Datasets:

dlb

/

mentalreddit

like 1

daddit

Your son needs to go explain this to congress.

daddit

"I drink your milkshake. I drink it right up."

daddit

Absolutely perfect analogy. /u/USER's son for Congress! Hey, it ain't like putting a bunch of 9 year olds in Congress would be any worse than what we have now. Only difference is, when they nuke Madagascar because someone made a silly face at them, we'd totally understand.

daddit

[deleted]

daddit

Except the milkshake store that sells the straws is the only store in town. Imagine if there was a second store that also sold straws and milkshakes but didn't pinch the straws. How much longer could the first store get away with that?

daddit

Alright Comcast... that's the last straw.

daddit

I suppose in this scenario, a bubble tea straw is google fiber, comcast is maybe a McDonald's straw, and dial-up is one of those coffee-stirrer straws.

daddit

Fantastic analogy. Do I have your express permission to use this at family gatherings, the bar, FB, etc?

daddit

So the internet really *is* a series of tubes?

daddit

/r/thatHappened isn't even this /r/thatHappened ಠ_ಠ

daddit

For those that still don't understand the analogy: 1) Straw seller / squeezer = your Internet Service Provider 2) Ice cream store = web content provider. (Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, etc) 3) Milkshake = content provided by ice cream store (videos, web pages, articles, blog posts, pictures, Facebook profiles, etc) 4) Straw = the connections your ISP provides to access the milkshake. YouTube provides you with videos (milkshake). Your ISP provides you with the connection (straw) to YouTube videos (milkshake), typically for a fee. Your ISP controls how fast you can access (consume) those videos (milkshake). Your ISP can slow your access (pinch your straw) and hold it ransom or at least put it on a lower priority unless YouTube (ice cream store) pays them money. Therefore imagine if there were only 2 ice cream shops in the world (Bing and Google). If Bing (ice cream shop #1) paid the ISP (straw seller) $50 and Google (ice cream shop #2) paid them nothing - or paid them less - we would be able to access (drink) Bing's content (milkshake) faster than Google's.

daddit

Nah, you came up with that.

daddit

Eventually we'll realize everyone in the other countries got free spoons.

daddit

I'm 8 years old and I am a 90s kid and I 100% agree with this!

daddit

Everyone in Congress understands what Net Neutrality is; we've got to stop thinking these people are literally stupid. Sure, some may struggle on certain concepts, but I would imagine you don't get into the U.S. Senate without an understanding of core concepts of society. What we are running into here is ideological differences. The Republicans overwhelmingly do not believe the government should be involved in any of societies economic markets. They believe that, should the consumer deem a company unfit to fulfill its requirements, than the "free market" will decide and the company will go out of business. Even moreso, Republicans *and* Democrats understand that the market has already been manipulated by various governments on different levels to allow monopolies of these companies to exist. Both parties have taken significant bribes from these massive corporations to continue allowing them preferential treatment in commuities. The **American people** need to understand some very core concepts about the Internet. The first being that the Internet is so intrinsically intertwined into the fabric of our society that there is no going back. So goes the Internet, so goes humanity. To limit or not have access to its current form is to purposfully degrade your regional civilization and limit the intelligence of your citizens. The economic core concept that Americans needs to realize is that we citizens bought and paid for the creation, expansion and upgrades to our national network infrastructure. We have *already paid* billions of dollars and are allowing ISPs to be the gate keepers. These gate keepers have time and time again failed to uphold their promise of continuing to maintain and upgrade the infrastructure, they continue to increase rates for access (again, to something we've already paid for) and are now attempting to limit the very core of what made the Internet mankind's greatest tool. Remember ... so goes the Internet, so goes humanity.

daddit

/r/thathappened

daddit

Did you explain to your son that the Ice Cream store that they want to pay money is not giving free milkshakes?

daddit

So pirating is like sipping from my friends glass?

daddit

http://imgur.com/TTsRpog

daddit

This is a straw man argument.

daddit

Things that never happened for 500, Alex.

daddit

My god, it is a series of tubes.

daddit

Yeah I doubt that he came up with this- good try though, Dad.

daddit

ISP = Ice-cream Straw Provider?

daddit

I'm 100% sure that your son didn't say this.

daddit

Ah yes, the classic 9 year old's discussion on net neutrality.

daddit

Your son, eh? Looking forward to reading about this later in r/quityourbullshit.

daddit

[deleted]

daddit

That is such a straw man argument.

daddit

You and your son have been submitted to /r/bestof

daddit

I don't get it. Why is the ice cream store giving away free milkshakes again? I'd be very suspicious of the ice cream shop owner...

daddit

Now I want a milkshake.

daddit

I'm convinced that maybe 10% of the people commenting on this issue actually understand the economic principles at work here. OP's son does a good job of summarizing the average Reddit user's oversimplified understanding of a complex issue.

daddit

My milkshakes bring all the boys the yard

daddit

Isn't the allegory/allusion here that lobbyists for cable companies are the angsty straw guys who are so selfish and self-serving they only see the dollar sign?

daddit

So... The Internet actually IS a series of tubes

daddit

[Perhaps you all should read this](http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/)

daddit

so what you are saying is I need to find a way to ditch the straw entirely and just dunk my head in the vanilla goodness till I drown.

daddit

I'm no longer confused now. Thanks kid!

daddit

I think you're full of shit and this never actually happened. What the fuck kind of child would ever explain a topic such as net neutrality to another child

daddit

That is a good description of one side of the issue, yes.

daddit

Another one: The ice cream store is making thicker and thicker shakes and the maker of the straw constantly has to re-work his straws but is not allowed to charge the ice cream store for doing this. Instead he has to pass the R and D costs onto the consumer. Problem is the consumer has a thing for thicker shakes and just wants thicker and thicker shakes. So the straw maker has to raise the price of the straw. The shake lover yells "foul", I should be able to have the thickest shake I want and not have to worry about how you make the straw." So the ice cream maker solves the problem by taking two straws, problem solved. The straw company now has to double its effort to keep up with demand. But can't charge the ice cream maker and when they tell the shake lover, "If you want that thick shake you're going to have to pay more since you're now using two". Shake lover cries "foul". I have no love loss for the "cable" companies but Netflix and other such services are said to use 60% of the available bandwidth. They are using an already developed infrastructure and offering a product that increasingly taxes that infrastructure. Yet no one is willing to pay to keep that infrastructure in place. Take the "you didn't build this" statement. This was used to defend the fact that big businesses use the roads and infrastructure more than John Q Public. Raise the taxes on those evil businesses right; they are the ones using it the most. Everyone grab a pitchfork, let’s go get 'em. It's okay for the Government to go after the "high user" but not a business? I understand also that Netflix was very shrewd in recognizing the changes in viewer’s habits and now the cable companies are scrambling to catch up. To do this, catch up, they are screwing with our plans. ATT now offers a streaming only package. Now you have to pay for both services (Internet/Media) but there is a change coming. Netflix is just way ahead of the curve on this one because they don’t/didn’t have to pay to get the media to your device, only to provide it. If a hotel went up down the street form you and all of a sudden your taxes went up to develop the water/sewer lines that could handle the new flow we'd all be screaming for the hotel to pay for it, they caused the problem. Look, I don't have an answer; I just think this one is wrought with problems. Why, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THESE PEOPLE PROPOSE!!!!!!!! *I’m Bronco-Bama and I approve this message*

daddit

Great analogy! I think part of the confusion is that we are really talking about the opposite of net neutrality. Unfortunately, no one has come up with a catchy term for "tiered internet access"

daddit

What happens when people hear about this all you can eat ice cream deal, and the ice cream store becomes wildly popular, especially the peanut butter chocolate chip flavor? Unfortunately, there are only a limited straws available, and the supply for the peanut butter chocolate chip is so limited, people can only get a sip at a time. Pinched off, not because of the ice cream stores greed, but because the consumer is piling all over themselves to get more and more peanut butter chocolate chip ice cream. Everyone is now complaining that they can't get enough peanut butter chocolate chip ice team, but buying and producing more straws is very expensive. So the ice cream store is stuck. Maybe they should just get rid of the peanut butter chocolate chip ice cream? Or charge more for the peanut butter chocolate chip ice cream?

daddit

Forget the milkshake, have the tall latte. -Google Fiber

daddit

Imagine if for some reason you had only 1 or 2 choices from strawproviders. What if you had more straw providers. You could then choose from those that wouldnt pinch your straw.

daddit

Could you extend it a bit further to explain ice cream stores that have paid the straw man so he doesn't pinch their end? Or how the straw man has his own ice cream available that he won't pinch off?

daddit

Hmm I wonder if you can use milkshakes as an analogy for other things. Try oil drainage for example!

daddit

You had me at 'Pretend ice cream stores gave away free milkshakes.'

daddit

comcast annouces they'll branch to straw production and renting, straws that won't be given back in optimal condition will cause a 550$ fee that will grow by 250% for every day it's not paid

daddit

Eh, I still like CGP Grey's voice.

daddit

Imagine all the buffering going on in that straw.

daddit

Almost, the straw guy says if you buy HIS milkshake, he won't pinch the straw, or if the shop pays him per flavor, he won't pinch for most people, unless he's busy or its a popular day to drink milkshakes, then everyone gets their straw pinched just a little unless they pay a little more.

daddit

I tried to explain it (to another adult) as we're (consumers) already paying for the content (netflix) *AND* delivery (ISP service). If delivery people charge content providers more, they will simply pass the charges on to consumers. It's not like they will eat those charges.

daddit

This only explains half the issue. The other half is "what to do about it". One possible method is to have a government regulator tell the guy with the straw how much to charge for the straw, and exactly how much he can pinch it. Over time, the guy with the straws will get his own lobbyists appointed to the regulatory body, and they will do things like require the straws to be a certain color, made out of certain materials, sold at certain times of day, and prohibit the use of spoons or sipping to eat milkshakes. This will ensure that the straw guy never gets any competition. Another method is to break up the straw man's company into several competing companies, who have an incentive to build wider and/or longer straws and compete on price for the straws as well as how much you can suck through one.

daddit

Ya he definitely didn't say that.

daddit

That was far to clear and succinct to be a 9-year-old. It's missing an infinite number of "ahs" and "ums."

daddit

Is your son Daniel Day-Lewis?

daddit

Can we please have some cartoonist illustrate this. I think the kid would feel greatly appreciate that!

daddit

I vote we abandon r/ELI5 and just send all questions to your son.

daddit

I drink your milkshake.

daddit

Internet Freedom Act, stop pinching my straw

daddit

Wait I can happily eat Ice cream without a straw. So wheres the ice cream without the douchebag straw guy? Anyone? Can this happen?

daddit

Are you sure your wife wasn't knocked up by CGPGrey?

daddit

Straws are tubes. Analogy checks out.

daddit

Ah, an Albert Einstein post.

daddit

You sir, did a good job with that boy.

daddit

This is the first time I've understood the concept. I hope your son becomes a teacher one day

daddit

That's awesome-sauce.

daddit

Still wondering why I pay for cable and still watch gobs of commercials.

daddit

This is perfect!

daddit

This is the part where I give the guy the finger and take the lid off my milkshake and eat it with a spoon.

daddit

I feel like your son may have a bright future in teaching, and I really mean that. Creating simple analogies to help someone relate to more complex ideas is an incredibly effective teaching technique, and he certainly appears to have a natural ability for it.

daddit

"I drink your milkshake! (sluuuurrrrp) I drink it up!"

daddit

/r/thathappened

daddit

TIL how net neutrality works.

daddit

The straw sellers are just going to reply that they are not pinching your straw, they are just allowing some ice cream stores to have bigger straws if they pay the straw company. (I know there is evidence that they actually did pinch the straw for Netflix, but I feel in general this would be their counterargument.)

daddit

Oh no I'm sure they understand net neutrality just fine. The problem is that their heads are too far up Comcast's and Verizon' asses to see the light of day.

daddit

More accurately: You have the free milkshake (with free refills) and the paid straw, but you want to the milkshake faster. So you try to buy another straw and the straw guy says "no". The straw guy is saying "no", because he doesn't want to give you more free refills. EDIT: And the analogy is really about peering agreements, not net neutrality.

daddit

Your son is smarter than the rest of Reddit combined. That's an excellent analogy.

daddit

Except now instead of paying the mean straw guy, you'll be paying a guy in a suit from the government who will do the exact same thing but in the name of "fairness." Not much will change on our end, but people will think they won something because the federal government is always more efficient and fair than a corporation right?

daddit

So forgive me for not understanding this and be easy on me but can someone please clarify the actors roles in this? Person drinking the straw is the customer aka you and me. The person selling and pinching the straws is the devil aka Comcast (or another isp) who is the ice cream store?

daddit

Great analogy, except the milkshakes aren't free and unlimited and the straws connect your milkshake to your lips over hundreds and thousands of miles. Also, there are others who compete to sell you straws and government regulates the straw industry. I see now why so many people are confused on net neutrality. people with the IQ of a shoe are explaining shit to their 9 year old children, who are then passing that information along to others like it's a bad game of telephone.

daddit

[deleted]

daddit

The only difference, it's not that straight forward. While I fully support net neutrality, what I have been faced with is the fact that when this was passed or being passed the government always finds a way to twist it. The bill submitted gave the government more control and power over the internet, which is what we don't want. So while we took away the the rights of ISP's to limit service, we gave the government more control over the internet.

daddit

I think he didn't. This analogy vastly oversimplifies the complexity of peering agreements.

daddit

>And the straw guy says, "I don't care. I just want more money." And the Republicans say wanting more money is good...unless you're a worker who has to buy straws.

daddit

Yeah, sorry, but your son did not come up with that analogy himself.

daddit

Expanded a little: I'm hearing a lot of misleading ads and retororic about net neutrality. Here's a pretty good explanation of what net neutrality means from the mouth of a 9-year old: Pretend an ice cream stores gave away free milkshakes. But you had to buy a straw from a guy outside in order to drink them. But that's okay, because you still get free milkshakes. One day you're drinking a free milkshake and you look down and the guy that sold you the straw is pinching it almost shut. You can still get your milkshake, but it's really hard and takes a lot longer. So you say, "Hey! Stop that!" And the straw guy says, "NO! Not until the ice cream store pays me money." And you say, "But I already paid you money for the straw." And the straw guy says, "I don't care. I just want more money." Despite what you may have heard, the FCC regulations allow the FCC to to stop the guy from pinching the straw. The regs don't tell the ice cream store what flavor you have to buy. They don't tell you what flavor you have to drink, or what kind of cup or straw you need to use drink it. And, the regs don't allow the FCC to check to see whether you are drinking a a milk shake or a root beer float. They also make sure that the state you live in can't pass laws that make sure that the straw vendor is the only person who can sell you the straw. Put simply, the FCC regs are pretty good for the consumer of internet (you and me) and not so good for people who want to charge you a lot for a service and then hold that service hostage so they can make more money (internet providers).

daddit

My straw reaches acrrroooooooooooosss the room. And it starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake. I drink it up.

daddit

I'm loving all the long winded responses trying to outdo the 9 year old!

daddit

Yea this has nothing to do with net neutrality at all. >Pretend ice cream stores gave away free milkshakes. But you had to buy a straw to drink them. But that's okay, because you still get free milkshakes. That isn't quite how it works at all. The ice cream store is the ISP I am assuming here and the straw would be the line to your house with the milkshake being data with rate of flow being your paid for connection rate. Technically you are sharing your straw with tons of other people who are also fighting to consume different flavors. >One day you're drinking a free milkshake and you look down and the guy that sold you the straw is pinching it almost shut. You can still get your milkshake, but it's really hard and takes a lot longer. That is called throttling and has nothing to do with anything that occurred with net neutrality. There was a dispute between a few isps and netflix. Netflix was trying to freely push more data than it paid to be able to do. Basically The ice cream supplier was trying to force the ice cream company to take way too much ice cream than it could handle and wanted the ice cream store to pay for the larger freezers for it. >So you say, "Hey! Stop that!" And the straw guy says, "NO! Not until the ice cream store pays me money." And you say, "But I already paid you money for the straw." And the straw guy says, "I don't care. I just want more money." Gross misunderstanding of what you are paying for and the situation at hand.

daddit

The flaw in this argument is that all straws are the same. /awaiting downvotes

daddit

Lol yeah I bet a fucking 9 year old came up with that.

daddit

Another analogy (for a different aspect of the Net Neutrality question) that we came up with, my students (I teach 12y.olds) and I, during a discussion on the topic, was based on the idea of a Theme Park. Imagine you want to visit a Theme Park. There's tons of attractions and games, and it's all wonderful. You have difference travel agencies that organize the trip to that Theme Park, but once you're in, you can go everywhere. Some attractions are free, some cost an additional fee for more content, but that's all benefitting the owners of the attraction, and they provide great entertainment and fun for everybody. One day in the future, you go to the park with your favorite agency. You paid the trip, you arrive. You start having fun in some attractions, when suddenly, you get denied access to a specific one you wanted to try by one of the people from your travel agency. "Sorry, people coming with us to the Park aren't allowed on this attraction. You can however pay an additional fee to us, and we'll give you access to the attraction." "But, the attraction itself has a fee." "Yup." "So, I have to pay YOU and the owners of the attraction for something THEY provide?" "Yup." Meanwhile, people from another agency can easily access this attraction as part of their "trip package". When it starts getting scary is when some attractions become absolutely exclusive to a certain travel agency, because they made a deal with the owners. In the end, nobody will be able to access the whole park, only certain attractions depending on what agency they went with, and it will become a race to get the big popular attractions under your grip, which will then allow you to blow up the price of your trip package because it becomes more attractive. This analogy is nowhere near as concise and poetic as the one in the OP, but it gives a different look on another very problematic aspect of letting corporations get a hold on the Internet.

daddit

except it's not a real good analogy. as soon as you have the milkshake in your hands, you can just drink it from the cup, at whatever rate you can.

daddit

Except it doesn't take 300 pages of regulations passed in secrecy to prevent that. Hmmmmm, what else could be in the regulatory scheme I wonder.

daddit

Cute. Let me finish that for you: The ice cream store could pay the straw guy $1/mo and then charge $1/mo to you, but they don't think that's fair. Why should their customers have to pay $1 per month? They pay a policeman to rough up the straw guy. From now on the policeman will hover over straw guy and dictate how big the straws need to be. Of course, this all costs money... The policeman charges the straw guy $7/mo per customer to provide this service. Also he tells the straw guy to start providing bigger straws without charging the ice cream shop. "Charge the customers instead." Now you have to pay an additional $8/mo for your straw ($7 for monitoring and $1 for the straw upgrade). This may appear on your bill as a "statutory compliance fee" or "universal recovery fee". Also, since the policeman is standing there, he records everything you drink and takes a taste whenever he wants. --- The ice cream store is elated, because they have saved their customers $1/mo without increasing their subscription costs. Customers now pay $8 for $1 worth of extra service, but they don't know where the money goes. The policeman gains 10 pounds and buys a retirement home in Hilton Head.

daddit

That is a wrong explanation of net neutrality. That is talking about ISP throttling, and otherwise network "management" topic. Net Neutrality is/was a contractual clause built-in to the early peering & transit relationships between two parties who interconnect. This practice started back in the early 1990s, and basicly E.G. A city with two university, one university had great access to east coast, and another had great west coast connectivity. So they would interconnect, and exchange packets with a mutual benefit of both having greater access to the internet (less hops, improved bandwidth, better route redundancy). The peering relationships in the early internet days were not cost free, so the two peers were paying for the hookup mutually, and in that same vain they stipulated that either side would not manage the packets flowing from the other. Alas, Net Neutral clause. You ISP is not a peering relationship, and you have zero network neutrality with your ISP. People attempt to attach ISP throttling to the term "net neutrality" as if that is some umbrella statement we can apply to anything. It is not. PRetty much the same thing has happened to the term "prioritization". The term means two things depending who you ask. A network engineer it is a packet header that specifies the priority of a packet, and those are largely ignored on the open internet. Then comes the FCC's new kind of prioritization, a massive stretch... where companies like Netflix pay to have their CDN networks connect to the ISP. That is tantamount to de facto prioritization because it bypasses a great many router hops, and ISP border management. The FCC supposedly just put an end to that, by making that mandatory another way. Now clandestine ISP are given access to utility infrastructure under title-2. But NEtflix is not a clandestine ISP, but Google Fiber is. So we are gaining exactly zero, and Netflix still wants to pay for "prioritization" aka direct transit services. The bottom line concept is that Net Neutrality is changing because the internet is not young anymore, there are establish networks, and the peering/transit arrangements are not mutually beneficial. Only beneficial to one party, and a service provided by the other. So that contract clause is meaning less. TL;DR, Net neutrality is classically a contract clause of old school internet. Covered by contract law, not FCC regulation.

daddit

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. You idiots who think this has anything to do with internet speed and how fast you get your information are too far into the kool-aid to continue to read this post. NET NEUTRALITY is all about the control of information, if you people would read the actual regulation instead of reading what people are putting up on the net and listening to the politicians you'd realize that regulating the internet is the wet dream of every government. Much like the ACA, net neutrality isn't about making anything less expensive or easier to use, you will have to buy a licence to own a web page. If you do not have a licence to run your website you will be like that pirate radio station back in the 60's and 70's playing rock n roll on a pirate station, the government will come after you and put you in jail. Think about what they are doing to Kim Dotcom, or anyone else who pirates information. The control of information is the final solution of net neutrality. Prices will rise, speeds will slow and then we will be saying Shit like, remember when we could download all day long and not worry about going broke. You people have got a lot to learn about the politicians and the Washington way. Just because the name on the bill sounds good, it is usually anything but.