Jimmy Kimmel Joins John Oliver In Explaining Net Neutrality
from the fast-lanes-and-slow-lanes dept
A few months ago, John Oliver did an amazing job making net neutrality into a mainstream issue, by reducing it to its core element: that it's all about "preventing broadband provider fuckery." That was a great segment that truly went viral. But, still, the TV folks have remained pretty quiet on the issue. However, it appears that another late night comedian has jumped into the game as well, with Jimmy Kimmel doing a segment last week trying to explain the fast lane/slow lane issue in rather graphic form:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, fast lane, jimmy kimmel, net neutrality, slow lane
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's much more like "current lane" and "faster lane", and the current lane would have less traffic in it. Imagine how much better Comcast will be when Netflix is no long hogging 50% of their peering during prime time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
And "estimates" of Netflix traffic are that they PEAK at 30% during prime time viewing - 7 pm to 9 pm. Outside of those 2 hours, their traffic drops below even that estimate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
It's been proven that a lot of networks are artificially throttled by ISPs these days and there are no technical problems keeping the United States' internet infrastructure as one of the worst in the modern world. As soon as a business like Google Fiber threatens to move in, they suddenly open up their channels and try to provide the better service that they should have been offering all along.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Yes, of course, because as everyone knows, the reason there's no competition in the market now is because everyone absolutely loves their ISP's. Clearly if people starting getting tired of their current ISP they'd just jump to another, competing service, which of course are all over the place, so if ISP's want to keep their customers, they also need to keep their customers happy.
/s
As for Netflix 'hogging the bandwidth', if the network can't handle the traffic that the customer paid for, that's the fault of the ISP for overselling their service, not Netflix for delivering what their customers are paying for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Or is Netflix just uploading stuff to the net in the hopes of getting it somewhere, anywhere? Tell me, how I can get Netflix into my home without purchasing an internet plan?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
-ISPs incentive to slow websites down would be that they could then go charge you an extra premium to speed them back up. "ok, thanks for choosing comcast. would you also like to buy the social media bundle? for only $15/month you can load facebook, linkedin, myspace, and tumblr at the same lightning fast speed we advertised when we sold you the account."
-"lead to consumer complaints and certainly ripen the market for competition. " because currently comcast and time warner and at&t care SO much about customer complaints. and there is no competition. to start a competing company you would need to run a metric shit-ton of cables/fibre yourself to connect your market to the nearest backbone. I have no sources for this, but i think i read once that it costs something like $1million per mile. Also, to use the telephone poles you would need special permission from the city that owns them, and they're already given permission to Comcast with an exclusivity clause, so you're SoL.
-So, your opinion is that instead of just degrading traffic to a lower default state, then charging to get back to average- ISPs are going to keep what we have now (aka, among the worst speeds in the first world) and THEN install faster capabilities for a premium (aka, massively expensive and what they've avoided doing all along, even though they were given BILLIONS in tax credits to do exactly that)?
Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in? and/or which bridge do you live under?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you look at the "optimisation" certain providers have suggested in the past, it is a zero-sum game, making "current lanes" having to slow down to service the "faster lane". If we are talking about separate "faster lanes", the incentive structure would dictate a double dipping from the ISP and in a way that would be extremely difficult to regulate unless fast lanes would be both free for users and the sites.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Except, that's exactly what Comcast, AT&T and Verizon did to Netflix. And it led to customer complaints, and not more competition, but Netflix finally agreeing to pay the toll keeper to get the ISPs to connect up a few more ports.
So, reality says you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe that sort of drivel sells along the beltway, but not IRL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
ISPs would have little incentive to intentionally slow websites down, that would lead to consumer complaints and certainly ripen the market for competition.
How exactly do customer complaints lead to competition? What is the mechanism for that? Can you name a single time in the history of the US that customer complaints about ISPs led to greater competition?
It's much more like "current lane" and "faster lane", and the current lane would have less traffic in it.
I'm not one to accuse people of shilling, but this really sounds like you're reading from the ISP talking points.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Right there it would fail, because it would prove they could fix it themselves. They aren't going to do that, they would get their asses sued into non-existence - and the customers would be out the door in a flash.
ISPs are going to keep what we have now
No, ISP are going to keep AT LEAST what they have now, with fewer huge bandwidth hogs on it.
As for connection speed, that is a different problem. All the interconnect and peering won't change the basic fact that too many people live way too far from the central office and still expect big speeds.
Seriously, what fantasy world do you live in?
No fantasy, I just don't live in the boonies and expect miracle connections. All the "billions" isn't going to change the simple fact that too many Americans live in denial on so many levels when it comes to living rural, low rise, low density housing. They bitch about their ISP, they bitch about traffic, they bitch about how much it costs to mow the law, how far it is for the kids to go to school... and never once consider (unsurprisingly) that perhaps they are their own worst enemies.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
To go where???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sued for what? Without NN (or the current threat of it) they would immediately start selling bundles like this and unavailable, regular, and fast options for services that others supply.
ISP are going to keep AT LEAST what they have now
Nope. They will be happy to let parts of their networks degrade and see performance drop on the lower tiers. AT&T already does this. In areas where they roll out U-Verse, they stop maintaining their DSL services and they slow to a crawl - this happened to me and their CS even told me that is what was happening.
too many Americans live in denial on so many levels when it comes to living rural, low rise, low density housing
http://www.akamai.com/dl/akamai/akamai-soti-q114.pdf?WT.mc_id=soti_Q114
The top 10 countries for global average connection speeds include Latvia and the Netherlands - not to mention is topped by South Korea. Now I know we have a large sprawling country, but if it was really a rural vs. city issue, why are Washington and Utah 6th and 8th for state speeds?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Net Neutrality comments viewer
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rural Areas Get Faster Cable Internet Speeds
Right now, some urban areas are experiencing increases because competition from fiber is instigating the cable ISPs to improve their speeds, and fiber isn't really starting to be available in smaller communities.
So yes, you can get the benefits of new faster technologies first in an urban area, but once you have the same service in both rural and urban areas, the rural areas will generally provide a faster experience.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
The same with DSL by the way, there's a small ISP here, if the signal is good to your house, that can deliver for 30 bucks a month (gotta buy the modem though), 175mbps down/30up with dry loop dsl and don't tell me this is affecting other users. Back before the MyFaces and shit, around the time all major irc networks were being ddos'd (all happened the same year....surely just a coincidence), i'm speaking of 2006 btw, Undernet and Efnet were barely possible to connect to when DA SOCIAL MEDIAZ arrived. Goes with the excuse my ISP turned off (it's very efficient at downloading binaries) usenet server, remember when everyone had a newsgroup address and they most didnt know what it was so they just ignored it? Like actual email programs? When everyone flocked to hotmail to have their mail kept by MS forever..., i'm guilty of the crimes of getting those web mail services but they are fed directly to Thunderbird on my desktop. Anyway it wouldn't bother anyone in my neighborhood if I was given that "crazy" 300mbps/150mbps connection at the same price as as my 55, no 65$ because I pay 10 bucks for unlimited (at some point they lost me to a small ISP too because of the caps)a month for 30/10, I surely couldn't slow down Candy Crush and Farmville and chat which is what 99% of internet users do now since the Second Eternal September (it happened right when I moved to a student housing for a new semester).
Now those IRC networks are back but mostly useless and filled with idiots and or soup agents and pedophiles. I miss the ftp and f-serve announces etc. but yeah, in THAT world, where lay people used the internet to buy crap on ebay only, we would have stepped on each other's toes, not anymore even if you give this 300/150mbps to my whole neighborhood.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Or there's ways to have a list of all the isp's in the province. I've went with small ISP's before, it's nice how they can use the big telcos wires/phone lines. It's how the country managed to keep things competitive. I went back to moderately big telco, because they are the only cable modem company I can deal with that provides HD TV....I need it again now that I have a kid. But you can be sure i'm not an 80's parent, leaving the kid to watch whatever it wants, locked it down to channels where she can either learn or laugh. No teen sitcoms and that BS at my house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
She goes to a public school but this is a good neighborhood, anyway, enough parenting tips, and thank god it's a girl so I don't have to install NetNanny or something like that to filter the porn a boy over 8 would get to see even if I didn't. See that's how you raise your kids, Cameron (not british), but it's easy to block access to what you want for your children, leave adults watch what fully developed brains can comprehend without hassle.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
A non factor with cable modems, satellite, and fibre (most of the time, see what BellAlliant, whom split from Bell when the Conservatives allowed for such when they arrived in 2006 (one of the only good things they have done since then...), BellAlliant replaced for FREE everyone's copper, including commerce and industrial buildings and changes it (not finished yet, almost there) so that everyone just has fibre optics for real, not fake fibre like BHell offers that is more expensive than their ADSL2+ or whatever regular DSL service, the kind of fibre that stops at the the switch office then is served over copper...they should be sued for misnaming their plans, but they purposefully misspell their "fibre" plan as Fibe and all is right with the world. To any american moving up here ever, never settle with Bell's DSL or fake fibre, theres lots of smaller isps who will be glad to use Bell's infrastructure if you go for a dry loop dsl plan with a small ISP without any loss of speed because "they're too far"....funny how it doesn't happen when the equipment in place is configured so it uses a third party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]