Slashdot Mirror
YouTube Stars Defend Net Neutrality In Open Letter To the FCC (theverge.com)
More than 100 YouTube creators from the Internet Creators Guild have signed an open letter to the FCC calling on the agency to keep strong net neutrality protections. "Our rapidly growing industry employs hundreds of thousands of people and yet it barely existed more than a decade ago," reads the letter. "As creators in this fast-moving industry, changes to the existing Net Neutrality rules would have an outsized impact on our field and jeopardize our livelihood." The Verge reports: The letter has been signed by major names in the YouTube community, such as the Fine Brothers. In total, the guild says, the letter represents video creators with an audience of more than 150 million people. The YouTube creators directly address FCC chairman Ajit Pai in the letter. The letter argues that the removal of protections would lead to "the inevitable creation of fast lanes that would privilege the large media companies that can afford to pay for such service," putting smaller media creators in danger. "We strongly urge you to oppose anything that would threaten this level playing field," the letter from video makers concludes. "The stakes are simply too high for our democracy, culture, and economy."
>> YouTube Stars
Obligatory South Park:
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/165195/meet-the-internet-stars
Who? Wait, let me ask ky 13 year old daughter....
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I don't those words mean what you think they mean... They certainly do not describe what the rules actually are.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
They wanted to trademark reaction videos and make everyone else pay them. Now they talk about "affordable services", "democracy" and "culture? What a hypocritical joke.
Sure, but let's be honest here. People who make a living from YouTube videos have a vested interest in net neutrality. Throttling and new fees would cut into their profits, which are likely narrow enough to force many YouTube stars into finding new careers. The FCC is under no obligation to protect individual jobs from changes in the market.
That said, I really do believe that Net Neutrality is the best option. And anything else would consolidate power into a few corporations that switch packets. And perhaps cut deeply into small businesses and entrepreneurs. (full disclosure, that is not known for certain)
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Net Neutrality means Comcast and AT&T don't automatically get a cut of Netflix's subscription revenue and Google's ad revenue.
That's how I would sum it up (I'm a cynic). And arguments can be made either way.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
...if there was competition in the market instead of regional monopolies and cartels.
Imagine you had (at least) two potential ISPs ready to provide service, and one throttles and the other doesn't...
Make the means of communication (the fibre, copper, and wireless spectrum) public infrastructure, lease access to private entities to provide whatever services they want (like connecting you up to the infrastructure, providing email, tech support, etc.). Anything less is going to result in the sub-standard service you're getting today.
Imagine if you only had toll roads if you wanted to travel by car, and only two possible routes to work. Data's not much different.
Right now, the country is being run by old people. They may or may not have any idea why Youtube content producers are a big deal. They are more likely to recognize "old media" stars.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
I think the only industry that's truly stagnating when it comes to the Internet is cable companies... who also happen to be ISPs and are lobbying to make more money from their failed business model. People don't want cable any more. Some, like me, never bought it in their adult lives, and they *can't* be marketed to. There's simply nothing on TV worth watching, at least for me. Cable is moving to Internet-powered services and the cable companies want to be the bouncers. These companies should be split and laws made so that any ISP cannot also be a content provider or publisher. Google was smart, and restructured into Alphabet. Now YouTube and Google are "technically" separate. You'll see that happen with Comcast and Verizon if legislation like that is passed. Except Google, of all companies, thought one step ahead of the game and beat them to the market conditions. I'm not a fan of Google, so don't interpret this praise as anything but reluctant.
Keep Internet connectivity a utility, the government buys the infrastructure in the form of tax cuts for X years, newcomers (startups, small ISPs) get a boost to inject competition into markets. Packets remain throttled only by protocol (QoS) or service package limits (e.g. buying 70down/20up service) instead of content or origin + destination. Free speech is alive, business is alive and competing, just about everyone benefits.
I'd be willing to pay a little more for my Internet plan if I had an unencumbered connection. I understand shuttering cable would cut into revenue, but business has to adapt to changing market conditions if it wants to survive... just like private citizens.
Youtube stars? phfft.
How much money did you give $representative in the last 3 months? If that value is less than 6 figures your opinion doesn't matter.
In total, the guild says, the letter represents video creators with an audience of more than 150 million people
I wonder how did they manage to deduplicate viewers: Many of them follow mutliple Youtube stars. Google has the information, but AFAIK authors do not.
The FCC is not all of the government, and the aspects of government that you refer to are not part of the FCC charter. It's a regulatory agency that at one time was apolitical, and would still be if we had a healthy democratic government. That said, I expect there to be some proof of corruption before claims are made where you expect me to act. I can't operate on conjecture. I must insist that we stick to the facts, such as the directives and history of the FCC.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I used to be vehemently in favor of NN, but when you stop to think about it, do we even really have it right now?
Per the FCC:
Blocking: Broadband providers may not block access to lawful content, applications, services or non-harmful devices.
Name one big cable company that lets you serve lawful content via port 80 on your home internet connection.
Throttling: Broadband providers may not deliberately target some lawful internet traffic to be delivered to users more slowly than other traffic.
Name one big cable provider that doesn't offer multiple speed tiers. If you've got the lowest/standard tier, watch what happens when you download something from a fast server: your download speed hits an artificial limit, according to your service level.
I know getting rid of the NN rules opens up a huge can of worms with lots of nightmare scenarios because of the broadband providers' collective monopoly.
But really, what good are NN rules when nobody is following them anyway? And has life been unlivable with the fake NN we currently have?
https://internetcreatorsguild.com/net-neutrality
I know this is Slashdot, and I know I shouldn't have RTFA, but neither the summary nor the linked piece of clickbait fluff included a link to the actual freaking letter...
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
I just want to know what Laughing Baby has to say about all this.
It'd be nice if Google played by the same rules as they want others to. Instead they've banned anyone presenting a positive view of guns from receiving any advertising money.
Channels are not barred for presenting anti-gun views. Channels are not barred for presenting guns as a novelty. Any channel posting a reveiw of a gun is barred. Show a trick shot: barred. Teach people anything about how to shoot a gun: barred. Teach people about gun safety: barred.
I wish I could support Google on this one, but they're digging their own grave.