The Internet Is UNDER ATTACK, Net Neutrality is Dying, and What You Can Do…

The Internet Is UNDER ATTACK, Net Neutrality is Dying, and What You Can Do…

Shoutout to dbrand! Get The Grip for 50% Off!:
Taking Our A’s and Putting Them In Your Q’s…:
Checkout The DeFrancoFam!:
Audio Only Versions of the PDS:
Why Feminists Are Disowning Lena Dunham Now and The Roy Moore Tax Reform “Problem”:
Why We Need To Talk About The Insane YouTube Kids Problem… #Elsagate:
Jim & Andy: The Great Beyond:
Emoji Movie Honest Trailer:
Stranger Things Cast Answer Web’s Most Searched Questions:
Japanese Game Show Slippery Stairs:
Secret Link:

Net Neutrality:
Contact your representative! : or

Charlie Rose Allegations:–with-nudity-groping-and-lewd-calls/2017/11/20/9b168de8-caec-11e7-8321-481fd63f174d_story.html?utm_term=.a633336175be
SNAPCHAT: TheDeFrancoFam
Edited by:
James Girardier –

Produced by:
Amanda Morones –

Motion Graphics Artist:
Brian Borst –

Attn: Philip DeFranco
16350 Ventura Blvd
Ste D #542
Encino, CA 91436

You may also like...

103 Responses

  1. Philip DeFranco says:

    CALL. NOW. This is important. They work for you, let them hear your voice. Net Neutrality is soooooooooo vital.

    • double eagle says:

      This is capitalism. People who favor net neutrality are so arrogant thinking they can tweak the system until it’s perfect. With no unintended concequences. The whole economy is this way, the government has wormed it’s way into every facet of our lives and people can’t see what would have been without the insidious meddling. The internet was free until now hopefully in December it will be again.

    • ShadowDragon688 says:

      Just called my representative but his mail box was full i assume this is a good thing. I will continue call to see if i can get through though.

    • double eagle says:

      Kyle Gibson I couldn’t have said it better. People think the government can tweak everything and make it perfect, usually makes it worse

    • Guy Fiere says:

      Philip DeFranco stfu

    • L. T C. says:

      I called. I was only able to get 2 messages but it’s better than nothing.

  2. Exit Light says:

    The only reason the the FCC to do this is because there’s money coming to these people. That and undoing every single amallest thing ever that Obama did.

    • Nathan Ramirez says:

      Crystal No. The wall is a 20b dollar wall. Don’t act like it’ll break the bank. As for the tax plan, we’ll see.

    • Daniel Richard says:

      Net Neutrality is an Obama era policy so Trump’s appointees have to get rid of it

    • Christopher Howard says:

      honestly the bigger companies are supporting net neutrality…the only reason net neutrality was implemented in 2015 was because of lobbyists that supported it.

      we have 400 pages of regulations based on laws from 1936. net neutrality is a fancy name meaning nothing, it does not keep the internet neutral. look into articles exposing how net neutrality is not the savior everyone believes it to be.

    • dormdude says:

      or it’s because net neutrality solves only one of the problems at the cost of causing more problems.

    • Daniel Richard says:

      +Christopher Howard that is a bit misleading because there are lobbyists on all sides. It’s generally how things get done. Lobbyists have always been a major catalyst in legislation and unless progressives get in charge and revamp everything it will probably be that way. for better or for worse

  3. Ben Tover says:

    R.I.P America

  4. Lyad Derouazi says:

    We are here don’t worry (hackers)

  5. Jebediah Springfield says:

    So basically, asking for consent has become sexual harassment.

  6. Maria Söderström says:

    Who wants to start a telecommunication company that’s fair for the people in the us?

    • Yo Nigga says:

      It’s extremely costly. This is why there are new ISPs.

    • Vladimir Putin says:

      I would be happy to help all of you Americans to screw over the U.S government because that’s what socialism is all about

    • Clorox Bleach says:


    • lakamokolaka says:

      Nice try but they made laws against you doing that long ago, it is why this market is borderline a monopoly

    • Ainz Ooal Gown says:

      Google is a thing, go join google trying to put their fios out. They were putting out in places like Texas with gb speeds, but i think they stopped and i cant remember if it was because they were dominating other companies with speeds 25x faster than they could put out, AND it was cheaper. But even Google of all places said it was to expensive to lay, and basically that they were getting fucked over by the old companies because they had to get the old companies to movie their wires on the poles so that they could put theirs up, and obviously the older companies were fucking them over.

  7. Jim Tessier says:

    Phil you do realize that your argument about “Comcast” and consumers is inaccurate right? The reason for limited competition in those markets where customers do not have a choice is because of government. Local municipals sign contracts that keep other cable providers out forcing the consumer one choice. They argue that there is choice because of satellite; however, that is inaccurate. Same with power and water utility in most areas: especially in rural. When it is a utility then ultimately choices are limited.

    Look at the 90’s when the internet started to boom. We had so many choices then broadband came and since broad band is mostly provided by cable and telco choices became limited to municipal contractual providers like Comcast. This will continue until wireless technology advances to the point that we have a real choice and then can go with mobile providers where the market is plenty and not forced on my municipals.

    Fact is government created a problem they want to fix to create even more problem. As we see with Cell providers there is competition and; for the most part, a very healthy and competitive market. Look at T-Mobile. The essential practitioner off what you fear yet they are not the leader. No matter what they do to entice customers and offer premium service sat a low cost (Free Netflix, no data charges against preferred media, etc…) they are still losing to the other providers offering traditional services.

    I think the real concern that needs to be fixed is offering customers real competition in the broadband space. Make it illegal for municipals to sign these contracts forcing a monopoly onto consumers. Not unnecessary fear of Comcast pushing Xfinity crappy streaming service over Netflix.

    • Jim Tessier says:

      Sure. Local municipalities creating monopolies limiting choice for consumers is the problem; not throttling. Proof is the wireless industry where there is plenty of competition as well as some providers using preferred services as a way to attract customers over the competition yet we (consumers) are not impacted and it hasn’t hurt the market or competition.

    • Max Goldberg, BSME says:

      Your idea would work, if infrastructure was all publicly owned. The problem is the infrastructure itself is privately owned, so if you wanted to have 3 different cable providers, each provider would have to run their own wires down the street and to your junction box. This is a waste of money and materials, and it means the barrier to entry for a particular market is exorbitantly high.

      Utility companies, like electric and gas, have these government mandated monopolies in exchange for being regulated as a utility. Without this, you could have multiple options for power where you live, but in places where people are poorer or there needs to be more infrastructure between properties (rural areas) there is no incentive for any power company to serve that area. The cost to develop the infrastructure isn’t made up for. Look up the story of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

      If you consider it A-OK for people to not have access to power, or water, or internet because of where they choose to live, then your point is valid. But if you believe in the whole concept of a Utility- that access to the service for anyone who can pay a reasonable fee for it is a basic right- then you have to regulate. There is a valid ideological point against anything being classified as a utility. The argument for utilities is practical & egalitarian. We all do better and have more opportunities the more of us have power, water, sewer, and high speed internet. Neglecting to ensure utility access to all citizens is a sure-fire way to wreck an economy and have citizens living in the conditions we normally associate with third world countries.

      The remaining issue is whether or not internet is a utility, as fundamental to life as power (without it you freeze to death in the winter) or water (without it you die of dehydration) or sewer (without it public health declines). Its a bit harder to make a case for how vital the internet is, but as our lives & livelihoods become increasingly dependent on it, the case will be easier and easier to make.

      For this reason, I am pro net neutrality, but I’m not sure about the alarm bells people are ringing. We have the option to zig zag on legislation in this country. I have no doubt that the role of the internet will grow exponentially in the future, and if net neutrality is struck down, it will have to be restored in the next several decades or else there will be a full blown revolt against the government. Fifty years from now the majority of Americans will spend more than half of their waking hours in virtual reality. Internet access will become a human rights issue and people will be willing to die for it.

    • Jim Tessier says:

      Regarding the cable industry it’s contracted; not owned. That is why Comcast can have a contract in your city and next year it becomes Time Warner. Secondly, even if it’s privately owned there is a business model that is very profitable to lease it out to competitors. The Cell phone industry is a great example of this. Comcast is now offering cell service on Verizon network; at a cheaper cost too. This was the market before cell took over consumer land lines. I used to switch between MCI, AT&T, and other carriers back in the day to keep my phone bill low. Ah.. I loved competition 🙂 Now, I am stuck with a $80 bill for a sub par internet provider as that is all I have for a choice.

      The power argument. Another great example. In some markets there are up to 5 players in the market. Some reselling existing providers infrastructure; at a negotiated lower cost, while others offering alternatives. The market where my mother lives she can choose a provider that is completely renewable. Market works in the energy and water sector too. In fact, since this another area where I have no choice; and in regards to water is City owned/ran, I am succumbed to high prices compared to other municipals in the area. if I don’t pay I freeze and/or become dehydrated…

      America is ranked 15th in the world for broadband infrastructure and we pay on average higher than most Western countries. Our infrastructure is dated and very little innovation. We need competition. That is the area we should be focusing on. Not if Comcast wants to try a model that is already failing for T-Mobile by giving special access to some content. Though, to be honest I saw one graph that showed “Netflix, Hulu, and gaming $15 month” That is not a bad model if that is all you do (my son for example). With that said, that model will fail without government involvement. Just like per minute long distance calling; per hour internet usage; and tiered internet on wireless.

    • TheArnoldification says:

      This is probably the only comment chain I’ve seen pertaining to NN that has a decent and balanced conversation.

    • Ainz Ooal Gown says:

      The thing is its expensive for new companies, an employee of google fiber came out to talk about it after they stopped doing it. They were getting gb speeds, and was gonna keep putting it all over, but what the guy said in short was that it was expensive, and that they had to get the old companies to come out and move their shit so that they could put their lines up, and they had problems with the old companies, because why would you send someone out to move your lines when your competitor is offering 25x the speed, speed we havent seen in America yet for some reason, and way cheaper than any other company? They might have to by law, i dont know the legality of it all, but even if they HAVE to legally, do you think they arent going to make it as miserable as legally possible? And thats all the guy basically said, was that its nearly impossible for new companies because of old companies making it harder than it should be. The other reason they said, AS GOOGLE, was that it was way to expensive to do.

  8. jake tanzer says:


  9. Ayy lmao says:

    How can I help if I’m not from the US?

  10. Taehan Stott says:

    Anyone who supports “net neutrality” is uneducated on the subject, and just listens to what everyone else says.

    I’m honestly so disappointed in the internet for falling for it. When the federal gov’t tried to take control of the internet using piracy as an excuse with SOPA and PIPA you rallied together and saw through their lies. Now they got smarter and changed their message to protecting you from Comcast (something everyone hates) to save Netflix (something most people have and adore). Why is the internet suddenly so naïve?

    Does anyone know what actually happened? Netflix was a huge burden on Comcast’s infrastructure so yes, they did indeed throttle Netflix. Netflix alone took up 37% of peak download internet traffic in 2015. So what ACTUALLY happened? Did everyone suffer as buildings crumbled all around us and the internet apocalypse began? No. They settled, Netflix paid a large sum of money which allowed for Comcast to add new infrastructure, and Netflix now lives in a fast lane. Which it should be.

    The second uneducated idea is that all internet traffic should be equal. By those standards, all streaming should be slower. Going to uses a fraction of the bandwidth that Netflix uses. It makes sense for streaming platforms to exist in a fast lane because they use a lot, and I mean a lot more data. It isn’t wrong.

    Finally, if Comcast intentionally did throttle everything you cared about indefinitely, their customer satisfaction would drop immensely and there would be public outcry. Comcast still exists not because they are the only choice. They exist because they are the only decent choice. If they did this, they would no longer be a decent choice and they would lose customers and therefore power. You seriously think the market wont sort itself out? It already did when Netflix paid for the fast lane. Competition has been increasing as things like Google Fiber moves to big cities, driving the cable monopolies out. And soon 5G technology will be implemented (within a decade most likely at most) which would completely smash the cable monopolies as the only infrastructure required will be cell towers.

    Laws do not break monopolies, they keep them together. Comcast is a monopoly not because they have free reign, but because they’ve lobbied in regulations to keep competition down. You need licenses and permits and you have to pay fees and all kinds of other things just to get your foot in the door, and almost no investor wants to take that risk.

    If you want to hit Comcast where it hurts, don’t regulate fast lanes. That’s stupid. Remove all the restrictive regulations that keep them up top. Support other internet services to make them lose customers and revenue. Adopt 5G when the technology finally becomes commercially viable. Don’t hand the government, which is in Comcast’s pocket, more regulating power by classifying the internet as a utility. Why else do you think Comcast itself supports net neutrality?

    TL;DR: Comcast and the federal government are playing you into giving them more control over the internet. Do not support net neutrality.

  11. Major Ramsey says:

    The reason people have Comcast but don’t want Comcast (because there aren’t any other options) is because the FCC drew lines in the sand a long time ago with regards to telecommunications (telephone and cable services) which disallowed a competitive market. Each provider got a certain territory and this created a cartel of service providers.

    We don’t need the FCC creating new Net Neutrality regulations –> we need to get rid of the FCC. This will allow for more freedom in the marketplace for providers to move into each other’s territories and compete. More freedom and competition means more quality and options for consumers. But giving the FCC the power for “Net Neutrality” will end up causing more problems due to more regulations that inhibit companies from offering a myriad of options to consumers.

    As a Computer Networking Engineer, I don’t want a bunch of bureaucrats telling me how to manage my network. They suck at it.

    • Major Ramsey says:

      Zachev Trace

      And right on cue. Sorry, that’s not true at all. The reason the infrastructure is a monopolized as it is is PRECISELY because the FCC (or the CRTC if in Canada) assigned territories in the past. They viewed the telephone system as a utility and the government controlled it as such. This happened as well in the 80’s and 90’s with cable TV services. Which is why each cable provider tended to be the only one in a given area. Municipalities assigned territory even as regulations were lifted. This is also why long distance charges were so insane in the 80s, you called across territories and each one wanted a cut.

      This is the opposite of Capitalism, this is a government created cartel.

      Despite all this, infrastructure costs, small ISP’s have been able to compete through multiple types of infrastructure (cable, phone, fiber and satellite) and even by leasing certain sections. I’m now able to go through third party providers in my area for cheaper rates even though they use the EXACT same infrastructure as the more expensive providers.

      I recommend you watch this video for a much more detailed analysis and critique of Net Neutrality:

      Net Neutrality (as it is written currently) gives more power to those same bureaucrats who cause all this mess to begin with and is far from the best option. Also, allowing those desk jockies to manage this type of infrastructure is a computer networking engineer’s nightmare –> and I DO know that.

    • Skyler Blunck says:

      I agree with you but because of the lines already being drawn it is near impossible to get rid of the monoplies without first having the current companies out of the picture. Until that happens we need nn

    • Yo Nigga says:

      Then the first thing we need is the infrastructure so companies won’t have monopolies over certain regions. Otherwise it would be a disaster to end net neutrality.

    • Anax of Rhodes says:

      Read somewhere people in Detroit band together and make their own Internet connections. The people will make do. Smart, active consumers don’t need FCC regulations.

    • Tomas Arkansas says:

      Major Ramsey Actually You don’t seem to understand what net neutrality is.
      1) Net Neutrality does not block competition from existing… in fact it does the opposite. It blocks the people who have a simi monopoly from getting an even larger monopoly.

      Think about it this way. If Microsoft decided they didn’t want anyone to be able to access google anymore… Net Neutrality prevents them from blocking people… but without this law they can block and pay all the ISP to block any and all competition. Anytime you let the largest company stomp out small businesses… you don’t help the economy but instead help line their pockets.

  12. Khamden Smith says:

    Who’s here from Graham the Christian (Cowbelly)

  13. Steven Smith says:

    I’m Canadian does this shit splash onto my balls or what?

    • Ismlg William says:

      Steven Smith it doesn’t effect canada because it has the charter of rights that protects discrimination in section 17. Even if it’s brought up by Internet companies , the case can easily be won by appointing the issue of violating our charter

    • J Smith says:

      iMelterr The providers are the same providers that provide internet to these US based websites.

    • xXJake4923Xx says:

      J Smith Yes, but they must follow each Country’s specific laws and regulations.

    • nibleggi says:

      J Smith and these us based websites have servers all around the world. typical americans think that everything in the world happens in that shit country

    • Ainz Ooal Gown says:

      Oh we know it doesnt happen in the rest of the world, ffs most of you guys censored a fucking game for holding 2 fingers up. Why would i want to be a part of your shit country?

  14. Ian Roper says:

    America is fucked. Corporations own everything in america especially the government.

    • Ian Roper says:

      Max Goldberg BSME Yeah, you hit the nail on the head, and the sad part is they’re both in the pockets of various corporations and anytime anyone outside of those two parties tries to do anything they get stomped down by all the people colluding to make sure we stay a two party system that never gets anything done or moves forward in any way because moving forward means less money for the greedy.

    • M R says:

      That’s the fault of the government, not the corporations. Corporations are not inherently bad lol.

    • Kerry Marie says:

      You can say that again

    • ebiljebus says:

      Wealth is power and power corrupts.

    • Yankee Fan101 says:

      Ian Roper “Corporations own everything in america especially the government.“ The truest thing ever said. Yet many Americans still have the nerve to refer to themselves as the greatest country.

  15. electronicsNmore says:

    Dying? No, I’d say it’s already dead and starting to decay.

  16. Al Bogus says:

    What kind of government does the US have? How did they allow this?! It’s like they’re converting the U.S.A into a oligarchy!


    • Qim Tolman says:

      It’s a cycle, eventually the U.S.A. will be an oligarchy.

    • Chente says:

      Im not sure whats going on either but could careless. My life doesnt revolve around the internet. Perhaps it has something to do with security. Keeping independent internet services responsible for incidents, who knows. I doubt it’s just about companies competing. If that is the case, then someone can just start a petition and have every single customer currently being serviced to agree on something rather than have them decide.

    • MadLane says:

      US is going to become either fascist or communist, the people are now to stupid and only care about bullshit things and they don’t notice how much freedom and rights they are losing , really if it was today i’m pretty sure the Soviets or Nazis would win way to easily

    • Gage The Navigator says:

      It’s like the USA has been an oligarchy


    *We need our online heros*
    *jake paul*
    *logan paul*
    *and every other blogger, content creator on the Internet*

  18. Tyclone says:

    How are the people alone gonna fight against billion dollar companies? I’ve written my congressman. I’m hopeful for the best but I still doubt we can stop it

    • Ocelot Eleven says:

      If you think that it’s bad that you have to pay to see memes, you should do something about. If that’s not enough, do more.

  19. King Burrito3 says:

    Rip constitutional rights

  20. mariel ivana says:

    Yet again the government lets us down

Leave a Reply

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