Opinion
Grading City Hall: See our report card for L.A. City Council President Herb Wesson
Opinion L.A.
Opinion Opinion L.A.
Opinion

John Oliver finds humor in net neutrality, but loses the facts

John Oliver's net neutrality rant is funny -- but misleading
An overlooked point in the debate: There is no net neutrality mandate in effect today

Comedian John Oliver of HBO's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" has done the unimaginable: He made the debate over the Federal Communications Commission's proposed net neutrality rules compelling. Now if only he'd gotten the facts right.

Oliver, who honed his news-reading-as-comedy chops with Jon Stewart at Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," presented a segment on net neutrality Sunday that combined equal parts humor and outrage. The latter sprang from the notion that the FCC, led by a former cable industry lobbyist, wants to let cable companies set up fast lanes and slow lanes online.

Or, as Oliver put it, "If we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, they won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motorbike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted to an anchor."

He also argued that cable operators would "shake down" content providers, old-school mobster style, by threatening to slow down their data. As proof, he offered up a graph from Netflix showing how its video streaming speeds on Comcast had fallen sharply before Netflix cut a deal to pay Comcast directly for interconnection, after which the speeds jumped.

There was a grain of truth to his narrative, but Oliver misled his audience badly on a couple of key points.

First, he started his rant on the proposed rules by saying, "The Internet in its current form is not broken, and the FCC is currently taking steps to fix that." It's true that the status quo online is the way things should be, with Internet service providers treating all legitimate traffic equally. That's the essence of net neutrality.

The issue is whether the status quo can be sustained without a clear federal prohibition on ISPs picking winners and losers. There's no such thing today. The federal courts have thrown out two previous attempts by the FCC to stop ISPs from handling traffic on the last mile (that is, broadband connections to homes or offices) in an unreasonably discriminatory way. So, at the insistence of Chairman Tom Wheeler (who is, as Oliver correctly noted, a former top lobbyist for the cable industry, as well as the wireless industry), the commission has proposed a new set of rules that are designed to pass muster with the federal bench.

Second, Oliver characterized the proposal as a move by Comcast and other cable operators (a term he also applied to Verizon and AT&T, the country's two biggest phone companies) to create fast and slow lanes online. If that's what they want to do, however, they'd be better off with the FCC not adopting any rules at all.

The real question is what's the best way to preserve the Internet as an open platform for innovation and content, without interference from the cable and phone companies that dominate the market for broadband connections. Some conservative and libertarian critics of Wheeler's proposal, including the two Republicans on the FCC, argue that the market will preserve the Internet's best qualities, with no need for burdensome regulation.

Others, including some consumer advocates and Web-based companies, argue that the proposed rule wouldn't go far enough to protect Internet users and innovators. That's because it would allow ISPs to cut deals with websites and services for favorable treatment, as long as they weren't "commercially unreasonable." They want the FCC to reclassify broadband as a communications service subject to stringent regulation -- an approach that would be sure to draw lawsuits from telecommunications companies and opposition from Congress.

To placate that faction, Wheeler's proposal would explore reclassification as an alternative to the chairman's preferred method, which follows the more permissive legal path suggested by the  federal D.C. Circuit appeals court. He also argues that his approach wouldn't let ISPs hobble companies that don't strike deals, because that would be commercially unreasonable. The proposal also leaves open the possibility that the FCC could declare paid prioritization to be unreasonable on its face.

That's a bit too nuanced an explanation for Oliver, however. To him, the deal between Comcast and Netflix is clear evidence of cable operators' nefarious ambition to create a two-tiered Internet.

But that deal has nothing to do with net neutrality, at least not how it's defined today.

This is a point that the media have flubbed repeatedly. Net neutrality is about whether ISPs will be allowed to favor some bits over others -- to prioritize their partners' traffic, giving them an unfair advantage over the rest of the data in the queue. Netflix's agreement with Comcast, on the other hand, addresses how its data gets into the queue.

Netflix had been paying Cogent, a "transit provider" that delivers data online from one ISP to another, to carry at least some of its streams to broadband ISPs such as Comcast. But Cogent's connections with Comcast were becoming congested as the two companies squabbled over how much capacity Comcast would provide and at what cost. According to analyst Dan Rayburn, Comcast's deals with transit providers let them deliver a limited amount of data for free, after which point they have to pay extra. So Netflix moved to cut out the middleman and connect directly to Comcast, a move that Rayburn suggests actually saved Netflix money.

The deal, in other words, didn't put Netflix in a fast lane or give its data priority over other sites' traffic.

Details, details, details. What you think about net neutrality and the FCC's proposed rule depends in large measure on how hard you want to stick it to the cable companies, and hey, who doesn't despise them and their abysmal customer service? One sure way to get people interested in a mind-numbingly complex public-policy issue is to characterize it as a favor to the evil cable guys, so that's how Oliver played it.

He urged the public, and particularly Internet "trolls," to "focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction" by telling the FCC not to approve the proposed rule. And many did, letting their Caps Locked outrage loose in such comments as "YOU MUST UPHOLD NET NEUTRALITY AND NET FREEDOM!!!!!! DON'T WUSS OUT TO THOSE CORPORATE [expletive deleted]. DO THE RIGHT THING."

Happily, though, there's no shortage of comments that recognize what the FCC is actually wrestling with. You can read them here, or file your own comment here.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Staying true to net neutrality

    Staying true to net neutrality

    Chairman Tom Wheeler of the Federal Communications Commission said all the right things about net neutrality Thursday as the agency voted to release draft rules for preserving the open Internet. Nevertheless, real questions remain about whether the proposal he's championed is the right way to protect...

  • Does owning a gun make you safer?

    Does owning a gun make you safer?

    The United States has the most heavily armed civilian population in the First World; our homes contain enough firearms for every man, woman and child.

  • Political grandstanding on Planned Parenthood

    Political grandstanding on Planned Parenthood

    An effort by Senate Republicans to defund Planned Parenthood failed Monday evening when a procedural measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to proceed. Good. The bill, introduced in the wake of several undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing what the organization does...

  • Why let ex-presidents cash in?

    Why let ex-presidents cash in?

    President Harry Truman once said that he would never lend himself "to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency." His successors have not held themselves to the same standard.

  • Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the same as repealing the right to abortion

    Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the same as repealing the right to abortion

    The GOP-controlled Congress is taking up the cause, once again, of defunding Planned Parenthood. This latest effort comes in response to macabre hidden-camera videos shot by the Center for Medical Progress of staff at Planned Parenthood talking about the grisly practice of chopping up fetuses for...

  • Treatment, not just jail, for the mentally ill

    Treatment, not just jail, for the mentally ill

    The U.S. Department of Justice and Los Angeles County officials are negotiating the details of a consent decree to govern the treatment of mentally ill inmates in the troubled county jails, following more than a decade of reported abuse and excessive force by sheriff's deputies. The final terms...

  • Obama's Clean Energy Plan doesn't go far enough

    Obama's Clean Energy Plan doesn't go far enough

    The coal industry already has its legal claws honed for a court battle over President Obama's Clean Energy Plan, which was unveiled Monday, claiming that it will cost too much and render people jobless. Certainly, in the short term at least, slowing climate change by reducing carbon emissions won't...

  • Does a voting-rights case threaten experimentation?

    Does a voting-rights case threaten experimentation?

    Suppose a state adopts a traditional approach to voting – only one day on which voters can cast their ballots at polling places, with limited opportunities for absentee voting.

Comments
Loading
86°