It’s a new Crowder video in which he tries to explain why Net Neutrality is bad to hipsters:
Love the little conversation about hospitals at the very end.
13 Comments
It’s interesting how morons like Al Franken don’t mind making a living working for giant corporations like NBC, but all other corporations are bad. I’m guessing that if, back in the heyday of “Saturday Night Live,” NBC affiliates were forced by the government to decrease the broadcast strength of their signal to match that of the little UHF channels Al would have been the angriest opponent of such a law…
I liked where Crowder made the hospital statement and the guy says could you repeat that and Crowder repeated the entire statement, virtually word for word. Impressive.
I could not have done that. I may have been able to recall three or four words that may or may not have been in that statement but that’s about it.
Remember what I said in the other thread about demons only trying to muddle the mind?
Anyway, the biggest difference I see between Crowder and the hipsters, aside from brains, is that Crowder appears to work out in that garage shown at 4:25 while the strength of ten singing hipsters combined would not be enough to complete ten bicep curls…with a pencil for a dumbbell.
By the way, the white dreads guy was very fun to watch. He was nice enough to admit his inability to answer Crowder’s question, but what I really noticed was that there seemed to be a little flicker of understanding of his own ignorance while Crowder spoke. Compare this to the lady near the busy stairway. Some people you just can’t reach. But maybe, maybe mister dreads guy can be reached if he hangs out with the right person.
This topic raises the issue of which government bureaucracies are legitimate / necessary and which aren’t. I know one thing, I don’t want the FCC regulating the Internet. They can stick to regulating public airwave frequencies and electronic interference compliance, etc., imo.
With all due respect, chris, considering the required length of the video, I think it’s fairly obvious Crowder would have to cut something. I think he and his editors did a fine job.
But this could be an issue that Basil could ask of Mr. CAIN (and all the candidates, for that matter. But who ARE all the candidates?? It’s sooo confusing. Apparently, the Mayor is about to announce…).
Frank could do it, but apparently he’s too busy changing diapers and getting beaten at Wii by Buttercup.
Crowder did oversimplify and bantered to the point of confusion. There are in fact statistical cases of companies like Comcast surreptitiously throttling specific traffic because it burdens their systems or because they make more money off of people using their own services rather than a competitors. On the other hand, real time services necessarily requires QOS routing — e.g. prioritizing an interactive voice transmission higher than a web page load is obviously important.
IMHO, net neutrality is a bad idea. What’s better is to require ISPs to make their policies and actual throttling well known to the public so that consumers can make informed decisions. Net neutrality is fundamentally a test of people’s belief in a free market (and whether there is sufficient competition and de-regulation for ISPs to be considered a free market).
You can get that blank DUH look from liberals by asking them about virtually anything….whether they are for it or against it.
Since you can’t make everyone rich, let’s just make them all poor, that seems to be what this is about, just like everything else
they want to do. At least the global warming liars can give real sounding examples of the “problem”, these idiots can’t
even explain what the “problem” is.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach. Al Gore Adolf Hitler
Net Neutrality is the camel’s nose in the govt control of the internet tent. It does not matter whether or not there is a real problem or it’s totally false, it’s the excuse big govornment liberals need to set the bais for govt. involvement in the net. Once they can establish they can do this , then they can do that.
That traffic analogy of the stupid woman is really not analgous to anything relevant. Car insurance for speeding packets of data!?WTF?!? I’m glad he shut her up with “Carpool lanes give special privilege to cars with more people in them” argument. I would have had to slap her. Its morons like her, that don’t understand spit about internetworking, being the mouthpieces for net-neuters that is the problem here.
Kevin is completely right about services like VOIP that require QOS. ISPs must be able to prioritize traffic, or new applications for the internet will grind to a halt. The solution really is as simple as a free market and informed consumers deciding which provider is best for them.
Net-neutering is exactly the right term for what these hipsters advocate. It will result in less choices, with every provider offering the minimum gov’t mandated service levels at high prices, and an inability to innovate. Without the ability to prioritize traffic, if an ISP needed to provide more bandwidth for a customer, they would have to increase bandwidth on a massive and expensive scale for all customers. This would raise costs for all the customers (including those that don’t need or want extra bandwidth) and push smaller ISPs out of business, leaving behind large, too-big-to-fail ISPs that would eventually have to be subsidized or bailed out by the very government that regulates them.
Apparently the women comparing the autobahn to the internet doesn’t realize that the autobahn has a better safety record than the vast majority of highways in the states.
It’s interesting how morons like Al Franken don’t mind making a living working for giant corporations like NBC, but all other corporations are bad. I’m guessing that if, back in the heyday of “Saturday Night Live,” NBC affiliates were forced by the government to decrease the broadcast strength of their signal to match that of the little UHF channels Al would have been the angriest opponent of such a law…
I liked where Crowder made the hospital statement and the guy says could you repeat that and Crowder repeated the entire statement, virtually word for word. Impressive.
I could not have done that. I may have been able to recall three or four words that may or may not have been in that statement but that’s about it.
Remember what I said in the other thread about demons only trying to muddle the mind?
Anyway, the biggest difference I see between Crowder and the hipsters, aside from brains, is that Crowder appears to work out in that garage shown at 4:25 while the strength of ten singing hipsters combined would not be enough to complete ten bicep curls…with a pencil for a dumbbell.
By the way, the white dreads guy was very fun to watch. He was nice enough to admit his inability to answer Crowder’s question, but what I really noticed was that there seemed to be a little flicker of understanding of his own ignorance while Crowder spoke. Compare this to the lady near the busy stairway. Some people you just can’t reach. But maybe, maybe mister dreads guy can be reached if he hangs out with the right person.
I really think crowder oversimplified this point. there is way way way way way way more to this issue than what he brought.
This topic raises the issue of which government bureaucracies are legitimate / necessary and which aren’t. I know one thing, I don’t want the FCC regulating the Internet. They can stick to regulating public airwave frequencies and electronic interference compliance, etc., imo.
With all due respect, chris, considering the required length of the video, I think it’s fairly obvious Crowder would have to cut something. I think he and his editors did a fine job.
But this could be an issue that Basil could ask of Mr. CAIN (and all the candidates, for that matter. But who ARE all the candidates?? It’s sooo confusing. Apparently, the Mayor is about to announce…).
Frank could do it, but apparently he’s too busy changing diapers and getting beaten at Wii by Buttercup.
Crowder did oversimplify and bantered to the point of confusion. There are in fact statistical cases of companies like Comcast surreptitiously throttling specific traffic because it burdens their systems or because they make more money off of people using their own services rather than a competitors. On the other hand, real time services necessarily requires QOS routing — e.g. prioritizing an interactive voice transmission higher than a web page load is obviously important.
IMHO, net neutrality is a bad idea. What’s better is to require ISPs to make their policies and actual throttling well known to the public so that consumers can make informed decisions. Net neutrality is fundamentally a test of people’s belief in a free market (and whether there is sufficient competition and de-regulation for ISPs to be considered a free market).
You can get that blank DUH look from liberals by asking them about virtually anything….whether they are for it or against it.
Since you can’t make everyone rich, let’s just make them all poor, that seems to be what this is about, just like everything else
they want to do. At least the global warming liars can give real sounding examples of the “problem”, these idiots can’t
even explain what the “problem” is.
All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
Al GoreAdolf HitlerNet Neutrality is the camel’s nose in the govt control of the internet tent. It does not matter whether or not there is a real problem or it’s totally false, it’s the excuse big govornment liberals need to set the bais for govt. involvement in the net. Once they can establish they can do this , then they can do that.
That traffic analogy of the stupid woman is really not analgous to anything relevant. Car insurance for speeding packets of data!?WTF?!? I’m glad he shut her up with “Carpool lanes give special privilege to cars with more people in them” argument. I would have had to slap her. Its morons like her, that don’t understand spit about internetworking, being the mouthpieces for net-neuters that is the problem here.
Kevin is completely right about services like VOIP that require QOS. ISPs must be able to prioritize traffic, or new applications for the internet will grind to a halt. The solution really is as simple as a free market and informed consumers deciding which provider is best for them.
Net-neutering is exactly the right term for what these hipsters advocate. It will result in less choices, with every provider offering the minimum gov’t mandated service levels at high prices, and an inability to innovate. Without the ability to prioritize traffic, if an ISP needed to provide more bandwidth for a customer, they would have to increase bandwidth on a massive and expensive scale for all customers. This would raise costs for all the customers (including those that don’t need or want extra bandwidth) and push smaller ISPs out of business, leaving behind large, too-big-to-fail ISPs that would eventually have to be subsidized or bailed out by the very government that regulates them.
Not havin’ it!
Apparently the women comparing the autobahn to the internet doesn’t realize that the autobahn has a better safety record than the vast majority of highways in the states.
“That’s why in Canada they now have ‘Super Hospitals’, or as we call them in The ‘States…. ‘Hospitals’…..”
This guy is my new hero.
(Not my only hero, but a new one….)