Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, stuff you should know is going on tour.
Speaker 1: Do do do do do? What are the deeds? My friend? Okay,
Speaker 1: So starting August eighth in Toronto, that's in Canada. We're
Speaker 1: gonna be at dan Fourth Music Hall. And then Chicago.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be there the next night, August nine, at
Speaker 1: the Harris Theater at Chicago. We want to see your faces.
Speaker 1: Step it up, Step it Up. Vancouver or the Vote
Speaker 1: Theater September. That's gonna be a great show, I think,
Speaker 1: don't you. It's gonna be a great one. And then
Speaker 1: Minneapolis at the Pantageous Theater where we've been before. It's
Speaker 1: lovely September. Yeah, and then we're gonna swing down to Austin.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be during Austin City Limits, although it has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Austin City limits. Will be there
Speaker 1: October ten, yes, and then we're going to Lovely Lawrence,
Speaker 1: Kansas go Jayhawks. Yeah, on October eleven. Then Hey, if
Speaker 1: you're in Kansas City or anywhere in that area, this
Speaker 1: is your chance. Get in your car. Yeah. Uh. If
Speaker 1: you are anywhere near Brooklyn, well then you should go
Speaker 1: to the Bellhouse October. Will be there all three nights.
Speaker 1: And finally we're gonna wrap it up here in Atlanta
Speaker 1: at the Bucket Theater on November four for a benefit
Speaker 1: show where we are donating all of the money's to
Speaker 1: Lifeline Animal Project of Atlanta and the National Down Syndrome Society. Yep.
Speaker 1: So for all this information again visually and for links
Speaker 1: two tickets, just go to s y s K live
Speaker 1: dot com. Welcome to Stuff you Should Know from House
Speaker 1: Stuff Works dot com. Hey, and welcome to the podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Josh Clark, There's Charles W. Chuck Bryant, Jerry's over there.
Speaker 1: So this is stuff you should know the podcast. Correct.
Speaker 1: We are not going dark, No, although that's a thing.
Speaker 1: It is a thing for the Battle for the Net
Speaker 1: Action Day, Battle of the Network Stars. Nope, just net okay,
Speaker 1: Battle for the Net Yeah, which I would guess most
Speaker 1: people have heard of, maybe not by that name necessarily,
Speaker 1: but um say, if you're a John Oliver fan or
Speaker 1: have been paying attention at all to the FCC rules
Speaker 1: about net neutrality, um, Battle for the Net is is
Speaker 1: kind of at the forefront of all that. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: since our show comes out on a Tuesday, which is
Speaker 1: July eleven, and that is the day that, uh, some
Speaker 1: websites have elected to go dark. I think they're going
Speaker 1: dark the next day. Yeah, okay, al right, well then
Speaker 1: I don't feel so bad, right, but we we figured
Speaker 1: we're actually someone wrote in suggesting this, Um, then maybe
Speaker 1: instead of going dark, because you guys probably can't do that,
Speaker 1: maybe you should just do an episode on net neutrality
Speaker 1: to teach all the people's about the things, which I
Speaker 1: thought was a pretty pretty good I suggestion. I agree,
Speaker 1: good suggestion. Yeah, I feel bad that we UM. I
Speaker 1: can't remember who it was that road in, but thank
Speaker 1: you for that. Whoever it was, you know who you are,
Speaker 1: because you're the only one who did. Yeah, and they
Speaker 1: don't do it for the glory. No, So what are
Speaker 1: we talking about, Chuck, When we're talking about net neutrality
Speaker 1: or network neutrality or open internet? So what that is? Um?
Speaker 1: Mainly what people mean when they say net neutrality is
Speaker 1: the idea that the Internet is an open road and
Speaker 1: it doesn't have fast lanes or slow lanes. Uh. It
Speaker 1: is providing equal access to anyone who wants to build
Speaker 1: a website, let's say, can can throw it up there
Speaker 1: and have equal access to the big rollers on the
Speaker 1: internet with huge sites. You're all the same as far
Speaker 1: as how people can access you and whether or not
Speaker 1: they can access you. Yeah, and how fast they can
Speaker 1: access you. Exactly right. There was this um there's a
Speaker 1: great explainer in Vox about net neutrality that that we
Speaker 1: used as a resource. But they gave this good example
Speaker 1: of net neutrality. Right, So they pointed out that when
Speaker 1: um Facebook was created, Zuckerberg didn't have to go to
Speaker 1: Comcast or Verizon or any of the I s p s,
Speaker 1: the Internet service providers, the companies that provide the last mile,
Speaker 1: the connection between your house and the public Internet. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's what an I s P is very important to
Speaker 1: remember that part. Right. He didn't have to go to
Speaker 1: them and say, hey, will you carry my website on
Speaker 1: your network? He just built the website, plugged it into
Speaker 1: the Internet, uploaded it to the Internet, and it was
Speaker 1: available to any device or computer that was connected to
Speaker 1: the Internet anywhere in the world. Right. And the fact
Speaker 1: that he didn't have to go to them and ask
Speaker 1: that to be added to their network, The fact that
Speaker 1: he didn't have to go to them to say, hey,
Speaker 1: I need people to be able to download this stuff fast.
Speaker 1: So here's a bunch of extra money. UM. The fact
Speaker 1: that he didn't do that. That's how it has been
Speaker 1: up to this point. That is network neutrality. That's the
Speaker 1: that's the basis of net neutrality, especially from the standpoint
Speaker 1: of UM developers and companies that create sites and applications
Speaker 1: on the web. Yeah, it's uh wow, that's a very
Speaker 1: large spider crawling next to me. Sorry, I saw something
Speaker 1: out of corn ofm eye and I'm on yeah, nope,
Speaker 1: just a big spider. Uh, good for you. So it's
Speaker 1: an It levels the playing field, and all Internet traffic
Speaker 1: is treated equally. Right, So not only does it level
Speaker 1: the playing field for people who are creating you know,
Speaker 1: Facebook or Netflix or what have you, it also levels
Speaker 1: the playing field or levels the experience for users. Right,
Speaker 1: if you're a user and you are on UM the
Speaker 1: Internet through your I s P, like, you should be
Speaker 1: getting whatever site you want to go to at the
Speaker 1: same speed as any other site, and your Internet service
Speaker 1: provider shouldn't be able to decide we don't really like
Speaker 1: you getting that site, we don't really like you having
Speaker 1: that app. We're gonna make it so that this this
Speaker 1: traffic moves so slowly, you're gonna give up trying to
Speaker 1: download it, or we're just gonna block it entirely. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and why maybe because that's a competitor to us in
Speaker 1: some way and we would like to serve you up
Speaker 1: our product faster, right, So preventing sps from being able
Speaker 1: to do that. That's open, open internet or network neutrality. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's the basis of it. That is currently how it
Speaker 1: stands right now. UM, and the idea of network neutrality,
Speaker 1: it's it's UM, I guess about fifteen years old back
Speaker 1: in a two to a guy named Tim Woo who
Speaker 1: is a Columbia University law professor or not, I believe,
Speaker 1: coined the term network neutrality to basically describe a level
Speaker 1: playing field for everybody involved, right especially at the at
Speaker 1: the Internet service provider level. And since then it's become
Speaker 1: this topic of debate like should it should this be
Speaker 1: um something that that that we all want to adopt
Speaker 1: as like the basically the rules for the Internet. Should
Speaker 1: network neutrality be the basis of how the Internet is
Speaker 1: built and approached? Which is a big deal because we are,
Speaker 1: even though it seems like we're far along, we are
Speaker 1: still in the infancy stage of the Internet and the
Speaker 1: impacts UH would be long lasting and huge moving forward.
Speaker 1: For from what I understand, most people agree that net
Speaker 1: neutrality is at its basis, the an agreeable way to
Speaker 1: frame the the Internet. That's the way it should be.
Speaker 1: And there was even back in two fourteen. As we'll see,
Speaker 1: we just went through this um and we're going through
Speaker 1: it again now. But back in two fourteen, there were
Speaker 1: a pair of polls that I ran across from two
Speaker 1: different groups. One of them is University of Delaware. I
Speaker 1: can't remember who the other one was, but it found
Speaker 1: that um, even among conservatives, that net neutrality is highly valued.
Speaker 1: Something like eight of people who identify as conservative say
Speaker 1: that I s p s should be prevented from slowing
Speaker 1: or blocking traffic, right, and that Congress should actually do
Speaker 1: something about it. Right. So people people buy in large
Speaker 1: degree that net neutrality is the way the Internet should go.
Speaker 1: The division that has really kind of come out, especially recently,
Speaker 1: is how that good can be achieved. Do you achieve
Speaker 1: it by giving power to the FCC to go police
Speaker 1: the I s p s and find them and basically
Speaker 1: make life hard for them if they don't follow the rules,
Speaker 1: or do you remove any teeth that the FCC might
Speaker 1: have in policing the I s p s and just
Speaker 1: leave it up to competition. And depending on where you
Speaker 1: fall ideologically as far as um government regulation goes, is
Speaker 1: probably where you're going to fall along the spectrum of
Speaker 1: net neutrality. Yeah, and it's uh, it's not a black
Speaker 1: and white thing like you would think. Um, Like, uh,
Speaker 1: the end user just saying, yeah, you know, there's got
Speaker 1: to be net neutrality no matter what. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of users are like, I don't know, man, I like
Speaker 1: care about is streaming my stuff as efficiently as fast
Speaker 1: as possible, And if if getting rid of net neutrality
Speaker 1: would increase that competition and I could get my Netflix
Speaker 1: movies awesomer and faster than I'm all for it, right. Um.
Speaker 1: On the other side, you've got big corporate corporations that
Speaker 1: maybe don't feel like you think they might. Yeah, you
Speaker 1: would think, you know that stuff like this usually when
Speaker 1: the government's involved, it's like a big guy, big corporation
Speaker 1: versus little guy kind of thing. But no, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a dispute between corporations too, like you said, where
Speaker 1: the I s p s like Verizon and Comcast, UM
Speaker 1: and A T and T are lined up against the
Speaker 1: tech companies like the tech media companies like YouTube and
Speaker 1: Netflix and formerly Tumbler, some of the other guys, Facebook, Google, um.
Speaker 1: Where they're they're on opposite sides of this this issue,
Speaker 1: which is strange because they need each other. They have
Speaker 1: very incestuous relationships that are very complicated and complex. Um.
Speaker 1: But as far as net neutrality goes, they are pretty
Speaker 1: much divided between I s p s and tech media companies.
Speaker 1: One side is the against the net neutrality rules. One
Speaker 1: side is strongly in favor of them. Boy, and you
Speaker 1: talk about complicated like in the future companies corporations merging
Speaker 1: and then I sps being a part of the same
Speaker 1: company or getting into the media content game, like things
Speaker 1: are getting interesting, you know, yeah, interesting but also kind
Speaker 1: of scary because right now, um back in well, back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and fifteen, the FCC UM struck a
Speaker 1: huge blow to the I s p s with a
Speaker 1: set of new rules four page compendium, I guess you
Speaker 1: would call it of rules that basically said, you guys
Speaker 1: can't mess around anymore. The I s p s are
Speaker 1: not allowed to block or throttle or provide fast lanes. Um.
Speaker 1: Stuff getting real and the net really is going to
Speaker 1: be neutral from now on. UM. That was under Obama
Speaker 1: and Trump has appointed a UM a different FCC chairman
Speaker 1: who was a member of the SEC before UH, and
Speaker 1: he is not in favor of that at all. So, UM,
Speaker 1: do you wanna do you want to talk about the
Speaker 1: what the two fifteen rules are and kind of how
Speaker 1: it is for the moment. Well, here's what I think
Speaker 1: we should do. I think we should take a break. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, we should uh go back in time when
Speaker 1: we come back and talk a little bit about the
Speaker 1: phone companies, which will kind of set the stage for
Speaker 1: what's going on today. Okay, alright, alright, we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: That's why we should know, should know. But Josh Clark,
Speaker 1: all right, I promised talk about phone companies because that's
Speaker 1: exciting stuff. Yeah, it is. It's amazing how much telephone
Speaker 1: companies have shaped UH law and policy in this country
Speaker 1: over the years. Yeah. Yeah, I guess it is like
Speaker 1: with the telephone monopolies back in the day. I mean
Speaker 1: that was it's all very interesting. Yeah, you used to
Speaker 1: have to lease your telephone from the phone company like
Speaker 1: people in buy telephones you released it. Yeah, were there
Speaker 1: just one telephone company wasn't it just bell Yeah, basically yeah,
Speaker 1: and then they broke it up into the smaller bells,
Speaker 1: the baby bells. I think that's what they call them.
Speaker 1: This is all like from my childhood, so I didn't
Speaker 1: really look up much of that. Um, but we're talking
Speaker 1: about the FCC. Uh here is the governing body. And
Speaker 1: back in the seventies and eighties, they were sort of
Speaker 1: early in on this game with the phone companies in
Speaker 1: the early days of computer uh networking, and they came
Speaker 1: out really early on. They had a lot of foresight
Speaker 1: back then and said, you know what, we need to
Speaker 1: guarantee consumers with the right to use modems on their
Speaker 1: phone lines. Yeah, because this is like everyone's seeing war
Speaker 1: games and we all know that that's that's how the
Speaker 1: future is going, Right, you gotta put your phone on
Speaker 1: a big box. Ye, your phone receiver on a big box.
Speaker 1: I wanted one of those so bad. Yeah, Like they
Speaker 1: were so expensive. You literally connected your phone, right. I
Speaker 1: had no idea what to do with it. I just
Speaker 1: thought like, well, that's that's computer plus yeah exactly. But
Speaker 1: the but treating the saying okay, everybody has the right
Speaker 1: to have a modem in their house and to use
Speaker 1: a phone line to use it. That's that's that was
Speaker 1: a kind of a radical idea. And the reason why
Speaker 1: is because when you're talking about um telephone carriers right,
Speaker 1: like back in the day, um A T and T right,
Speaker 1: mob Belt, what what you were saying is you're a
Speaker 1: private corporation. You have gone and laid telephone wires all
Speaker 1: throughout the United States. You guys built the US telephone infrastructure.
Speaker 1: And yes, we the government, the taxpayers, gave you substantial
Speaker 1: tax breaks and in lots of benefits to doing this.
Speaker 1: And you guys are the ones making the money operating
Speaker 1: these phone lines. But we have decided that the phone
Speaker 1: lines are so important to the public good that you
Speaker 1: guys aren't allowed to just be a normal corporation. That
Speaker 1: the government stays las fair hands off with right, you
Speaker 1: guys are deemed order considered common carriers. But yeah, well
Speaker 1: you're like the people who carry people along roads, like
Speaker 1: goods and people. Right, You're like an airline, You're like
Speaker 1: a you're like a cargo transport ship. You're like a
Speaker 1: greyhound bus, but but with telephone lines. Right, So the
Speaker 1: government said everyone should be able to have access to
Speaker 1: telephone lines. You can charge people for that access, but
Speaker 1: you can't mess with their access. We're not letting you.
Speaker 1: And in the seventies one of the things, or the eighties,
Speaker 1: I think one of the things the government said was, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know how we're kind of the bosses of you guys,
Speaker 1: even though your private corporations, Well, we're gonna boss you
Speaker 1: around right now and say, any business that wants to
Speaker 1: come along and use your phone lines to provide dial
Speaker 1: up modem service to their customers, you have to let
Speaker 1: them do it. And that was it was for the
Speaker 1: public good. And by doing that, the dial up Internet
Speaker 1: UM industry was able to blossom unfettered with government protection. Right,
Speaker 1: the government got in between that blossoming industry that was
Speaker 1: in competition with the telephone companies, and the telephone companies
Speaker 1: that could have strangled it in the cradle. And that
Speaker 1: was that was the first big thing that the SEC
Speaker 1: did as far as the Internet goes. Yeah, and very
Speaker 1: important UH distinction was drawn with basically Congress drawing up
Speaker 1: to category stories. And this you'll see plays out kind
Speaker 1: of over and over and will continue to in the future.
Speaker 1: UM two different things, telecommunication services and information services. So
Speaker 1: telecom services, UH we're talking about the phone lines. That
Speaker 1: what we were talking about here, And um, as far
Speaker 1: as the law is concerned, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: like you were talking about, legal obligations on these services,
Speaker 1: and the FCC has a lot of um oversight and
Speaker 1: regulation over them. Yeah. Uh. Information services on the other hand, Um,
Speaker 1: they said, like like Facebook, that's an information service. YouTube
Speaker 1: is an information service. They were less or well basically
Speaker 1: exempt for most of the FCC regulations. So dividing those
Speaker 1: things in two was a very, very big deal. And
Speaker 1: during the Clinton years what most people would consider what
Speaker 1: a JITPI, which we he is Trump's um pick to
Speaker 1: chair the FCC. He called the Clinton era and basically
Speaker 1: up through two thousand fifteen a light touch regulation, which
Speaker 1: is what he is in favor of and what we'll
Speaker 1: get to him a little bit more in a minute. Um,
Speaker 1: but it's that Clinton era fec uh regulations that basically
Speaker 1: did what you're talking about and said, you know what
Speaker 1: we want DSL that's the newest thing forget dial up.
Speaker 1: We want to send faster speeds over the Internet, and
Speaker 1: you all have to play along. So they did it
Speaker 1: again to the phone companies. They went to and said,
Speaker 1: remember dial up modems. No one wants that any longer.
Speaker 1: Everybody wants DSL. So now you guys have to let
Speaker 1: any DSL provider use your phone lines, and that let
Speaker 1: the DSL, the beginning of the high speed Internet industry flourish. Right.
Speaker 1: So there's this pattern of the SEC coming in and
Speaker 1: being like, you guys are huge, You guys who provide
Speaker 1: that last mile. You common carriers, who are the gatekeepers
Speaker 1: between the public at large and the public Internet. You
Speaker 1: guys stand in between them, and we're saying you can
Speaker 1: do this, you can't do that. You can do this,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. And for a while, the I
Speaker 1: s p s were classified as telecommunication services, which meant
Speaker 1: that they fell under way more oversight and scrutiny, like
Speaker 1: you said, than say, like YouTube. And the reason the
Speaker 1: government did this was to let the Internet start to boom, right, Yes,
Speaker 1: And I'm not sure why, I guess because it was
Speaker 1: Bush era, and the Bush FCC chair said we shouldn't
Speaker 1: be classifying I s p s as telecommunications companies anymore,
Speaker 1: but we have to. It's the law. He went to
Speaker 1: court and the court said no, Actually, you guys are
Speaker 1: the f CC. If you want to start classifying Internet
Speaker 1: service providers as information services, which are not as heavily regulated.
Speaker 1: You guys go ahead and do that. So the Bush
Speaker 1: era FEC said, okay, well, we here by decree that
Speaker 1: Internet service providers are not the akin to the Bell
Speaker 1: telephone switchboard operators of your They're much more akin to YouTube.
Speaker 1: They're part of the Internet, which, if you really stop
Speaker 1: and think about it, doesn't make much sense. But that
Speaker 1: that was that that was a huge sea change in
Speaker 1: what the government could say or do to I s
Speaker 1: p s. That gave them way more freedom to do
Speaker 1: a lot more stuff after they were classified as information services. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And then, uh, in two thousand and ten, the chair
Speaker 1: of the SEC at the time, Julius Ganikowski, said, you
Speaker 1: know what, we've got some new regulations on the books.
Speaker 1: We're gonna prohibit I s p s from blocking content online.
Speaker 1: We're gonna prohibit what we call unreasonable discrimination, and they're
Speaker 1: all gonna have to be a little more transparent about
Speaker 1: what's going on. And this is in the era of
Speaker 1: broadband now, right. Uh. And then Verizon stepped up and said,
Speaker 1: you know what, we don't like the sounds of this.
Speaker 1: This is you guys are stepping way over your your
Speaker 1: congressional power here. Yeah, they said, well, don't forget you
Speaker 1: guys classified us as information services. You can't tell us
Speaker 1: to to do or not do this stuff. We're not
Speaker 1: telecoms anymore, suckers. Yeah, pretty much. Uh, And the d
Speaker 1: C Circuit Cord of Appeals agreed with Verizon and this
Speaker 1: is just inten so just a few years ago then
Speaker 1: said those rules have got to go. As long as
Speaker 1: you're classified that way, Uh, then you're gonna have to
Speaker 1: play by these rules. Right. But that changed again in
Speaker 1: two thousand and fourteen when Tom Wheeler came along as
Speaker 1: the chair of the FCC and he kind of flip flopped.
Speaker 1: He came out initially and proposed some rules that people said, no,
Speaker 1: that's like, that's way too weak, bra Right, Well he was.
Speaker 1: They got leaked and there was a huge backlash in
Speaker 1: public outcry against it. And but I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: was surprised because Tom Wheeler was a longstanding UM lobbyist
Speaker 1: for the cable and wireless industries, right, so he was
Speaker 1: an industry insider who was supposed to be regulating that
Speaker 1: that industry that he was already friends within, where his
Speaker 1: background was, so nobody was really surprised when the FCC
Speaker 1: came out with these really weakened rules on I s
Speaker 1: p s. But there was a huge backlash. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: was the first battle for the net. And then Wheeler
Speaker 1: went whooa, whoa, whoa, I was just kidding, Um, here's
Speaker 1: here's my real document. He didn't really say that, but
Speaker 1: he came up with a new document with with bigger,
Speaker 1: sharper teeth, and that was what you referenced earlier four
Speaker 1: page document called the two thousand fifteen Open Internet Order,
Speaker 1: which was a really big deal. And that was a
Speaker 1: surprise because Wheeler, again who was a lobbyist for the
Speaker 1: these very industries, um not only reversed course from these
Speaker 1: toothless weak law rules to much stronger rules that were
Speaker 1: in step with the what the net neutrality advocates were
Speaker 1: asking for. He actually went even further and made even stronger,
Speaker 1: tighter net neutrality rules and then took the time to
Speaker 1: write something like three hundred pages of rules explaining the
Speaker 1: logic and the thought behind all this, which could pose
Speaker 1: a problem as we'll talk about later for a jeep
Speaker 1: Pie and the Trump FCC to get past. But the
Speaker 1: the it was a huge, huge surprise that came out
Speaker 1: of nowhere in an enormous victory for net neutrality advocates
Speaker 1: and for Obama and his administration. It became one of
Speaker 1: the signature um acts I guess or watershed moments for
Speaker 1: the Obama administration because he campaigned as a net neutrality supporter.
Speaker 1: And then finally, you know, one year, the last year
Speaker 1: of his presidency, his FCC just dropped the mic on
Speaker 1: net neutrality and said it is it is done. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and within that Open Internet Order one of the first
Speaker 1: I mean, it did a couple of big things, but
Speaker 1: the big big thing it did was it said, hey,
Speaker 1: remember way back in nine the Communications Act, we think
Speaker 1: we can actually reclassify broadband as what we're gonna call
Speaker 1: a title to telecommunication service. So remember earlier when we
Speaker 1: said they split it up in the two buckets. Uh,
Speaker 1: this all changed a couple of years ago when they
Speaker 1: can now classify you know, Verizon, our Comcast as a
Speaker 1: telecom service, which again means it's a common carrier and
Speaker 1: much more heavily regulated. Yeah. So the SEC was like, oh,
Speaker 1: we can't tell you what to do if you're classified
Speaker 1: as an information service, Well you're no longer classified. Is
Speaker 1: that you're classify as a telecommunications service now and we
Speaker 1: are up your rectum. It's so interesting that this like
Speaker 1: we've seen the birth of this industry that like is
Speaker 1: being figured out in full view. Well maybe not always
Speaker 1: full view, right you know what I'm saying though, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and it's still it's still being molded right now. You know.
Speaker 1: It's really interesting. So that was that was the first
Speaker 1: thing that the two thousand and fifteen Open Internet Order did, right,
Speaker 1: It reclassified the I s p s back to telecommunication status.
Speaker 1: It really it took them out of the same league
Speaker 1: as YouTube and Netflix and um all of these these
Speaker 1: um content providers on the web and said, you guys
Speaker 1: actually handle the nuts and bolts of it. You you
Speaker 1: don't handle the actual content, So you're telecom now. Then
Speaker 1: it did a second part two, which was basically saying
Speaker 1: we're the net is now neutral. We're instilling net neutrality
Speaker 1: values onto the Internet as the FCC. Yeah, and we'll
Speaker 1: do so in three main ways. No blocking. You can't
Speaker 1: block lawful content, can't block services, You can't block applications.
Speaker 1: As long as it's lawful and legal content, you can't
Speaker 1: block it. You can't throttle it. To me, throttling is
Speaker 1: a weird word. It seems counterintuitive because through throttling, I
Speaker 1: would think means you speed something up, but in this case,
Speaker 1: it means you can't slow something down. Yeah, basically I
Speaker 1: would say breaking, not throttling. Playing on, Yeah, but throttling
Speaker 1: basically means, as a I s P. You can't come
Speaker 1: in like we're talking about earlier and saying, uh, you
Speaker 1: know what your competition Netflix to our Comcast services, So
Speaker 1: we want to make sure no one can stream anything
Speaker 1: very well, right, so we're gonna slow you down. And
Speaker 1: then the final one was no paid prioritization, so yeah,
Speaker 1: they can't. You can't pay someone to juice up your site,
Speaker 1: right so that you can get an edge over the competition,
Speaker 1: Which I mean like if Netflix is doing that to
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime, nobody's really shedding a tear. Like Amazon Primer
Speaker 1: big kids, and they can handle themselves. But if you are,
Speaker 1: you know, developing the next streaming video app and you
Speaker 1: don't have the money to to compete against Netflix, you're
Speaker 1: that's that's a huge disadvantage and and it has been
Speaker 1: pointed out as a potentially stifling to to new technology.
Speaker 1: So um one of the things that the FCCS two
Speaker 1: thousand fifteen rules said, we're that I sps have to
Speaker 1: behave in a quote just and reasonable manner. I think
Speaker 1: you said that, right, No, I didn't. Okay, Well they do.
Speaker 1: That's part of it. And they also said, hey, everybody
Speaker 1: from YouTube to YouTube, uh, you guys, if you see
Speaker 1: an I s P behaving in an unjust and unreasonable manner,
Speaker 1: let us know, even if it's if it's not illegal,
Speaker 1: if you think it's unjust and unreasonable, let us know,
Speaker 1: and we will look into to it. And the I
Speaker 1: s p s went, Oh, the f c C So
Speaker 1: that was a really big thing. We'll we'll talk about
Speaker 1: a little a little bit more about why it is
Speaker 1: such a big thing in a in a minute. UM.
Speaker 1: But then one of the other things that it did
Speaker 1: too was it said this also applies to wireless providers
Speaker 1: before in two ten, when the FEC introduced some the
Speaker 1: some net neutrality rules that were challenged by Verizon and
Speaker 1: court and were overturned by the court in two thousand fourteen. UM,
Speaker 1: one of the things that they did was it exempted
Speaker 1: wireless carriers wireless I s p s from these laws.
Speaker 1: Again because they wanted to promote UM. They wanted to
Speaker 1: promote growth in that industry. They're like, no one's ever
Speaker 1: going to use their phone to stream content. I think
Speaker 1: they were hoping that people would and that regulation might
Speaker 1: hamper that. Right, So that kind of brings us up
Speaker 1: to speed on where we are today. Uh enter uh
Speaker 1: adject pie who was UM. He was a former lawyer
Speaker 1: for Verizon and is the head of the SEC under Trump,
Speaker 1: and he, like I said before, he favors what he
Speaker 1: calls a light touch regulation, which is basically pre title
Speaker 1: to reclassification. Right that basically, if you are if you
Speaker 1: are an I s P, you are going to be
Speaker 1: subject to the laws of competition of capitalism and those
Speaker 1: will keep you in line. And the SEC doesn't need
Speaker 1: to be involved. And the more of that secs involved,
Speaker 1: the more stifling these regulations will be. And um, basically
Speaker 1: the whole Internet will break if the SEC is involved. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and his theory. Watched a couple of interviews with him
Speaker 1: and his theory. Very smart guy. His theory is that
Speaker 1: if we deregulate and kind of make it wide open,
Speaker 1: then people in uh I guess more rural areas of
Speaker 1: the kind tree will benefit because if we have all
Speaker 1: these regulations, it might stifle their internet, and we want
Speaker 1: everyone to have like good fast internet, and he believes
Speaker 1: that the way forward is through uh not regulating this stuff,
Speaker 1: and he thinks that would lead to rural areas getting
Speaker 1: like faster speeds. I don't see how that's I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't see how it's possible. Like, I
Speaker 1: mean that just just by definition, fewer customers out there
Speaker 1: means it's more expensive to lay that cable out to
Speaker 1: those people. Well, I think his his argument is that uh,
Speaker 1: investments in this infrastructure would would dry up because of
Speaker 1: these rules, which in turn would like the first people
Speaker 1: to lose out on that would probably be people in
Speaker 1: rural areas. Like we're not gonna bother putting infrastructure in
Speaker 1: these rural areas because it's not worth our time and effort. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know that's what he's saying. So there's a there's
Speaker 1: actually another thing that addresses that that's from the old
Speaker 1: telephone days. I can't remember what it's called. It's like
Speaker 1: a universal fund, but it's basically where everybody who has
Speaker 1: a telephone line or gets service from an I s
Speaker 1: p um paid like paid a little tax. Like if
Speaker 1: you looked at your phone bill back in the day,
Speaker 1: there would be a line item that said, like the
Speaker 1: universal something fun and it was three cents or seven
Speaker 1: cents or something like that, something you just couldn't care
Speaker 1: less about. But put together in a pot for with
Speaker 1: the seven cents from all the other phone users households
Speaker 1: that had phones, you had a pretty decent amount of money.
Speaker 1: And that money was was taken to goo to to
Speaker 1: create infrastructure out to rural areas so that people out
Speaker 1: in the sticks had telephones. There's a there's a bill
Speaker 1: right now or a proposal in the FCC that was
Speaker 1: proposed by the Wheeler FEC about creating that or continuing
Speaker 1: that same thing, not broad with broadband, right, So, I
Speaker 1: mean that's there's a solution right there. It's everybody paying
Speaker 1: an extra few cents so that people out in rural
Speaker 1: areas can get that kind of infrastructure, and it's the
Speaker 1: taxpayers paying the I s p s to go lay
Speaker 1: that cable for people in rural areas. Yeah, he also
Speaker 1: says because one of the one of the things a
Speaker 1: lot of people talk about are the harm that can
Speaker 1: be caused by this deregulation and there are examples even
Speaker 1: which will go here in a minute, but he called
Speaker 1: those he calls those hypothesized harms and even UH said,
Speaker 1: a solution that wouldn't work. Title two is a solution
Speaker 1: that wouldn't work for a problem that didn't exist. So
Speaker 1: when in this interview I saw an NPR when they
Speaker 1: sat down and gave him examples of what can happen,
Speaker 1: he said, well, this has happened. I'm not saying it
Speaker 1: hasn't happened, he said, but these are are single examples.
Speaker 1: And he said to me, it would have to be
Speaker 1: that would have to be widespread evidence of this kind
Speaker 1: of problem, uh, in order for this kind of regulation
Speaker 1: to be enacted. Right, I got um, which you know
Speaker 1: I don't. Maybe it would be more widespread if there
Speaker 1: was no regulation. So, well, that's the fear. That's another hypothesis.
Speaker 1: I guess that that's the fear that that once you
Speaker 1: you know, take the take take the bridle off of
Speaker 1: the I s p s who you know, they're gonna
Speaker 1: run rampant. And again, these are multinational companies that are
Speaker 1: providing most of the access to the public Internet in
Speaker 1: America and you know the Western world. So you it's
Speaker 1: it's not foolish to think that they're going to very
Speaker 1: quickly consolidate as much power as they can with the
Speaker 1: new less restricted freedom, uh to do so that would
Speaker 1: be given if you rolled back the two thousand fifteen rules.
Speaker 1: And a lot of people point out too that if
Speaker 1: you look at the period from five, while the I
Speaker 1: s p s were classified as telecoms, the Internet still
Speaker 1: boomed and flourished. We had a bubble, an internet um
Speaker 1: stock bubble happened even pretty early on, and the Internet
Speaker 1: as we know it today developed during that time. Uh
Speaker 1: So the idea that it's stifling or would stifle that
Speaker 1: growth classifying eyes pieces telecoms doesn't seem to hold much water. Well.
Speaker 1: And when you talk about investment infrastructure, it kind of
Speaker 1: depends on which studies you've looked at. Some have said
Speaker 1: that it uh it has already. Um Like Pie pointed
Speaker 1: to twelve. I think over the two year period since
Speaker 1: the Title two went into effect, the twelve major carriers
Speaker 1: have had five percent reduction and infrastructure spending. Um. And
Speaker 1: then you can cheery pick another study that might say, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but these companies actually put in more money and invested
Speaker 1: more money. So I think in either case, it's probably
Speaker 1: a correlation and causation argument. You know, maybe you can't
Speaker 1: necessarily say it's because of the the different classification, right,
Speaker 1: and so the numbers we have are not so great
Speaker 1: that there's this lobbying group called um U s Telecom,
Speaker 1: and their numbers show that the infrastructure investing this is
Speaker 1: new fiber cable or upgrades to existing cable being laid
Speaker 1: in the United States, the broadband infrastructure that the spending
Speaker 1: by the big twelve I s p s went down
Speaker 1: by a billion dollars between two thousand and fourteen and
Speaker 1: two thousand fifteen, and the idea is that's because of reclassification.
Speaker 1: The US Census Bureau said, actually, no, our numbers show
Speaker 1: that between two thousand fourteen and two thousand and fifteen,
Speaker 1: the spending on infrastructure went up by six hundred million.
Speaker 1: Now that not that much, but it was an actual increase.
Speaker 1: And this is really really important, Chuck, because if you
Speaker 1: are looking at net neutrality in the battle over it
Speaker 1: from a legal standpoint, infrastructure is going to be the
Speaker 1: crux of the argument. Because there was a law passed
Speaker 1: back in I can't remember what it's called, but it
Speaker 1: basically bans federal agencies from making capricious rule changes, which
Speaker 1: is basically like, for if exactly the situation that we're
Speaker 1: in right now, you have one administration making one set
Speaker 1: of rules and then a year or two later a
Speaker 1: philosophically different in administration coming in and completely changing those rules. Well,
Speaker 1: to do that that the new administration's regulators have to
Speaker 1: prove why it's a it's a good idea to change
Speaker 1: these rules. They can't just be capricious, right And so
Speaker 1: observers of this whole battle that's going on right now
Speaker 1: are saying, probably Pie is going to be using the
Speaker 1: infrastructure um the drop and infrastructure investing as his reason why.
Speaker 1: He's going to point to it and say, look, man,
Speaker 1: this title to classification led to a billion dollar, five
Speaker 1: billion dollars whatever billion dollar dropped in infrastructure investment. It
Speaker 1: was a bad idea. We're going to reverse the rules.
Speaker 1: And if he can do that, then the rules probably
Speaker 1: will be changed and net neutrality will be rolled back.
Speaker 1: But the figures aren't in yet for two thousand and sixteen,
Speaker 1: so no one actually knows if overall spending on infrastructure
Speaker 1: declined or increased or stayed the same, but that's probably
Speaker 1: going to be the crux of the legal argument about
Speaker 1: changing the rules back. You want to take a break, Sure, alright,
Speaker 1: we're gonna take a break, and hopefully we'll get to
Speaker 1: hear Josh say lay the cable at least two more times.
Speaker 1: That's why has that you should know? That's a should knows.
Speaker 1: But Clark, all right, so we're back. Um, you're still
Speaker 1: laughing at that. Huha. So before we move on, we
Speaker 1: should say that this um uh, like we were saying
Speaker 1: about websites going dark, the title two is up for
Speaker 1: grabs again, essentially coming up soon and UH people are
Speaker 1: being asked if you care about this one way or
Speaker 1: the other. UM. You can leave your comments on restoring
Speaker 1: Internet Freedom by going to FCC dot gov and you
Speaker 1: click on file a Public comment, UM, and then you
Speaker 1: click on preceding seventeen Dash one oh eight Restoring Internet Freedom,
Speaker 1: and then you can tell them what you think about it. Yea,
Speaker 1: And the comment in and of themselves have gotten a
Speaker 1: lot of traction and pop popular culture. UM. Back in
Speaker 1: two thousand fourteen, John Oliver UH did a piece on UM,
Speaker 1: what's this show called this week tonight? Uh? Last week
Speaker 1: tonight that's right, thank you. Um and he uh he
Speaker 1: very famously called the battle over net neutrality cable comp
Speaker 1: company Smurfrey, right and um he basically he said, everybody
Speaker 1: go leave your comments about net neutrality, and the next
Speaker 1: day the FCC's website broke under. It buckled under the strain. Uh.
Speaker 1: And ultimately the FCC got something like three point seven
Speaker 1: million public comments about the the the two thousand fifteen rules,
Speaker 1: most of them in favor of them. Right. So, um,
Speaker 1: the this time around, John Oliver has done another thing.
Speaker 1: The internet broke again, but they think this time it
Speaker 1: was actually a d E O S attack. It was
Speaker 1: an attack, and there's also been evidence that uh, spam
Speaker 1: bots are leaving um comments as well. Yeah. Wasn't there
Speaker 1: like uh five million identical comments on the half a million?
Speaker 1: Oh half a million? Yeah, there's been about five million total,
Speaker 1: but they found like half a million from a spam box, right,
Speaker 1: which were identical comments, uh with I mean, I think
Speaker 1: they use real names and addresses, but including all the same. Yeah.
Speaker 1: One of the persons whose name was stolen and used
Speaker 1: by the spambot was a jeep pie himself. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: this is what it said. It said, Um, the unprecedented
Speaker 1: regulatory power by the Obama administration imposed on the Internet
Speaker 1: is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy, and obstructing job creation.
Speaker 1: The plan currently under consideration at the FCC to repeal
Speaker 1: Obama's title to power grab is a positive step forward
Speaker 1: and will help to promote a truly free and open
Speaker 1: internet for everyone. Yeah. So it's it's just so interesting
Speaker 1: to me that both sides want the same thing and
Speaker 1: they just have two very different ideas on how to
Speaker 1: go about it, and someone's right and wrong. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: I think you know what's bizarre about this one. There's
Speaker 1: there's three sides to it. There's two sides that are
Speaker 1: opposed philosophically over the role of government and regulation, and
Speaker 1: then there's a third side. The I s p s
Speaker 1: were like, everybody, shut up, stop telling us what to do.
Speaker 1: We want to just go make some money, and uh,
Speaker 1: we want the FCC out of our butts. Yes, you know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So let's let's we've kind of hit on some of them,
Speaker 1: but let's talk about what some of the arguments in
Speaker 1: favor of net neutrality are, and then we'll talk about
Speaker 1: some of the arguments against. Well, um, I guess the
Speaker 1: first thing that we should point out is that it
Speaker 1: actually will prevent censorship. Yeah, when that is what it
Speaker 1: is feared, it won't happen. Yeah, there's we didn't say that.
Speaker 1: The The name that a jeep pie and his f
Speaker 1: CC came up with for their new rules is um
Speaker 1: Restoring Internet Freedom Rules, which has kind of been accused
Speaker 1: of being news speaker double speak because it it's it's
Speaker 1: basically saying, like, you know, the FEC being involved in
Speaker 1: this is was a power grab by the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: and that by getting the FEC out of this whole thing, Um,
Speaker 1: then we're actually protecting against censorship. That it was a
Speaker 1: government grab of the Internet to try to start to
Speaker 1: censor it, right, which is not the case. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess it depends on how you feel about government regulation.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the saying that the two thousand and fifteen
Speaker 1: rules allowed government censorship is patently wrong, That's what I meant.
Speaker 1: And if anything, it prevents censorship by the I s
Speaker 1: p s by preventing blocking and throttling. Yeah. Another thing
Speaker 1: that um, some people, Uh it's weird. The arguments and
Speaker 1: counter arguments all like use each other. Um, they'll say
Speaker 1: that like, no, we we need the regulations so we
Speaker 1: can promote uh, growth in this industry, not stifle it.
Speaker 1: But when you have net neutrality in place, it keeps
Speaker 1: that low barrier to just getting a website going. And
Speaker 1: like like you said before, Um, we're at an age
Speaker 1: now where anyone can design the next Facebook. Uh. And
Speaker 1: if if let's say you needed half a million dollars,
Speaker 1: like you've designed it and everything's great, but you need
Speaker 1: to pay an I s P five grand to get
Speaker 1: it going at a reasonable speed, then that'll that'll kill innovation, right.
Speaker 1: I guess it depends on whose innovation you're stifling. If
Speaker 1: you're looking at the I s p s as part
Speaker 1: of the Internet, Um, well, then having the Internet thrive
Speaker 1: and having new new, huge, massive traffic driving companies like
Speaker 1: Facebook that get a lot of people to the Internet
Speaker 1: to use it in the first place, that's an inherent good. Um.
Speaker 1: But really what you're talking about is is keeping that
Speaker 1: unregulated and regulating the I s P s. Um, So
Speaker 1: I mean, what are you stifling? And the argument is
Speaker 1: that you're stifling infrastructure investment, so like high speed cable
Speaker 1: being laid by not by me. Uh. And then um,
Speaker 1: you know, getting cable out to rural areas, that kind
Speaker 1: of thing. Um, the I think when you when you
Speaker 1: hear both sides using the same point to prove their case,
Speaker 1: it means that BS is a foot somewhere. Another thing
Speaker 1: that we touched on a little bit is like when
Speaker 1: we said, hey, maybe Comcast as a cable company would
Speaker 1: want to slow down or throttle Netflix. Uh, so you know,
Speaker 1: it would not unleveled the playing field. The same can
Speaker 1: be said of like a telephone company not wanting Skype
Speaker 1: to become a thing or Internet phone to become a thing. Uh.
Speaker 1: And so that is a genuine fear that behind the scenes, um,
Speaker 1: that will be throttling going on. Yeah, and that's a
Speaker 1: real legitimate fear for two reasons, Chuck. One that um,
Speaker 1: it's the I s p s are starting to branch
Speaker 1: out and getting into like you said earlier, um, the
Speaker 1: content game. Yeah, the content game. Right. So so that's
Speaker 1: that's rule one, or that's that's problem one. Like for
Speaker 1: for for instance, Verizon just bought Yahoo and Yahoo owns
Speaker 1: flicker and Tumbler, and Tumbler, by the way, used to
Speaker 1: be at the at the forefront the tip of the
Speaker 1: spear for net neutrality, um advocacy like they were loud
Speaker 1: and proud man and then Verizon bought them and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, Tumbler silent on the subject, right um.
Speaker 1: But more to the point, since Verizon bought Yahoo, which
Speaker 1: owns Flicker and Tumbler, it told all of its Tumbler
Speaker 1: and Flicker users that have a Bell South associate or
Speaker 1: a a T and T associated email address that they
Speaker 1: weren't gonna be able to access their Flicker or Tumbler
Speaker 1: accounts anymore until they created a new user I d
Speaker 1: with a using a Yahoo email address. So that's fairly
Speaker 1: anti competitive, you can make a case. And so that's
Speaker 1: going on right now as I sps are starting to
Speaker 1: get into the media game. But it's also happened in
Speaker 1: the past plenty of times too. It's already happened. It's
Speaker 1: been documented that when the I s p s are
Speaker 1: free to to to be anti competitive, they take you
Speaker 1: up on the offer. And Pie has responded to those
Speaker 1: uh incidents, has isolated examples and not enough of a
Speaker 1: reason to regular Yeah. His feeling is it has to
Speaker 1: be a widespread problem for it to be a real issue. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess that's a position for sure, that's
Speaker 1: a position. Yeah. Yeah, uh what about the case against
Speaker 1: net neutrality? So again there's there's there's that whole investment
Speaker 1: thing in infrastructure, which is that's big, that's legitimate, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean like if if the I s p s say, dude,
Speaker 1: it's just we're not making enough money, we're not we're
Speaker 1: really unhappy about this regulation. We're gonna stop putting money
Speaker 1: into the American broadband infrastructure, then America will suffer as
Speaker 1: a result. We want the highest, fastest speed infrastructure we
Speaker 1: can get, and we rely on the I s p
Speaker 1: s to build those and then charge us money for
Speaker 1: access using those high speed routes. Right, That's what I
Speaker 1: don't buy though, because they want they want the fastest internet,
Speaker 1: because they want your business. They totally do. Right, Okay,
Speaker 1: here's the thing, Like everybody when they're talking about this
Speaker 1: seems to kind of dance around this. But yeah, dude,
Speaker 1: the I s p s can make a lot of
Speaker 1: money charging access. They make plenty of money, plenty of revenue.
Speaker 1: But they're also again they're the gatekeepers. They they're the
Speaker 1: ones who built this infratructure. They're the ones who have
Speaker 1: this the access to this these networks built and these
Speaker 1: these customer bases built, and if they are unhappy and
Speaker 1: they want to be sour pusses about it, they can
Speaker 1: stop investing in America's infrastructure and America will suffer as
Speaker 1: a result. And again, these aren't necessarily companies that have
Speaker 1: an office on Main Street in Kansas, in Topeka. They're
Speaker 1: multinational companies and if they move their favor elsewhere, then
Speaker 1: America could suffer. Right. It's we're somewhat hostages to their
Speaker 1: their whims to an extent, but at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, America is also one of the best markets
Speaker 1: for broadband access and they want the money of American users,
Speaker 1: so they are going to keep investing in infrastructure, I think.
Speaker 1: But it's a gamble. And if you're if you're opposed
Speaker 1: to federal regulation and principle, you're going to say that
Speaker 1: gamble is not worth it. Like, I don't want to
Speaker 1: put federal regulation on these guys if it's going to
Speaker 1: make them unhappy because I don't like federal regulation. They
Speaker 1: don't like federal regulation, and it could take them off
Speaker 1: enough that America's infrastructure could start to sag. Here's the thing, though,
Speaker 1: and I don't know much. I'm not an expert in this,
Speaker 1: but my feeling is, wouldn't they have to all collude
Speaker 1: and none of them do that, because as soon as
Speaker 1: one of them starts, uh, one of them starts laying
Speaker 1: the cable, like Josh Clark, then they'll have the advantage
Speaker 1: and the other ones be like, we gotta start laying
Speaker 1: the cable because they're getting a and getting faster. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: like they would all have to be in cahoots and say, well, hey,
Speaker 1: let's all just sort of make a ton of money
Speaker 1: and just say this is how fast the internet is now.
Speaker 1: So here you just dug up another issue. It's totally
Speaker 1: true if you have a lot of different I s
Speaker 1: p s who have large, massive networks, if you have
Speaker 1: those large I s p s suddenly starting to consolidate,
Speaker 1: which they are, and you have fewer and fewer but
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger I sps they control larger parts of
Speaker 1: the market, to where if you've got basically two major
Speaker 1: I s p s competing against one another, they could
Speaker 1: conceivably do that, and it would be tough for one
Speaker 1: to just be like, no, I'm not doing that, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm laying all the cable. Um, I'm gonna take all
Speaker 1: your your market share. It's possible that they could do that,
Speaker 1: but it could also be likely that they would collude, um,
Speaker 1: not necessarily in an illegal fashion, but just saying, you
Speaker 1: know what, we both kind of agree America's the pits
Speaker 1: right now, will wait until the winds change. Let's go
Speaker 1: over to Ireland and invest in their infrastructure because they
Speaker 1: got some cash and they don't feel like, um, like
Speaker 1: regulating today. So it's not like, you know, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people think like, well, you know, this
Speaker 1: is Trump's FCC, so they're just you know, automatically evil
Speaker 1: and have no real point there. There are they They
Speaker 1: do represent a viewpoint of anti regulation sentiment, right, but
Speaker 1: there's there's a there's another aspect to all of this
Speaker 1: chuck that has kind of blown my mind. Um that
Speaker 1: that it's just not talked about all that much. One
Speaker 1: of the well, two of the things that that people
Speaker 1: who are in the net neutrality debate are are talking
Speaker 1: about and worried about are don't really actually exist any longer.
Speaker 1: To major things. Yeah, so internet censorship and a equal
Speaker 1: access to broadband networks that that's not around anymore. Neither
Speaker 1: of those are around or an internet free from censorship,
Speaker 1: I should say yeah, And I mean I don't know
Speaker 1: censorship is the right word because that implies you have
Speaker 1: no access at all. Um, but what search engines do,
Speaker 1: and what apps do, and what Facebook and Google and
Speaker 1: YouTube and everyone does in that game as they serve
Speaker 1: things up to the public that are very much curated
Speaker 1: according to their needs. I was gonna say whims, but
Speaker 1: they're not whims. There their their needs as a company. Um,
Speaker 1: So it's not like they're censoring things, but they certainly aren't. Uh,
Speaker 1: I mean like that you can still find the things
Speaker 1: on the Internet. They're not like deleting things and censoring things.
Speaker 1: But they're definitely serving up uh like search engines, aren't
Speaker 1: You know that they're definitely all just they're serving up
Speaker 1: what they want to serve up because that serves their
Speaker 1: company best. Whether yeah, whether it's like, um, you know,
Speaker 1: content that's more likely to lead to data that they
Speaker 1: can use to better target you for ads, or there
Speaker 1: are some instances of very like actual censorship where Twitter
Speaker 1: Twitter can take your tweet down if it's deemed defensive
Speaker 1: that censorship. This book can do the same thing with
Speaker 1: your posts that censorship. So there's a whole group of
Speaker 1: stakeholders in this whole debate that, like the media companies
Speaker 1: that do have the legal and technical ability to censor
Speaker 1: the Internet, right, but giving the I s p s
Speaker 1: the ability to censor the Internet doesn't make anything any
Speaker 1: fairer or more even. It just makes things worse. Right,
Speaker 1: So that's the idea that, well, these guys can alregue
Speaker 1: sense of the Internet, so why shouldn't the I s
Speaker 1: p s be able to? That's a terrible argument. Uh.
Speaker 1: And one of the other big things that's already happening
Speaker 1: is when we were talking about paying extra money to
Speaker 1: get your content faster, that's already going on, right, So
Speaker 1: they're already fast lanes essentially exactly. And that's not supposed
Speaker 1: to be um, but but it's been going on for
Speaker 1: a while. Yeah. And so Google and Netflix, um, among
Speaker 1: other companies that basically have paid extra money to connect,
Speaker 1: they've almost created like a side Internet by connecting their
Speaker 1: routers and servers directly to the I s p S
Speaker 1: network servers. Instead of saying, well, we'll just be routing
Speaker 1: our traffic along with the rest of the Internet, they
Speaker 1: they have essentially paid to have their own special fast
Speaker 1: lane right exactly. And again, this has been going on
Speaker 1: for years, and Google started it and we basically everybody
Speaker 1: has yet and the rub there was a very famous
Speaker 1: UM dispute about it that that made this whole concept,
Speaker 1: it's called peering, made a public between Comcast and Verizon
Speaker 1: and Netflix Netflix as users. And I remember this Netflix
Speaker 1: was their Their transmission was degrading fast and Netflix had
Speaker 1: to go to Verizon and Comcast and say I need
Speaker 1: to peer network setup. I need to be able to
Speaker 1: plug in directly. Here's a bunch of money. I hate
Speaker 1: you guys, and they publicly accused at least Comcast, I
Speaker 1: think of purposefully letting their traffic back up and not
Speaker 1: rerouting it UM to make it go faster so that
Speaker 1: Comcast would have to come and and and get give
Speaker 1: them money. And now Verizon and UM Comcasts viewpoint is, well,
Speaker 1: you guys are sending tons of traffic that you're charging
Speaker 1: for our way without paying anything extra. Why should we
Speaker 1: have to add, you know, an extra router server or
Speaker 1: whatever to to accommodate this traffic when you guys are
Speaker 1: the ones generating from generating it and profiting from it,
Speaker 1: and so that's just kind of been like, uh that,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's that's the part that part of
Speaker 1: that philosophical divide too with net net neutrality, who's who
Speaker 1: should be paying for the the increase in traffic? Well,
Speaker 1: and not only that, but these these uh deals are
Speaker 1: worked out between the companies and if the FCC sticks
Speaker 1: their nose in it, then all of a sudden, they
Speaker 1: are inserting their self in that process. Uh. And and
Speaker 1: companies aren't liking the sounds of that either. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: like the the the market for this has been unregulated
Speaker 1: and for the most part, companies have been okay with
Speaker 1: it and fine with it. And the sps are happy
Speaker 1: because their users are getting faster traffic. And Netflix or
Speaker 1: say Amazon Prime is happy because their users are getting
Speaker 1: to watch Game of Thrones faster. Right, But the fccs
Speaker 1: two thousand fifteen rules say, well, we're involved than this now.
Speaker 1: And remember we said that I s p s have
Speaker 1: to act in a justin reasonable manner. So Netflix, now
Speaker 1: under these two fifteen rules, if they try this again,
Speaker 1: you can come and tell us that they're acting unreasonably
Speaker 1: and we'll get involved. Which is another thing that a
Speaker 1: jeepie wants to roll back because he doesn't think the
Speaker 1: SEC has any any business getting involved in these transactions. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's um man, It's really a slippery slope on all
Speaker 1: sides if you ask me for sure. But to me,
Speaker 1: the whole thing boils down to do we do we
Speaker 1: want to give I, s P S the the ability
Speaker 1: the freedom to block traffic. I think I think of
Speaker 1: them as the switchboard operators. I think conceiving of them
Speaker 1: as common carriers as is absolutely right. And I think
Speaker 1: I think giving them the ability to to censor, block,
Speaker 1: or throttle traffic, I just think it's a bad move. Well.
Speaker 1: I mean, one thing that has kind of been true
Speaker 1: over and over throughout our history is that greed has
Speaker 1: typically wins out when it's completely unregulated, and it has
Speaker 1: led to bad things for the end user what whatever
Speaker 1: industry that might be. Yeah, yeah, the companies might went out,
Speaker 1: and but kind of greed, greed kind of doesn't lead
Speaker 1: down the good path for average Joe sitting at his laptop.
Speaker 1: I think that's true, man, And that is what it
Speaker 1: boils down to, do we trust Do we trust them?
Speaker 1: Do we trust them? There? You go to act fairly, Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's leave it at that man, Well well done. Uh,
Speaker 1: if you want to know more about net neutrality while
Speaker 1: you can get involved, and then you can also head
Speaker 1: on over to FCC dot gov. And they also allow
Speaker 1: comments from international people too. You don't have to be
Speaker 1: an American, but you should check a box that says
Speaker 1: you're international. You just put your name and address on
Speaker 1: there and leave your comment and you can comment. Remember,
Speaker 1: you can do that till July what Chuck, Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think and then there's comments on the comments that runs
Speaker 1: to August six, So go go let them know how
Speaker 1: you feel one way or the other. And since I
Speaker 1: said feel, it's time for a listener mail, Yeah, click
Speaker 1: on the international box so it will go right into
Speaker 1: the abyss of the Internet. I'm just kidding. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: call this just a very concise stone Wall reaction. We've
Speaker 1: got a lot of good feedback on our Remembering Stonewall episode,
Speaker 1: and I think both of us feel pretty good about
Speaker 1: that one. Great. Um. Hey, guys, I've listened to and
Speaker 1: loved your podcast for years, but your recent Remembering Stonewall
Speaker 1: episode compelled me to write you guys. As a gay man,
Speaker 1: I thought, how can these two straight guys do justice
Speaker 1: to my community's history a prejudice. I subsequently, I am
Speaker 1: not proud of because you handled the subject so eloquently,
Speaker 1: so understandingly. Very impressed on how well you tackled the subject, guys,
Speaker 1: which shouldn't have surprised me since you handle every episode
Speaker 1: so expertly, but since this subject hits so close to
Speaker 1: home for me, was so very happy and proud with
Speaker 1: the reverence that you gave it. Thank you, thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you nice three, thank you, yeah three, thank yous.
Speaker 1: Is that's the magic number, and that is from Craig. Craig,
Speaker 1: thanks a lot for that. We appreciate it. We do
Speaker 1: feel pretty good about that. Echo is interesting and good
Speaker 1: and stirring and all that jazz. So hats off to
Speaker 1: you right back. If you want to get in touch
Speaker 1: with this, like Craig did, you can tweet to us
Speaker 1: at Josh I'm Clark or s Y s K Podcast.
Speaker 1: You can join us on Facebook at Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash stuff you Should Know or slash Charles W. Chuck Bryant.
Speaker 1: You can send us an email to Stuff Podcast at
Speaker 1: how Stuff Works dot com and has always joined us
Speaker 1: at our home on the web, Stuff you Should Know
Speaker 1: dot com for more on this and thousands of other topics.
Speaker 1: Is it how stuff Works? Dot com, m