them to get around those issues they

0:38:41.320 --> 0:38:45.840
<v Speaker 1>had had earlier in net neutrality cases where the courts

0:38:45.920 --> 0:38:48.520
<v Speaker 1>kept on saying, hey, you like totally don't have the

0:38:48.680 --> 0:38:52.560
<v Speaker 1>authority to do that thing. By reclassifying bias companies as

0:38:52.600 --> 0:38:57.279
<v Speaker 1>telecommunications companies, the FCC gained that authority over them. Now.

0:38:57.320 --> 0:39:01.000
<v Speaker 1>The first provision in the Open Internet or OR established

0:39:01.360 --> 0:39:05.080
<v Speaker 1>that bias operators would not be allowed to block access

0:39:05.160 --> 0:39:10.080
<v Speaker 1>to legal content, apps, services, or non harmful devices subject

0:39:10.239 --> 0:39:14.000
<v Speaker 1>to reasonable network management. So an I s P like

0:39:14.239 --> 0:39:17.080
<v Speaker 1>a T and T couldn't deny customers the ability to

0:39:17.160 --> 0:39:20.480
<v Speaker 1>connect to a specific brand of laptop on their networks

0:39:20.960 --> 0:39:25.480
<v Speaker 1>or block any specific content from a competitor because of

0:39:25.640 --> 0:39:31.000
<v Speaker 1>this specific rule. The second provision stated that bias companies

0:39:31.080 --> 0:39:36.160
<v Speaker 1>couldn't throttle any content purposefully barring any network management issues. So,

0:39:36.239 --> 0:39:39.120
<v Speaker 1>in other words, a T T couldn't say, all right, yeah,

0:39:39.200 --> 0:39:43.840
<v Speaker 1>you can access that service that's on Comcasts network, but

0:39:43.920 --> 0:39:46.359
<v Speaker 1>we're just gonna put the brakes on it. So that's

0:39:46.400 --> 0:39:51.000
<v Speaker 1>really unpleasant and there's no incentive to use that service.

0:39:51.680 --> 0:39:54.920
<v Speaker 1>That was against the rules according to the second provision,

0:39:55.960 --> 0:40:00.239
<v Speaker 1>so it wouldn't allow a company to prioritize its own

0:40:00.760 --> 0:40:03.799
<v Speaker 1>services over that of others. The idea being that any

0:40:03.920 --> 0:40:08.120
<v Speaker 1>consumer would have equal opportunity to use whichever service he

0:40:08.400 --> 0:40:11.719
<v Speaker 1>or she preferred across the entirety of the Internet. It

0:40:11.880 --> 0:40:13.680
<v Speaker 1>might be the same as their I s p s,

0:40:13.840 --> 0:40:17.960
<v Speaker 1>or it might be someone else. The third provisions stated

0:40:18.000 --> 0:40:22.960
<v Speaker 1>that bias operators couldn't operate with paid prioritization. So, in

0:40:23.040 --> 0:40:26.320
<v Speaker 1>other words, you're not supposed to have like a super

0:40:26.400 --> 0:40:28.759
<v Speaker 1>secret v I P line that people could pay to

0:40:28.920 --> 0:40:34.520
<v Speaker 1>use and get the fast track to consumers. And you

0:40:34.640 --> 0:40:37.880
<v Speaker 1>may have heard some some talk about this particular one

0:40:38.080 --> 0:40:42.360
<v Speaker 1>ideas like, you know, I run a ultra high definition

0:40:42.920 --> 0:40:45.359
<v Speaker 1>streaming service, so I want to pay a little extra

0:40:45.400 --> 0:40:48.080
<v Speaker 1>money to the I s p s to make sure

0:40:48.200 --> 0:40:51.440
<v Speaker 1>that my traffic is going to consumers um in a

0:40:51.640 --> 0:40:57.000
<v Speaker 1>in a fast lane. This is the big fast lane discussion. Now,

0:40:57.120 --> 0:41:01.120
<v Speaker 1>this rule ends up being sidestepped by the content delivery

0:41:01.200 --> 0:41:04.320
<v Speaker 1>network issue I talked about earlier. If you build content

0:41:04.400 --> 0:41:08.200
<v Speaker 1>delivery networks within I s p s, then you kind

0:41:08.239 --> 0:41:10.640
<v Speaker 1>of end up not having to worry about this as much.

0:41:11.239 --> 0:41:14.920
<v Speaker 1>But then only the the entities that have huge amounts

0:41:14.960 --> 0:41:17.000
<v Speaker 1>of money can afford to do that in the first place.

0:41:17.400 --> 0:41:20.279
<v Speaker 1>And unlike the other two rules, there's no exception here

0:41:20.360 --> 0:41:24.799
<v Speaker 1>for reasonable network management. So for the other two provisions,

0:41:25.440 --> 0:41:29.680
<v Speaker 1>if you are needing to manage your network because of

0:41:30.360 --> 0:41:34.200
<v Speaker 1>UH an imbalance in traffic, you are allowed to break

0:41:34.320 --> 0:41:38.400
<v Speaker 1>those first two provisions, providing you can actually say I

0:41:38.520 --> 0:41:42.680
<v Speaker 1>had to do it because otherwise our our network traffic

0:41:42.719 --> 0:41:45.440
<v Speaker 1>would have been so great as to cause an overall

0:41:45.520 --> 0:41:49.080
<v Speaker 1>collapse and that's a bad thing. The third provision, you

0:41:49.120 --> 0:41:52.800
<v Speaker 1>couldn't even do that. There was no rule for that.

0:41:53.120 --> 0:41:55.320
<v Speaker 1>So on top of those provisions, the rules stated that

0:41:55.400 --> 0:42:02.160
<v Speaker 1>biased companies couldn't quote unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage

0:42:02.520 --> 0:42:07.240
<v Speaker 1>customers abilities to select, access, and use lawful content services

0:42:07.360 --> 0:42:12.560
<v Speaker 1>and devices. They also couldn't unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably

0:42:12.680 --> 0:42:18.240
<v Speaker 1>disadvantage edge providers from making lawful content apps, services, or devices.

0:42:19.200 --> 0:42:23.239
<v Speaker 1>So in other words, UH they couldn't couldn't meddle with

0:42:24.000 --> 0:42:28.560
<v Speaker 1>either the content or the devices that were moving across

0:42:28.640 --> 0:42:33.080
<v Speaker 1>their individual networks. Now today is a very different world

0:42:33.480 --> 0:42:36.760
<v Speaker 1>than the one in when the FCC passed those rules,

0:42:37.320 --> 0:42:40.439
<v Speaker 1>and the current administration in the United States is looking

0:42:40.520 --> 0:42:45.080
<v Speaker 1>to reverse those twenty fifteen decisions. That includes reclassifying biased

0:42:45.120 --> 0:42:48.920
<v Speaker 1>companies again, this time removing them from the classification of

0:42:48.960 --> 0:42:53.080
<v Speaker 1>telecommunications companies and thus pulling them out from under titled two.

0:42:53.880 --> 0:42:57.520
<v Speaker 1>This would put the Federal Federal Trade Commission, or f TC,

0:42:58.200 --> 0:43:01.680
<v Speaker 1>in charge of overseeing claims of privacy violations or anti

0:43:01.719 --> 0:43:06.080
<v Speaker 1>competitive practices among bias operators, so the FCC would no

0:43:06.200 --> 0:43:07.920
<v Speaker 1>longer be in charge. Instead it would be the f

0:43:08.160 --> 0:43:11.920
<v Speaker 1>t C. The critics of this move say that the

0:43:12.040 --> 0:43:16.799
<v Speaker 1>FTC has very little power, is a small organization um

0:43:17.040 --> 0:43:20.680
<v Speaker 1>and it isn't much of a check against bias operators.

0:43:20.760 --> 0:43:23.080
<v Speaker 1>It doesn't really stand as a threat at all or

0:43:23.880 --> 0:43:28.400
<v Speaker 1>a measure to keep these companies behaving properly. For one thing,

0:43:28.640 --> 0:43:32.520
<v Speaker 1>the FTC doesn't have the authority to set regulations, so

0:43:32.640 --> 0:43:35.719
<v Speaker 1>they can't They can't make any rules. All they can

0:43:35.800 --> 0:43:39.080
<v Speaker 1>do is go after companies if it becomes clear that

0:43:39.160 --> 0:43:42.360
<v Speaker 1>those companies are not following their own terms of service.

0:43:42.480 --> 0:43:46.040
<v Speaker 1>With customers. So if you if your I s P

0:43:46.280 --> 0:43:50.480
<v Speaker 1>is A T and T and UH, you are upset

0:43:50.560 --> 0:43:53.279
<v Speaker 1>with how things are going. If the way A T

0:43:53.400 --> 0:43:56.640
<v Speaker 1>and T is performing is not in direct violation of

0:43:56.680 --> 0:43:59.760
<v Speaker 1>its terms of service, the FTC can't really do anything

0:43:59.760 --> 0:44:02.360
<v Speaker 1>about on it. Because the FTC can't set up the rules.

0:44:03.400 --> 0:44:06.279
<v Speaker 1>It gives a lot of power to the corporations. That's

0:44:06.360 --> 0:44:08.799
<v Speaker 1>the complaint a lot of critics are having right now

0:44:09.000 --> 0:44:13.239
<v Speaker 1>that they're saying this is a bad move because it's

0:44:13.360 --> 0:44:17.400
<v Speaker 1>giving the people or the entities I should say that

0:44:17.480 --> 0:44:20.279
<v Speaker 1>we're trying to make sure play by the rules, it's

0:44:20.320 --> 0:44:24.440
<v Speaker 1>giving them the ability to make up the rules. So

0:44:25.680 --> 0:44:28.399
<v Speaker 1>there's no sense in the whole making sure they play

0:44:28.480 --> 0:44:30.720
<v Speaker 1>by the rules. If you give the person the ability

0:44:30.760 --> 0:44:33.880
<v Speaker 1>to write all the rules, of course they're playing by

0:44:33.960 --> 0:44:36.200
<v Speaker 1>them because they're the ones defining the rules as they

0:44:36.239 --> 0:44:38.480
<v Speaker 1>go along. It could be like an enormous game of

0:44:38.600 --> 0:44:42.560
<v Speaker 1>calvin Ball. It's for the three Calvinant Hobbs fans that

0:44:42.640 --> 0:44:45.439
<v Speaker 1>are out there. All right, I got more to cover

0:44:45.719 --> 0:44:48.120
<v Speaker 1>in the end of this episode, but before I get

0:44:48.160 --> 0:44:51.640
<v Speaker 1>into that, let's take another quick break to thank our sponsor.

0:44:58.680 --> 0:45:02.160
<v Speaker 1>According to the new chairman, of the f c C

0:45:02.400 --> 0:45:06.239
<v Speaker 1>A Jeep Pie. The two thousand fifteen order quote put

0:45:06.440 --> 0:45:10.800
<v Speaker 1>at risk online investment and innovation, threatening the very open

0:45:10.920 --> 0:45:15.360
<v Speaker 1>internet it purported to preserve. Investment in broadband networks declined.

0:45:15.760 --> 0:45:18.880
<v Speaker 1>Internet service providers have pulled back on plans to deploy

0:45:19.040 --> 0:45:23.240
<v Speaker 1>new and upgraded infrastructure and services to consumers. End quote.

0:45:23.920 --> 0:45:28.240
<v Speaker 1>So Pie's argument is that because these regulations were in place,

0:45:28.920 --> 0:45:32.839
<v Speaker 1>I s p s were disinclined. They had no incentive

0:45:33.040 --> 0:45:36.080
<v Speaker 1>to invest in their own infrastructure. I mean, why would

0:45:36.160 --> 0:45:40.120
<v Speaker 1>they they were being regulated. Now, I have to add

0:45:40.200 --> 0:45:42.320
<v Speaker 1>that I failed to find a lot of research that

0:45:42.400 --> 0:45:47.759
<v Speaker 1>actually substantiates this claim. For one thing, there's just a

0:45:47.880 --> 0:45:50.279
<v Speaker 1>lack of research all around. It's it's not that I'm

0:45:50.320 --> 0:45:54.440
<v Speaker 1>finding conflicting reports, rather than there's just not a lot

0:45:54.520 --> 0:45:58.880
<v Speaker 1>of definitive research to either support or refute it. According

0:45:58.960 --> 0:46:02.240
<v Speaker 1>to I T Were World, in two thousand fifteen, broadband

0:46:02.280 --> 0:46:07.719
<v Speaker 1>networks invested seventies six billion dollars in upgrading networks. Now,

0:46:07.920 --> 0:46:11.920
<v Speaker 1>this was a slight decrease from two numbers, but it

0:46:12.040 --> 0:46:16.440
<v Speaker 1>wasn't a dramatic decline. In fact, was the highest total

0:46:16.600 --> 0:46:23.239
<v Speaker 1>spit on infrastructure over the records of the Internet was

0:46:23.320 --> 0:46:28.560
<v Speaker 1>the second highest, so it's not like numbers dropped precipitously.

0:46:28.920 --> 0:46:32.560
<v Speaker 1>They dipped. So it's unclear if there really is a

0:46:32.800 --> 0:46:38.320
<v Speaker 1>risk to investment and innovation. There might be, but we

0:46:38.360 --> 0:46:40.880
<v Speaker 1>don't have enough information there. There's not enough data to

0:46:41.000 --> 0:46:43.600
<v Speaker 1>show an actual trend yet. So I'm not saying the

0:46:43.680 --> 0:46:47.520
<v Speaker 1>FCC chairman's conclusion is necessarily wrong. It could be right.

0:46:48.080 --> 0:46:51.160
<v Speaker 1>I'm just saying it's not supported by enough evidence to

0:46:51.239 --> 0:46:53.920
<v Speaker 1>be a firm conclusion. It may well be that the

0:46:54.040 --> 0:46:57.560
<v Speaker 1>Open Internet Order is doing exactly what PIE says it

0:46:57.800 --> 0:47:00.680
<v Speaker 1>is doing, but it doesn't seem like we actually have

0:47:00.800 --> 0:47:04.920
<v Speaker 1>the information to draw that conclusion yet. So what we

0:47:05.000 --> 0:47:08.719
<v Speaker 1>really need is more research to see are these companies

0:47:09.680 --> 0:47:13.040
<v Speaker 1>pulling back from investing in their infrastructure. Have they been

0:47:14.120 --> 0:47:18.000
<v Speaker 1>given an incentive to not invest back in the infrastructure?

0:47:18.160 --> 0:47:22.160
<v Speaker 1>Is that actually harming consumers? We don't know. There's not

0:47:22.320 --> 0:47:26.520
<v Speaker 1>been enough data yet. The proposal that PIE has drafted

0:47:26.960 --> 0:47:31.320
<v Speaker 1>also says that the rules were established quote despite virtually

0:47:31.480 --> 0:47:36.880
<v Speaker 1>no quantifiable evidence of consumer harm end quote. So here's

0:47:37.160 --> 0:47:40.879
<v Speaker 1>PIE saying, look, you're these were rules that were looking

0:47:41.000 --> 0:47:43.880
<v Speaker 1>for a problem that didn't exist. So as a solution

0:47:44.000 --> 0:47:47.960
<v Speaker 1>searching for a problem, and since there was no evidence

0:47:48.080 --> 0:47:51.479
<v Speaker 1>of any consumers actually being harmed, then the rules aren't

0:47:51.480 --> 0:47:55.040
<v Speaker 1>really protecting anybody, And that's that's an interesting argument to say, like,

0:47:55.840 --> 0:47:59.000
<v Speaker 1>if there's nothing wrong happening, then why do we have

0:47:59.120 --> 0:48:03.480
<v Speaker 1>to make regulation shans? Granted, if the regulations just exist

0:48:03.640 --> 0:48:08.400
<v Speaker 1>but aren't forcing any ongoing expense from the government, you

0:48:08.520 --> 0:48:11.000
<v Speaker 1>might argue, well, where is the problem. If we've established

0:48:11.040 --> 0:48:13.560
<v Speaker 1>the rules, if someone violates the rules, then we have

0:48:14.040 --> 0:48:17.680
<v Speaker 1>we have something to go to. But you could also

0:48:17.760 --> 0:48:20.600
<v Speaker 1>leave the argument of well, if no one's violating the rules, ever,

0:48:20.719 --> 0:48:24.000
<v Speaker 1>why do we have the rules there? Um, I would

0:48:24.080 --> 0:48:28.840
<v Speaker 1>counter that the decreased competition in the internet service provider

0:48:28.960 --> 0:48:33.000
<v Speaker 1>market in the United States is pretty bad. This goes

0:48:33.120 --> 0:48:35.840
<v Speaker 1>all the way down to the consumer facing level. So

0:48:36.040 --> 0:48:38.960
<v Speaker 1>we're talking like the backbone companies all the way down

0:48:39.000 --> 0:48:42.000
<v Speaker 1>to the ones that we as customers individuals in the

0:48:42.080 --> 0:48:45.360
<v Speaker 1>United States would use for our internet service provider. So

0:48:45.480 --> 0:48:48.560
<v Speaker 1>for example, where I live, I have one choice if

0:48:48.600 --> 0:48:52.920
<v Speaker 1>I want to have broadband speeds UH. The next fastest

0:48:53.160 --> 0:48:58.600
<v Speaker 1>choice I would have at my my UH option is

0:48:58.719 --> 0:49:02.120
<v Speaker 1>below broadbands beat if we define it at the current

0:49:02.200 --> 0:49:05.040
<v Speaker 1>standard in the United States as twenty five megabits per second.

0:49:05.480 --> 0:49:10.640
<v Speaker 1>That's how the FCC defined it in So, if I

0:49:10.800 --> 0:49:13.800
<v Speaker 1>look at my choice of Internet service providers, I only

0:49:14.040 --> 0:49:17.560
<v Speaker 1>have one option if I want to hit broadband speeds.

0:49:17.920 --> 0:49:22.759
<v Speaker 1>Everything else is sub broadband speed. That's it. That means

0:49:22.840 --> 0:49:26.600
<v Speaker 1>one company has a monopoly on broadband speeds in my neighborhood,

0:49:27.160 --> 0:49:29.880
<v Speaker 1>and that puts customers in my neighborhood and disadvantage. We

0:49:29.920 --> 0:49:33.080
<v Speaker 1>have no alternative. If our i SP chooses to engage

0:49:33.080 --> 0:49:36.840
<v Speaker 1>and behavior we find unacceptable, we don't have another option

0:49:36.880 --> 0:49:39.920
<v Speaker 1>to go to that can provide us at Internet access

0:49:40.000 --> 0:49:42.920
<v Speaker 1>at that same speed. We might choose to go with

0:49:43.040 --> 0:49:46.680
<v Speaker 1>a slower speed, and which almost feels like we're punishing

0:49:46.719 --> 0:49:49.800
<v Speaker 1>ourselves UH in order to not work with that i

0:49:50.040 --> 0:49:54.200
<v Speaker 1>s P. But the ideal situation would to have would

0:49:54.200 --> 0:49:57.560
<v Speaker 1>be to have a lot of competing Internet service providers

0:49:58.000 --> 0:50:03.840
<v Speaker 1>with comparable capability of delivering fast Internet service to multiple customers.

0:50:04.239 --> 0:50:10.280
<v Speaker 1>This would end up UH giving companies the incentive to innovate,

0:50:10.800 --> 0:50:14.520
<v Speaker 1>to find ways to set themselves apart from their competitors

0:50:14.719 --> 0:50:18.439
<v Speaker 1>to attract more customers. That way, customers are the ones

0:50:18.480 --> 0:50:23.400
<v Speaker 1>who benefit if there are no competitors, there's no incentive

0:50:23.440 --> 0:50:26.040
<v Speaker 1>for a company to do that, and customers as a

0:50:26.160 --> 0:50:30.160
<v Speaker 1>result often suffer because there's nowhere else to go. You've

0:50:30.160 --> 0:50:32.480
<v Speaker 1>got one choice to go to. It's kind of like

0:50:32.600 --> 0:50:36.360
<v Speaker 1>the old UH Soviet Union, where if you wanted a

0:50:36.480 --> 0:50:39.080
<v Speaker 1>specific product, you had to go to one place and

0:50:39.200 --> 0:50:41.000
<v Speaker 1>that was the one product you could get and there

0:50:41.040 --> 0:50:44.640
<v Speaker 1>were no other alternatives. It's kind of like that UH

0:50:44.719 --> 0:50:46.400
<v Speaker 1>in that case. Of course, in the SO Union it

0:50:46.520 --> 0:50:50.080
<v Speaker 1>was all state controlled, not corporate controlled, but otherwise it's

0:50:50.200 --> 0:50:54.320
<v Speaker 1>very similar. Net neutrality and related policies are supposed to

0:50:54.360 --> 0:50:57.720
<v Speaker 1>protect against this kind of behavior, particularly in a world

0:50:57.800 --> 0:51:01.520
<v Speaker 1>where competition is scarce. Now, if we lived in a

0:51:01.560 --> 0:51:03.800
<v Speaker 1>world where we did have that fierce competition among I

0:51:03.960 --> 0:51:06.319
<v Speaker 1>s p s and markets across the world, it might

0:51:06.400 --> 0:51:09.480
<v Speaker 1>not even be an issue. That neutrality might not ever

0:51:09.560 --> 0:51:13.120
<v Speaker 1>be talked about, because the market would end up demanding

0:51:13.719 --> 0:51:18.160
<v Speaker 1>that the companies that that benefit consumers the most would

0:51:18.160 --> 0:51:20.600
<v Speaker 1>be the most successful. That gives again those incentives to

0:51:20.640 --> 0:51:23.520
<v Speaker 1>the other companies to follow suit. No one would be

0:51:23.640 --> 0:51:28.520
<v Speaker 1>doing stupid stuff that that limited what their customers could do,

0:51:29.160 --> 0:51:33.120
<v Speaker 1>because they would lose those customers. But that's not the

0:51:33.160 --> 0:51:36.080
<v Speaker 1>world we live in. I can't just switch from one

0:51:36.120 --> 0:51:38.640
<v Speaker 1>to the other, and most people can't either because they

0:51:38.680 --> 0:51:41.560
<v Speaker 1>don't have those options. There are too few I s

0:51:41.640 --> 0:51:44.080
<v Speaker 1>p s, And we've seen numerous stories of how companies

0:51:44.120 --> 0:51:48.440
<v Speaker 1>have tried to consolidate power even more through various mergers

0:51:48.480 --> 0:51:51.759
<v Speaker 1>and acquisitions. Comcast was trying to buy Time Mourner for

0:51:51.840 --> 0:51:55.960
<v Speaker 1>a while. That would have consolidated two massive internet service providers,

0:51:57.000 --> 0:52:02.000
<v Speaker 1>and that would have been even less competition in the marketplace. Now,

0:52:02.239 --> 0:52:04.480
<v Speaker 1>the companies were saying this is gonna be great for consumers,

0:52:04.600 --> 0:52:07.520
<v Speaker 1>but honestly, when you don't have a lot of competition,

0:52:07.960 --> 0:52:11.960
<v Speaker 1>it's not that great for consumers because why why should

0:52:12.000 --> 0:52:15.560
<v Speaker 1>there be. Your consumers aren't gonna go anywhere. They have

0:52:15.680 --> 0:52:19.120
<v Speaker 1>no other place to go, So do what works best

0:52:19.320 --> 0:52:21.959
<v Speaker 1>to maximize your profits and not worry so much about

0:52:22.000 --> 0:52:26.880
<v Speaker 1>the consumer response. That's that's the real issue there. It's

0:52:26.920 --> 0:52:29.160
<v Speaker 1>pretty ugly. So what do I think is going to

0:52:29.239 --> 0:52:32.440
<v Speaker 1>actually happen from all of this with the FCC moving

0:52:32.640 --> 0:52:36.200
<v Speaker 1>in this direction. Well, I'm recording this in early May.

0:52:36.440 --> 0:52:40.000
<v Speaker 1>It's gonna be mid May when the FCC starts to

0:52:40.200 --> 0:52:45.919
<v Speaker 1>move on any sort of decisions, and uh, Meanwhile, we've

0:52:45.960 --> 0:52:49.239
<v Speaker 1>got the case being pushed towards the Supreme Court to

0:52:49.320 --> 0:52:52.040
<v Speaker 1>be heard. So we've got two different avenues of attack

0:52:52.160 --> 0:52:57.200
<v Speaker 1>against net neutrality. First, I think the Supreme Court will

0:52:57.280 --> 0:53:00.440
<v Speaker 1>decline to hear the case brought against c f c

0:53:00.600 --> 0:53:03.279
<v Speaker 1>C and it's classification of I s P S under

0:53:03.280 --> 0:53:05.480
<v Speaker 1>Title two. I think that case is not going to

0:53:05.640 --> 0:53:07.800
<v Speaker 1>make it all the way to the Supreme Court, and

0:53:07.880 --> 0:53:09.480
<v Speaker 1>I think the reason for that is the Court's going

0:53:09.560 --> 0:53:13.400
<v Speaker 1>to decline to hear the case because the f c

0:53:13.520 --> 0:53:18.440
<v Speaker 1>C is already considering reclassifying uh I s p S

0:53:18.440 --> 0:53:22.279
<v Speaker 1>again and rolling those rules back. So I don't think

0:53:22.320 --> 0:53:24.399
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court will hear the case because they're gonna

0:53:24.480 --> 0:53:28.400
<v Speaker 1>see that this argument is essentially moot and there's no

0:53:28.520 --> 0:53:32.040
<v Speaker 1>reason to to look at the case if the FCC

0:53:32.200 --> 0:53:35.920
<v Speaker 1>is going to change the rules back anyway. So I

0:53:36.000 --> 0:53:39.440
<v Speaker 1>suspect we will see regulations rolled back from I s

0:53:39.520 --> 0:53:43.759
<v Speaker 1>P S. Deregulating is a frequent message from conservative governments.

0:53:44.080 --> 0:53:47.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm not optimistic about that helping out the average consumer

0:53:48.280 --> 0:53:50.239
<v Speaker 1>that I have no trouble believing it will be a

0:53:50.360 --> 0:53:53.000
<v Speaker 1>huge help to the enormous businesses that are I s

0:53:53.080 --> 0:53:55.839
<v Speaker 1>P S now, if this happens, it will likely take

0:53:55.920 --> 0:53:59.560
<v Speaker 1>some time, as just the process for making these rules

0:53:59.680 --> 0:54:03.360
<v Speaker 1>is borious and typically involves inviting input from the general public,

0:54:03.800 --> 0:54:06.560
<v Speaker 1>and the last time that happened, UH, the general public

0:54:06.760 --> 0:54:11.920
<v Speaker 1>overwhelmed the FCCS systems with input largely in favor of

0:54:12.000 --> 0:54:16.560
<v Speaker 1>net neutrality, so we'll likely see a similar response, led

0:54:16.680 --> 0:54:20.280
<v Speaker 1>by various entities on the Internet like the Electronic Frontier

0:54:20.400 --> 0:54:24.960
<v Speaker 1>Foundation pushing for people to speak out in favor of

0:54:25.080 --> 0:54:28.359
<v Speaker 1>net neutrality. I don't think it's going to ultimately matter

0:54:28.440 --> 0:54:30.520
<v Speaker 1>in the long run. I think we're gonna see those

0:54:30.600 --> 0:54:33.759
<v Speaker 1>regulations rolled back, at least to some extent, maybe not

0:54:33.920 --> 0:54:36.040
<v Speaker 1>as far back as what people are proposing right now,

0:54:36.880 --> 0:54:39.440
<v Speaker 1>but I don't think that I s p s will

0:54:39.440 --> 0:54:45.160
<v Speaker 1>be under titled to classification for much longer. Maybe a year,

0:54:46.239 --> 0:54:49.400
<v Speaker 1>that's my guess. This could lead to another discussion about

0:54:49.400 --> 0:54:52.680
<v Speaker 1>fast lanes ultimately down the line, but really, as I

0:54:52.760 --> 0:54:56.240
<v Speaker 1>mentioned before, it really comes down to those content distribution networks.

0:54:56.640 --> 0:54:59.439
<v Speaker 1>The real fear is that big companies like Netflix, which

0:54:59.440 --> 0:55:01.520
<v Speaker 1>have billions of dollars, will be able to flourish, while

0:55:01.600 --> 0:55:05.320
<v Speaker 1>small competing companies that could potentially be of great interest

0:55:05.400 --> 0:55:09.440
<v Speaker 1>to consumers can't get on that same page because they

0:55:09.480 --> 0:55:13.640
<v Speaker 1>can't afford to essentially pay what amounts to a toll

0:55:14.200 --> 0:55:18.239
<v Speaker 1>to internet access providers. Netflix can afford that, but a

0:55:18.280 --> 0:55:22.080
<v Speaker 1>startup company that might be a huge hit if it

0:55:22.239 --> 0:55:25.000
<v Speaker 1>had a chance, might not be able to ever get

0:55:25.040 --> 0:55:27.520
<v Speaker 1>off the ground because it can't afford to play ball

0:55:27.960 --> 0:55:31.000
<v Speaker 1>the way the big companies can. Now, the big companies

0:55:31.040 --> 0:55:34.080
<v Speaker 1>don't want to play ball. They they're also big companies.

0:55:34.120 --> 0:55:36.319
<v Speaker 1>They don't they don't want to spend money they don't

0:55:36.360 --> 0:55:39.480
<v Speaker 1>have to spend. So I don't wanna come out here

0:55:39.560 --> 0:55:42.520
<v Speaker 1>saying like Netflix and Google and Amazon and Facebook, they're

0:55:42.520 --> 0:55:44.120
<v Speaker 1>all the good guys and the I s p s

0:55:44.120 --> 0:55:47.480
<v Speaker 1>are the bad guys. Uh. Really, these are all entities

0:55:47.520 --> 0:55:51.920
<v Speaker 1>that are trying to minimize expenses and maximize profits as

0:55:51.960 --> 0:55:55.040
<v Speaker 1>best they can, and ultimately, we're the consumers were the

0:55:55.120 --> 0:55:58.719
<v Speaker 1>ones who get squeezed by this from both sides. So

0:55:59.520 --> 0:56:01.759
<v Speaker 1>don't take me the wrong way. I'm not trying to

0:56:01.800 --> 0:56:03.960
<v Speaker 1>say that Netflix and Google and all those guys are

0:56:04.080 --> 0:56:06.840
<v Speaker 1>are angels and the I s p s are devils.

0:56:07.160 --> 0:56:10.080
<v Speaker 1>It's more like these are businesses. They have a purpose,

0:56:10.160 --> 0:56:12.719
<v Speaker 1>and that purpose is to make money. Is not a

0:56:12.840 --> 0:56:16.960
<v Speaker 1>moral judgment. It is just that's the purpose of a

0:56:17.040 --> 0:56:20.239
<v Speaker 1>corporation is to make money, and we as consumers are

0:56:20.360 --> 0:56:23.520
<v Speaker 1>the ones affected by this. If we see a definitive

0:56:23.640 --> 0:56:26.560
<v Speaker 1>ruling between the time I record this episode and the

0:56:26.640 --> 0:56:30.000
<v Speaker 1>time it publishes, I'll be sure to jump back in

0:56:30.080 --> 0:56:33.200
<v Speaker 1>the studio and record an update to this episode. And

0:56:33.360 --> 0:56:35.640
<v Speaker 1>this is the part where it will go. It will

0:56:35.680 --> 0:56:38.759
<v Speaker 1>go in this section or right after it. So if

0:56:38.800 --> 0:56:42.000
<v Speaker 1>you don't hear an update after this paragraph, it's because

0:56:42.120 --> 0:56:45.600
<v Speaker 1>nothing definitive has happened yet, or I forgot one of

0:56:45.640 --> 0:56:48.399
<v Speaker 1>the two. One of the two things happen. So that's

0:56:48.440 --> 0:56:50.719
<v Speaker 1>it for this episode of Tech Stuff. Remember you can

0:56:50.760 --> 0:56:52.920
<v Speaker 1>get in touch with me through email. Let me know

0:56:53.080 --> 0:56:56.279
<v Speaker 1>of any suggestions you have for guests on the show

0:56:56.480 --> 0:56:59.120
<v Speaker 1>for topics I might want to cover. For anything that

0:56:59.280 --> 0:57:02.279
<v Speaker 1>you think deserves an update, like net neutrality. If there's

0:57:02.280 --> 0:57:04.480
<v Speaker 1>another topic I've covered in the past that you field

0:57:04.560 --> 0:57:07.560
<v Speaker 1>needs to have a little refresher, let me know. The

0:57:07.680 --> 0:57:11.240
<v Speaker 1>address for our show is tech Stuff at how stuff

0:57:11.280 --> 0:57:14.080
<v Speaker 1>Works dot com, or you can say hi through Twitter

0:57:14.280 --> 0:57:16.440
<v Speaker 1>or Facebook. The handle for the show at both of

0:57:16.480 --> 0:57:20.520
<v Speaker 1>those is tech Stuff h s W. Remember you can

0:57:20.600 --> 0:57:23.200
<v Speaker 1>tune in to watch me stream shows live on twitch

0:57:23.320 --> 0:57:26.560
<v Speaker 1>dot tv slash tech Stuff. Visit the site to see

0:57:26.640 --> 0:57:30.200
<v Speaker 1>my schedule, and I'll talk to you guys again really soon.

0:57:36.080 --> 0:57:38.480
<v Speaker 1>For more on this and thousands of other topics, is

0:57:38.560 --> 0:57:39.760
<v Speaker 1>it how stuff works dot com