Jon Stewart Takes On "Net Neutrality" (VIDEO)

On last night's Daily Show, Jon Stewart took up the issue of "net neutrality" and Senator John McCain's efforts to create one of those ironically named pieces of legislation that sounds like it is going to deliver something good -- in this case "Internet Freedom" -- but would actually make the Internet suck out loud, forever and ever. As Stewart explains, everything on the Internet moves through what former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens famously called the "series of tubes... at the same rate." As Stewart explains, "If you've got a packet of information from a major corporation like Google, that information gets exactly the same treatment as a packet from a little start-up company like JohnStewartsHeadonMarioLopezsBodyGettingFuckedByAUnicorn.net."

All of which makes sense -- even the part where people would want to see John Stewart's head on Mario Lopez's body carnally impaled by an onrushing unicorn. That's what "net neutrality" allows for. But telecoms have been lobbying for changes in those rules so that Internet service providers would have the leeway to privilege their own content over the content of other sources by slowing or blocking access. In this cause, telecom lobbyists have found a friend in John McCain, author of the "Internet Freedom Act."

STEWART: The "Internet Freedom Act of 2009." Now I know it sounds like that bill is the opposite of what its name implies in the way that, say, George Bush's "Clear Skies Act" gutted environmental regulations or Larry Craig's "No Handjobs For Me, Thanks Act" -- which oddly enough allocated a million dollars in federal funding for... and I'm quoting here, "handjobs for Larry Craig." But it's not! What McCain is proposing is that AT&T and Verizon be given "freedom" to control what information passes through the Internet. Information like: John McCain is the number one recipient of donations from the telecom industry and its lobbyists for the past three years, that I looked up on the Google, and it loaded pretty fast!

As Stewart points out, there's a hidden motive behind everyone who promotes net neutrality! And that is, naturally, advancing a radical socialist agenda by controlling the Internet! Set the telecoms free! Surely we can trust them!

WATCH:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
From Here to Neutrality
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

PREVIOUSLY, on the HUFFINGTON POST:
Rachel Maddow, Boing Boing Editor On McCain And Net Neutrality

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[soothwriter]

Today (Nov 26) the Washington Post has a related story.
It reported that an Administration spokesperson compared a lack of net neutrality to censorship in China. This prompted a hissy-fit from a Telecom lobbyist who, despite valiant efforts, was unable to include “Islamo –fascism” or “war on terror” into his statement with all the other stock pejorative catch phrases.
“Those comments did not sit well with AT&T's chief lobbyist, Jim Cicconi, who issued an angry response. He said it was "ill-considered and inflammatory" to connect censorship in China to the practices of American ISPs, whom he said do not threaten free speech. "It is deeply disturbing when someone in a position of authority, like Mr. McLaughlin, is so intent on advancing his argument for regulation that he equates the outright censorship decisions of a communist government to the network congestion decisions of an American ISP. There is no valid comparison, and it's frankly an affront to suggest otherwise…"
At which point his keyboard shorted out due to excess spittle.

[soothwriter]

Sorry - Nov 25!

[centsable]

Johnny baby it's time for the rocking chair.

[dragonfly2x]

And the repubs say they don't want more government­... hmmm... write a new bill to restrict Americans freedom to read whatever they so choose on the internet, tie up time in the house and senate...

And in typical repub fashion, as usual get the public riled up ...instill fear... restrict individual freedom... further pad the fat pockets of already rich corporatio­ns...

This internet neanderthal should be the LAST person on the planet addressing freedom of the internet..­.

Is he so lame-brained he doesn't even GET that this is NOT freedom of the internet, it's freedom for corporations to rape more Americans for more money... or does he think that we are so lame brained we don't get what he's proposing?

K**l the bill...

[dragonfly2x]

How Mavericky.­.. write a bill to pad the pockets of the corporations contributing to your campaign..­.

Way to show us John just whose interests you really have at heart...

FK YOU mcsame...

[Meteor]

John McCain is not the President for a very good reason. Everyone who voted against him know the reason. And that goes for his "Internet Freedom Act" too.

[midhorn]

I'm confused, is this the same bill as H.R. 3458 sponsored by Edward Markey and 8 other dems? Because that bill seems to be a shield against just what this article discusses. Where is Mccain's bill? I can't seem to locate it on opencongress.org.

Here is the bill I am referring to - http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3458/show

[ignorantwillyharper]

If McCain is for it, we btter vote aganist it!

[Meteor]

You got that right, ignorantwilly!

[GhostNyc]

McCain's bill the backwards title- Internet Freedom Act is completely redundant much like his last presidential bid.

McCains bill will allow corporations to control and CENSOR the internet. There is nothing wrong with the internet as it is now, If Verizon and others want to improve their bottoom line- offer better services like any other competative business.

[Rjchinook]

This is really easy for voters! Everyone knows that anything the Repugs are against for is against our best interest.

[rtb61]

The Internet Freedom (To Enslave) ACT 2009.

[lynettema]

If you want the telecom industry to run the Internet like Fox runs their cable news shows, then you will like McC's "Internet Freedom" legislation. Has McC learned to use his Blackberry yet?

[RTIII]

By the way, people, there is absolutely nothing stopping AT&T or any other telecom company from adding in features that help their packets get their faster for a premium experience. They can do this by providing their own private network that parallels the internet and joins with it after bypassing highly congested regions. And, they can do this today.

Creating a parallel routing is not even all that expensive. Some large corporations do this already for their own private purposes. This is mostly done by widely dispersed organizations like, say, Boeing, wherein there is a private need for performance and security but where there is also a desire to permit external network access.

...As someone who has written a network protocol (to control oil pipelines and ships) and who has worked extensively with networks for thirty two years, I know what I'm talking about. In fact, what I'm talking about isn't even all that hard to implement.

Bottom line, there is absolutely no need for this new law McCain proposes EXCEPT for gaining the ability to quash other people's network packets. It is NOT about adding new services _at_all._

I will volunteer to be a congressional witness if it might be necessary / helpful.

.

[KIVPossum]

Sure, it's easy enough. We set up parallel routing between several major hospitals just to remain intranet.

Net neutraility is designed to make the net less neutral.

[RTIII]

"Net neutraility is designed to make the net less neutral."

Oops! You've got that backwards there, buddy.

Net neutrality is what we have today and it is the rule that ensures that all data packets are treated equally. It's the new bill that McCain introduced that's designed to take away our internet freedom - of course named the exact reverse of what it does.

PLEASE get this right - it's VERY important!

One easy way to remember it: The internet today needs NO CHANGES. Vote against - and lobby your congresscritters against ANY changes.
.

[aflyinyoursoup]

The Ruling Class is about to seriously dilute our 1st Amendment Rights and put us back in the mushroom cellar.
And they'll get away with it too.
Net Neutrality?
Orwell was a pretty smart fella.....­.

[whsmith]

I'm not even sure which side you think you're defending, but you sound awfully confused to me. "Internet Freedom" is the doublespeak you're looking for I believe.

[aflyinyoursoup]

Yes, you're correct- I "was" confused about the "terminology" involved in this issue and was swiftly educated (rightfully so) by you and RT---see about 4 or 5 comments below. By the way, your explanation (below) was excellent and thorough.
At any rate I understand why you're "not sure" which side I'm defending.
Let me make it clear.....­.......
The internet represents the most significant and powerful form of "unfiltered" information access in human history. As such it is a boon to any one who might care to challenge the "Powers That Be" who by dint of vast economic resources can otherwise hide the particulars of their sinister machinations. That's why the ruling class is launching this attempt to stanch this font of truth for the masses. So, to satisfy your question as to my allegiance­....It's time we redress these reprehensible b@st@rds and at all cost keep this incredible resource "Net Neutral"..­.See, I used the term correctly this time. Thanks to you and RT.
Fanned. Let's make this one "the good fight"!

[aflyinyoursoup]

Fanned!...

[aflyinyoursoup]

OK. "Internet Freedom"..­...
George Orwell was a pretty smart fella.....
He called it "New Speak"....­.

[irhona]

I truly believe that the only reason that Barack Obama is our president today is because of the internet-based groundswell of support that counteracted the MSM's continuous negativity and doubt that he even had a chance to win. I think that the republicans realize that also. They know that an informed society is dangerous to their interests, therefore, are against education of any sort. How can one group of people be so wrong (against the middle class) on so many issues? Follow the money. They are not wrong, they're paid for.

[KindOne]

It is not just wrong headedness, it is treason.

[ultrasoundsleephypnosis]

Please help me understand in simple financial language the following:
Goldman Sachs will receive $Billion dollars if CIT fails. Some body was stupid(???) enough to insure in June or later of last year for this amount. This happened when there was a lot of uncertainty in the market. Which company (or is it a pension fund) is going to lose this billion dollars.
I was never good in grammar -please pardon my language skill.
Thankyou

[aflyinyoursoup]

First of all your grammar is fine...
We the middle class taxpayers will always be the ones who ultimately "lose the money".
Our financial, legislative and taxation systems have all been commandeered a long time ago by the Ruling Class to insure the Privatization of Corporate Profit and the Socialization of Corporate Losses.
This so-called "Net Neutrality" foist is simply an attempt to thwart the free exchange of ideas such as this very post.
I have $5 bucks that says these b@st@rds pull it off.

[whsmith]

Please educate yourself.

"Net Neutrality" is a term that was invented by technologists and engineers to represent the nature of the internet as it has been up to this point: "neutral" with regard to the content of information packets being exchanged. For years telecoms have been threatening (and in many cases practicing) a filtration system that would put that at risk. For example, if you you wanted to watch internet television or use internet phone systems on Comcast's network - they could turn that off - because those services could compete with premium services they want to charge extra for. The "Internet Freedom" bill that John McCain is proposing would mean corporations have free reign into the future to fully exert their monopolistic power on a network that was in fact invented by the government and gifted to free enterprise and the public at large for their benefit. This would put all the power right into the hand of the entrenched, so called "ruling class" you speak of - into the hands of the massive telecom conglomerates. It destroys the ability to innovate, it stops small companies and competitors from coming along and creating better services, and it gives less options to consumers.

"Net Neutrality' ensures that the competitive and highly innovative age that marked the dawn of the internet can continue into the future.

[RTIII]

WRONG.

Please get it right.

"Net neutrality" is what we have now. It's a rule that is the equivalent of the Equal Rights Ammendment, or, sonce we don't actually have that enacted into law yet, it's about the same as the Civil Rights Act. It means that no part of the network can discriminate against any packet - they are all equal.

This is good because it means that nobody can intentionally slow down or prohibit access to your data packets if they don't happen to like them.

The trick-named double-speak bill that McCain just introduced is unfortunately called the Internet Freedom Act which would give AT&T the freedom to stop your packets from being equal if they so chose.

Got it now?

GOOD, this is IMPORTANT.
.

[Diogenis]

For those that did not understand, maybe you can appreciate the add following eh?

[TerrapinCB]

Firefox, Adblock Plus, host file.

What add? I don't see any ads here! I cannot believe the mass amount of people that still see ads on the internet..­.