Net neutrality sketch helps crash FCC website [VIDEO]

John Oliver, a Brit who appears to have become something of an American TV star after years of apprenticeship on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, used his own HBO show to tackle the topic of net neutrality earlier this weekend.

If cable companies like Comcast get their way, we could end up with a two-tier system for the internet, with big businesses able to pay for speedier access.

Net Neutrality: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

The satirist argues that because the issue of net neutrality is too boring for the media to cover the average internet user is either unaware or indifferent to the plotting of cable companies, and he doesn’t appear to be wrong.

Sign up to our free newsletter.
Security news, advice, and tips.

In the above video, which is well worth a watch in its entirety, John Oliver calls upon viewers to express their displeasure via the FCC website.

Can you guess what happened next?

By the way, if you find even John Oliver’s take on the net neutrality debate too heavy-going, here is the same topic tackled with immense style in the following video with a little help from a rapping “Tim Berners-Lee”.

RAP NEWS | Net Neutrality

If you feel like having your opinions heard, you can leave a message on the FCC’s website.

As they’ve had trouble keeping it up (no sniggering at the back…) I won’t tell you the FCC’s web address. But here’s a picture of that nice Mr Oliver.

John Oliver

Graham Cluley is an award-winning keynote speaker who has given presentations around the world about cybersecurity, hackers, and online privacy. A veteran of the computer security industry since the early 1990s, he wrote the first ever version of Dr Solomon's Anti-Virus Toolkit for Windows, makes regular media appearances, and is the co-host of the popular "Smashing Security" podcast. Follow him on Twitter, Mastodon, Threads, Bluesky, or drop him an email.

3 comments on “Net neutrality sketch helps crash FCC website [VIDEO]”

  1. Thanks for introducing us to John Oliver, Graham. I'll look for more of his videos on YT. Shame the UK lost him to the US, we just don't have any here who can make me laugh so much, well maybe Sir Terry Wogan.
    Anyway, I guess with Dixons not taking over (oops sorry Merging) Carphone warehouse – who own TalkTalk, we'll soon be discussing similar issues here about who provides the best bits/second for a buck (sorry Pound) based on content.

    Funny though, I always thought Net Neutrality was about censorship?

  2. Vito

    They'll blame capitalism for this, but this is NOT capitalism. In true capitalism everyone has a chance. There's no real threat of monopoly because competition levels the playing field. But where's the competition here?

    There isn't any. It has been regulated out of existence. It's crony corporatism, aided and abetted by a lobbyist who got appointed to "regulate" the industry he represents because he's one of Obama's golf buddies.

    And the same thing happens when the Republicans are in power, so don't even think of making this a Ford vs. Chevy, Mac vs. PC., Democans vs. Republicrats argument. They're all crooked.

    The state has outgrown its usefulness. It's part of the problem, not part of the solution. It's the biggest monopoly in every country — the ultimate "authority"…without responsibility for any of the harm it causes. Something has to change, and not just the goons who run the system. Electing new goons won't solve anything. The system ITSELF is the problem, folks.

    1. Bill Kreps · in reply to Vito

      As much as I understand what you are saying, I would respectfully and kindly disagree. At the heart of every system, every organization, every institution, every government are people. If you eliminated every last one of those entities you would still have people who would dominate and amass more than others. And around those individuals others would ally themselves.

      In so far as the technical aspect of this blog post, I am really struggling with what is best. I understand that the carriers have invested heavily in infrastructure; and it cost a lot of money to maintain that. I think the carriers want big data content providers to "chip in" a reasonable amount to sustain and grow the infrastructure. That is actually fair. What I am opposed to (for example) is getting billed more by Netflix (passed on cost) for content and more from Comcast to provide me access to the bandwidth necessary to enjoy that content.

      I think the bigger issue that is complicating this matter however is that the carriers want to also provide content to bolster their revenue, which creates a conflict with existing content providers. I am certain the infamous Judge Harold H. Greene would have barred carriers from providing content.

What do you think? Leave a comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.