Net Neutrality – Explained by Common Craft

Net Neutrality – Explained by Common Craft

You’ve probably heard about Net Neutrality. It’s a big political issue with strong opinions. And rightfully so. But before we dive into net neutrality, let’s
focus on the idea of neutrality. For example, you could say that a utility
that is provided to the public, like electricity, is neutral. It is the same for everyone – and that has
real power. Consider this: Cable TV service comes with
only certain channels. Grocery stores only have some products. These services are not neutral because the
organizations behind them make choices about what to provide to their customers. Making these decisions is perfectly legal
and aimed at helping their business. After all, customers can always go to the
competition. But what if electric utilities worked this
way? What if they could make decisions about which
electronics worked when you plugged them in? What if they could charge more for certain
brands of appliances that use the same amount of electricity? These decisions could have huge consequences
in the market. Utilities, which typically have no competition,
could decide winners and losers by simply making rules. But this isn’t happening because the electric
system is designed to be neutral. Any new device can plug into the system without
getting permission from the utility. We protect this kind of neutrality because
it’s so important and productive for our society. Today, the issue isn’t electricity, but
the Internet. For most of its history, it has been mostly
neutral. The internet service providers, who don’t
have much competition, didn’t care how you used the Internet as long as you paid for
what you used. Like a connection to electricity, your product,
service, computer or device doesn’t matter. But what if it did? What if your service provider could change
the rules to help their business? What if your favorite websites were unreliable,
while the service provider’s favorites were lightning fast? What if they decided what video services you
could access, and at what speeds? These new rules could decide winners and losers. This is not neutral. Net Neutrality means that all products, services,
data and devices are treated equally – everything can plug right in. It means that, instead of organizations competing
on connection speeds or favorable rules, they can compete on quality. It means that every person and organization
has an equal shot at making something amazing on the internet. That’s Net Neutrality. The question is: Should the internet remain
neutral like a utility? Or should internet service providers in an
effort to help their business, be able to create rules that favor some products and
services over others? That’s focus of this debate.

Danny Hutson

29 thoughts on “Net Neutrality – Explained by Common Craft

  1. I wouldn't say that Internet providers are similar to power companies because it costs more money to produce more electricity. Following this analogy, ISPs should be able to charge the customer based on how much bandwidth they use. But that also doesn't work because it does not cost the ISP more money to produce more Internet.

  2. This is an interesting perspective. If you'd like to hear another, check out mine.


  4. The futile attempt to explain net neutrality in this childish video quickly became a bias propaganda message against it.  At least be honest and title it “Argument against Net Neutrality.”  It is unfair to compare power utilities services with information services.  We all know they are not the same. What is next, compare it to water utilities?  Electricity and water travel in one direction; from the provider to the consumer. In information systems the product (data) travel both ways affecting the performance of servers and other communication systems. In other word, customers can affect the amount of bandwidth. Common Craft, you are comparing apples with oranges.  Do you notice the many “what if”s hypothetical scenarios used in the video to create fear on the ignorant and uneducated. Please, learn about Service Level Agreements (SLAs).  SLAs are a legal means to guarantee that a company will get the bandwidth they  pay or agree in a contract with service level providers.  There is no need for more government control.   

  5. cảm ơn Đức chúa trời rất nhiều,sự khôn ngoan của ngài thật vĩ đại,và ngài cũng đã ban cho con người sự khôn ngoan thật không kể siết,mỗi người chúng ta đáng phải tôn thờ ngài?

  6. I wish that there was more of an effort at 2:40 to explain how ISPs are misusing the term "Net Neutrality" by (as you stated) deciding what sites and services the end user can use. I get what Common Craft is trying to say, but the transfer from the ISPs desires to the comparison to a public utility is mottled a bit.

    Also, there is an alternative option that is not discussed at all in this video… Do nothing. Currently, the internet is neutral (based on the standards in the video) and the market is working to protect consumers. Most legitimate fears are based around laws being created to resolve an undefinable problem. You could say Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem!

  7. the problem is when you are a targeted individual nothing neutral except those prople pretend to be neutral only to protect their image. being hacked and being redirected to some trolls who cyber stalk you while being harrassed covetly wherever you go by the same people who work for the scammers who overcharge you after selling your info to other company to offer you similar product that do not work most of the time.

  8. Just brilliant! A Request – Can you Add " A Quick Explanation " in the title, because there are Retards trying to be oversmart dickheads in comments section whining about how this explanation it should be or should not be.

  9. No wonder everyone has been brain washed by these liberal biased companies like Facebook twitter and Google. They have no competition.

  10. I put this problem into more satirical relatable video for college students and students in general go watch and look and subscribe if you like the content 🙂

  11. ISPs never decided to censor or limit competition.

    Also, "Utility Neutrality". No. Utilities are necessary, Internet isn't. Even if, though, I don't see the point of said neutrality anyway. Electricity companies will inevidably die off, if they tried to charge more or start blockades for specific services, even without said neutrality. That's how the market works.

    Lastly, Net Neutrality and other such laws can lead to serious dangers regarding censorship. What I mean is, the government can manipulate said laws, make them inprecise and turn them into an excuse for censorship. We saw this with Russia, China, Belarus. The only diffrence is that the offer "security", while the West offers "equality". But in the end, the effects can be equally as devastating.

    Thank you, and I hope the FCC repeals or at least adds precision to the content of Net Neutrality laws.

  12. How did the Net survive before Obama's Net Neutrality?……
    By the grace of Obama we involved the government to ensure our net remains open for the people. Government is the only one who can protect you! Government is the only one that you can trust. Thank You Big Brother.

  13. instead of corporations competing on connection speeds…. but the whole problem is that some companies require more connection speeeds because they use so much bandwith. So its not true that all data is equal. Netflix used 30% of the bandwith on the entire interent. 30%. And as such they have to require that their service doesnt have slow downs.
    Isps will throttle this ultimately since they have peer relationships that allocoate how much data can be alloted to any one company. And companies like Netflix use more bandwith then can be alloted to them. This is why the ISP's are asking for fast lanes.

    However, if you treat all data the same you can't have fast lanes. So you are faced with throttling of service NATURALLY. ISP's would have no interest in throttling certain providers over others since they make money from all providers who need to use their networsk, as it were to stream data. It doens't HELP their business not have Netflix, for example. Since eeryone will go to the provider that has netflix.
    This isa false argument.
    What the ISP's WILL do is throttle capacity if those same comanies exceed their allotment of bandwith usage. But this makes total sense. Since, they are badkwith hogs, and are using the vast majority of the bandwith.

    The internet companies essentilaly want to have the ISP's pay for their companies usage. And are using net neutrality as a wedge to make the ISP's out to be evil. ISP's are certainly greedy, but this is really an issue of who pays for the bandwith usage. And net neutrality actualyl ends up preventing competition and ensuring that there are only a few ISP providers, and only one channel for all comunication.
    People should WANT fast lanes. Fast lanes are required becuase companies like You tube or netlfix stream vast amounts of data. and you dont want it all going through the same channel.
    The ISP's are saying there should fast lane dedicated to high bandwith usage, because otherwise it creates bottlenecks. Throttling occurs NOW.
    The internet companies want to use the ISP's pipes, as it were, withouth paying for their usage. And the ISP's are saying if you have a business that rquires vast amounts of bandwith usage we can dedicate a fast lane for your traffic. BUT YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. The internet companies want to piggy back off of the ISP's for free essentailly as free rangers and use their network, without paying for the privilege.
    Who ultimatley pays is irrelevant for purposes of discussion.

    ITs not abotu freedom of information. its who pays to allow for movie streaming. We keep hearing about how "THE NEXT YOU TUBE" might be denied access as the ISP's will throttle their acces. But did the ISPS' prevent the current You Tubes from becoming huge conglomerates? NO of course not. this is a canard. THere is no economic incentitve for ISP's to pick winners and losers this way.

    They essentaily want to treat data usage the way utiltity companies treat it. the more data usage you use the more you pay. And since Netflix uses so much bandwith they pay for what htey used. Is that unreasonable?

    Net NEutrailyt as argued by its advocates is simply a straw man. Its not about losing a free internet. (is netflix free now?)

  14. If net neutrality goes, We must BOYCOTT THE INTERNET AS LONG AS IT TAKES TO RESTORE NET NEUTRALITY. Best to do without an internet for months, then to have one with news based on what the GOP and their bribed cable companies decide to spoon feed us.

  15. Yeah… Except that it was illegal to do what you are talking about here even BEFORE the so-called "net neutrality" resolution.

    Last I checked, America has a system of antitrust laws set up to prevent malpractice by public utility companies in market sectors with little to no competition due to a high barrier to entry. These laws apply to electricity, water, and gas, and theoretically also apply to ISPs. ISPs fit the definition of corporations that would be subject to these regulations, which means they can't deny service to anyone willing to pay. The only thing a policy change would do is allow politicians to sneak in new rules that make it possible for ISPs to not even refuse service to corporations based on their ability to pay, which leads to larger users not needing to pay up, and a potential for internet oligarchy, which is… not good. Believe me, not good.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *