NET NEUTRALITY THE PRINCIPLE THAT ALL WEBSITES SHOULD BE
TREATED EQUAL, SOME SHOULD NOT BE SLOWED DOWN OR SPED UP BASED
ON WHO PAYS THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS A BIGGER FEE.
THE
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF NET NEUTRALITY,
THEY WANT TO GET RID OF THE GOVERNMENT REGULATING THEM UNDER
WHAT THEY CALL TITLE II, WHICH IS ANOTHER WAY OF GETTING NET
NEUTRALITY, WHICH IS THE SITUATION WE HAVE NOW, WHICH
WE'VE ALWAYS HAD.
THE INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE.
BUT THE
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, COMCAST, VERIZON, THEY WANT TO
CHANGE THAT.
AND SOME OF THE OTHERS.
IF THEY ARE PROVIDING
THE PIPES FOR THE INTERNET THEY SAY I SHOULD BE ABLE TO CHARGE
WHATEVER I WANT, AND IF YOU PAY BE A BIG ENOUGH RANSOM, I MEAN
FEE, FOR MY SERVICES, YOU WILL HAVE A SPEEDY CONNECTION.
AND IF
YOU DON'T, THEN YOU WILL HAVE A VERY SPEEDY CONNECTION.
COMCAST
SAYS NO, WE ARE FOR AN OPEN INTERNET, BUT WE WOULD LIKE THE
ABILITY LEGALLY TO BE ABLE TO DO ALL THAT, SLOW UP, SPEED UP, DO
ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS.
BY THE WAY IF YOU SPEAK OUT AGAINST
US, WHETHER YOU PAY OR YOU DON'T, MAYBE WE SLOW YOU DOWN
ANYWAY.
FOLKS ONLINE ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT THIS, REGULAR PEOPLE
ARE NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT, 5.1 MILLION PEOPLE HAVE SENT IN
COMMENTS TO THE FCC, BREAKING A RECORD, SAYING KEEP NET
NEUTRALITY, DON'T LISTEN TO THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
AJIT
PAI LEADS THE FCC, HE WAS PUT THERE BY TRUMP, HE IS A FORMER
VERIZON LAWYER AND SHOCKINGLY AGREES WITH THE SERVICE
PROVIDERS SAYING THEY SHOULD GET TO CHARGE YOU WHATEVER THEY
WANT, BUT DON'T WORRY, THEY WILL VOLUNTARILY OUT OF THE GOODNESS
OF THEIR HEART KEEP AN OPEN INTERNET ANYWAY.
ALSO COMPANIES
ONLINE ARE FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THIS, GOOD NEWS ON THAT FRONT --
>>THAT IS GREAT --
>>I LOVE THAT.
LET ME TELL YOU WHO IS INVOLVED, THERE ARE SOME
GIANT PLAYERS --
>>LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT DISCLOSURES HERE.
SOME OF THOSE
GROUPS, OBVIOUSLY, WOULD HAVE TO PAY THE COMCASTS OF THE WORLD
MORE MONEY IF THIS GOES INTO EFFECT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR
GIANT COMPANY'S WEBSITES AREN'T SLOWED DOWN.
IT WAS NOT CLEAR
WHICH WAY THEY WERE GOING TO GO, BECAUSE NETFLIX, FACEBOOK,
GOOGLE, ETC., COULD HAVE AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY CAN
AFFORD TO PAY VERIZON AND AT&T AND COMCAST, WHEREAS THE SMALLER
OUTLETS WOULD NOT.
BUT HERE, THOSE BIG INTERNET COMPANIES DID
THE RIGHT THING, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO FIGHT FOR NET
NEUTRALITY, FOR WHICH I THINK THEY DESERVE A LOT OF CREDIT.
BECAUSE SOME OF THEM MIGHT VIEW THIS IS BETTER FOR THEIR
BUSINESS INTERESTS TO HAVE NET NEUTRALITY AND PROTECT THE
INTERNET, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOME OF THEM WOULD THINK,
HEY, THIS COULD HELP KILL OUR COMPETITION.
IT'S A 50/50
QUESTION I THINK FOR THEM, AND IN THAT QUESTION THE FACT THAT
THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING IS WONDERFUL.
BY THE WAY,
DISCLOSURE FOR US, THE YOUNG TURKS -- WE HAVE A WEBSITE THAT
IS NOT A MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR OPERATION, SO IF THEY KILLED
NET NEUTRALITY WE WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO BEING SLOWED DOWN
JUST LIKE THE REST OF THE INTERNET WOULD BE.
IT MIGHT HURT
OUR BUSINESS INTERESTS.
BUT OUR TWO BIGGEST PARTNERS ARE
FACEBOOK AND GOOGLE, SO BECAUSE OF THAT WE MIGHT BE IN OKAY
SHAPE.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER, NO MATTER WHERE A BUSINESS
INTERESTS LIE, I AM 1000% IN FAVOR OF NET NEUTRALITY, I DON'T
KNOW ANYONE AT THIS COMPANY, I DON'T KNOW ANY HOST WHO IS
AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY HERE, BECAUSE WE ALL BELIEVE IN
FREEDOM ON THE INTERNET NO MATTER WHERE OUR BUSINESS
INTERESTS LIE.
BUT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE NOW WE GO TO
THE NEXT STORY, AN EXCLUSIVE BROUGHT TO YOU BY US.
ANDREW
JONES, WRITING ON TYT POLITICS, EXPLAINS COMCAST'S ROLE IN THIS.
FIRST HE EXPLAINED WHERE THEIR LOBBYING AND THEIR MONEY IS,
WHICH THEY ARE NOT HIDING, BY THE WAY.
JUST TO GIVE YOU
DETAILS ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY CARE ABOUT THIS --
>>THAT'S A DECENT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
FOR YOU AND I IT'S A LOT
OF MONEY, FOR COMCAST, GOOD-SIZED MONEY FOR JUST ONE
QUARTER IN ONE YEAR.
NOW LET'S GIVE YOU MORE CONTEXT --
>>THE REASON THEY SPENT A LOT IN 2015 AND NOW IN 2017 IS
BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE TWO TIMES THE ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP.
IN
2015 THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION DECIDED TO KEEP NET NEUTRALITY,
COMCAST TRIED TO DEFEAT THAT.
IN 2017 THEY GET TRUMP INTO OFFICE,
THEY SPEND AGAIN A LOT OF MONEY TO MAKE SURE TO TRY AND KILL NET
NEUTRALITY.
A LOT OF YOU MIGHT KNOW THAT ABOUT COMCAST AND THE
OTHER INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, BUT COMCAST IS ALSO A
GIANT MEDIA CORPORATION.
ARE THEY REVEALING THEIR INTERESTS
WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT IT ON THE AIR THROUGH ALL THE PROPERTIES
THEY OWN?
INTERESTING, LET'S GO TO THAT --
>>OKAY.
LET'S GO TO NBC FIRST --
>>THAT'S NOT A LOT, BUT IT IS THE NIGHTLY NEWS, THEY HAVE A
LOT OF TOPICS TO COVER.
MAINLY RUSSIA, BUT STILL --
>>THAT'S GOOD, THEY AT LEAST DISCLOSED THAT.
HE MENTIONED IT
IN PASSING BUT THAT'S POSITIVE, WE ARE GIVING YOU THE POSITIVES
AS WELL HERE.
AND IN THE STORY HE GAVE THE USUAL MAINSTREAM
MEDIA THING, BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.
WHICH IS, SOME SAY THAT
KILLING NET NEUTRALITY WILL END THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT AND
CREATE A NEW SYSTEM THAT COULD HAVE FAST LANES AND SLOW LANES,
BUT HE SAID THE OTHER COMPANIES, LIKE COMCAST, SAY THAT THE
CURRENT RULES STIFLE COMPETITION AND CREATIVITY.
DOES THE
INTERNET LOOK LIKE IT'S LACKING IN COMPETITION AND CREATIVITY?
THAT IS A TALKING POINT PUT OUT BY THOSE CORPORATIONS.
THIS IS
MY GENERAL CRITICISM OF THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA ALTOGETHER,
WHICH IS, TOM, YOU JUST GAVE THE TWO SIDES.
BUT WHICH ONE IS IT?
YOU ARE A REPORTER, DOES NET NEUTRALITY KEEP THE INTERNET
FREE OR NOT?
IF YOU SAY FREE IS TOO VAGUE A WORD, OKAY.
BUT
DON'T SAY ONE SIDE SAYS THIS AND ANOTHER SIDE SAYS THIS.
WHICH IS
IT?
I KNOW, IT WOULD BE BIASED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS OF WHAT THE
PROPOSAL DOES.
IT'S NOT AN OPINION, THE PROPOSAL DOES
SOMETHING, TELL US WHAT IT DOES.
AND THE REALITY IS IT WOULD END
THE CURRENT SYSTEM WE HAVE ON THE INTERNET AND IT WOULD ALLOW
THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TO CHARGE MORE FOR YOU TO HAVE
THE SAME SPEED, OR HIGHER-SPEED, CONNECTION.
IT WOULD GIVE THEM
THE ABILITY TO CONTROL THE INTERNET.
ANDREW GOES ON TO SAY
--
>>THAT TITLE II PROVISION.
SO IN THREE YEARS, TWO REPORTS.
INTERESTING.
HERE AT THE YOUNG TURKS, MAYBE IT IS BECAUSE WE
ARE AFFECTED BY IT?
NO, COMCAST IS WAY MORE AFFECTED BY IT, THEY
HAVE BILLIONS ON THE LINE.
BUT HERE THE YOUNG TURKS WE ARE ALSO
AFFECTED BY IT, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF REPORTS ON NET NEUTRALITY.
BUT SOMEHOW THEY COULDN'T SQUEEZE IT INTO THE NIGHTLY
NEWS.
BUT LET'S SEE ON THE WEBSITE WHERE THEY HAVE
UNLIMITED SPACE, NOT JUST A HALF-HOUR PROGRAM, IF THEY DID
BETTER?
AGAIN, THE REPORTING FOR TYT POLITICS --
>>YOU WOULD THINK THAT MIGHT BE A LITTLE RELEVANT IF YOU ARE
OWNED BY COMCAST.
NOW LET'S MOVE TO MSNBC.
HE SAYS --
>>SO YOU ARE TELLING ME YOU RUN A CABLE STATION THAT GOES FOR 24
HOURS A DAY, AND YOU COULDN'T FIND TIME TO DO ONE FOR SEGMENT
ON NET NEUTRALITY THAT WOULD DETERMINE THE FATE OF THE
INTERNET?
IS THAT A SMALL ISSUE?
IS THAT THE THINKING HERE?
OH,
AT THE TINY LITTLE THING, WHETHER YOU HAVE INTERNET
FREEDOM ANYMORE.
ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKED UP
ABOUT IT AND BROKE THE RECORD FOR THE NUMBER OF COMMENTS ON
THIS ISSUE, THEY THINK IT'S A GIANT ISSUE.
ONE THAT YOUR
PARENT CORPORATION IS VERY MUCH INVOLVED IN.
SO, SHH.
OKAY --
>>WOW, TWO FOOTNOTES IN 2017, AND NO DISCLOSURE.
NOW, WE GO
BACK TO 2015.
THERE RACHEL MADDOW DID AN INTERESTING,
THOUGHTFUL SEGMENT ON NET NEUTRALITY.
LET'S GIVE YOU THE
REST --
>>THEY PUT UP FOUR NEUTRAL ARTICLES ON NET NEUTRALITY, AND
THEN THE ONE OPINION PIECE THEY HAVE ON MSNBC IS FROM A
CONSERVATIVE GROUP SAYING, EH, NET NEUTRALITY, WHO NEEDS IT?
ESPECIALLY BACK IN 2015 THEY ARE PRETENDING TO BE A PROGRESSIVE
NETWORK, YET THE ONE PIECE OF OPINION THEY COULD FIND WAS
AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY FASCINATING, AND YET NO
DISCLOSURE ON THEIR LOBBY.
ANDREW ALSO LOOKED INTO CNBC
BECAUSE THEY ARE A BUSINESS STATION, THEY COVERED IT MORE,
BUT AGAIN NO DISCLOSURES ON COMCAST'S LOBBYING.
AND TO BE
FAIR LET'S GIVE YOU COMCAST'S VERSION AS WELL --
>>OKAY.
NOW, FINAL THOUGHT ON THIS, WHY DO SO LITTLE STORIES
ON THIS?
SOMETIMES YOU DO FIND THE MEMOS, AND OFTEN IT'S HARD
TO FIND, AND OFTEN TIMES THEY ARE NOT WRITTEN, OF SOMEONE FROM
HEADQUARTERS SAYING THIS IS A BIG DEAL FROM COMCAST, THERE ARE
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THE LINE, MSNBC, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOUR
BRAND IS OR WHAT YOUR RATINGS ARE, DO NOT DO STORIES ABOUT
THEM.
OR IF YOU DO, SAY THAT KILLING NET NEUTRALITY IS
AWESOME.
THEY ARE VERY UNLIKELY TO WRITE THAT MEMO UNLESS THEY
ARE PAINFULLY STUPID.
WHAT HAPPENS INSTEAD -- AND AGAIN, I
DON'T WANT TO OVERSTATE MY TENURE AT MSNBC, I WAS THERE FOR
ABOUT A YEAR -- BUT I GOT SOME LESSONS FOR BEING INSIDE THE
BUILDING.
WHICH IS, IF YOU DO THINGS THAT ARE FROWNED UPON,
WELL, THEN YOU GET A TALKING TO. AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE
BUILDING KNOWS, NOT A GOOD IDEA, I WOULDN'T GO IN THAT DIRECTION.
SO, DID THE GOOD FOLKS AT NBC, MSNBC, AND CNBC KNOW THAT IF WE
DO A LOT OF STORIES ABOUT HOW GREAT NET NEUTRALITY IS AND WE
SHOULDN'T KILL IT, THAT MIGHT CREATE A SITUATION FOR OUR
PARENT COMPANY TO THE TUNES OF BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF
DOLLARS -- YES, THEY ARE AWARE OF THAT.
BUT WHAT THIS STORY IS
MAINLY ABOUT IS, IF YOU ARE GOING TO COVER THE STORY, AT
LEAST GIVE US A DISCLOSURE.
WHICH THEY AT LEAST DID IN THAT
ONE NBC NEWS REPORT CASE, THEY GAVE HALF A DISCLOSURE, COMCAST
OWNED BY NBC.
BUT IT DIDN'T TELL YOU HOW MUCH COMCAST IS ON THE
SIDE OF KILLING NET NEUTRALITY AND HOW MANY MILLIONS THEY HAVE
SPENT TO KILL IT.
CAN WE AT LEAST GET A LITTLE BIT OF
DISCLOSURE?
IT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK FOR.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét