View source for Net Neutrality (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)

{{For|the follow-up segment|Net Neutrality II}}
{{Infobox television episode
| series         = [[Last Week Tonight with John Oliver]]
| season         = 1
| episode        = 5
| segment        = yes
| presenter      = [[John Oliver (comedian)|John Oliver]]
| airdate        = {{Start date|2014|06|01}}
| length         = 13 minutes
| episode_list   = List of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver episodes
}}
"'''Net Neutrality'''" is the first segment devoted to [[net neutrality in the United States]] of the [[HBO]] news satire television series ''[[Last Week Tonight with John Oliver]]''. It aired for 13 minutes on June 1, 2014, as part of the fifth episode of ''Last Week Tonight''<nowiki/>'s first season.

During this segment, as well Oliver's follow-up segment entitled "[[Net Neutrality II]]", comedian [[John Oliver (comedian)|John Oliver]] discusses the threats to [[net neutrality]]. Under the [[Presidency of Barack Obama|administration]] of President [[Barack Obama]], the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC) was considering two options for net neutrality in early 2014. The FCC proposed permitting fast and slow broadband lanes, which would compromise net neutrality, but was also considering reclassifying broadband as a telecommunication service, which would preserve net neutrality.{{Citation Needed|date=February 2024}} After a surge of comments supporting net neutrality that were inspired by Oliver's episode, the FCC voted to reclassify broadband as a utility in 2015.

==Context==
[[File:John_Oliver_November_2016.jpg|thumb|[[John Oliver]] (pictured in 2016), the host of ''Last Week Tonight'']]

===''Last Week Tonight''===
Prior to the 2014 segment about net neutrality, ''Last Week Tonight'' had only aired four episodes, all of which were complex investigations of obscure problems. ''Bloomberg News'' called ''Last Week Tonight''<nowiki/>'s approach "hardly a tried-and-true recipe for TV success."<ref name=":0">{{Cite news|url=http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20150226/entertainment/150229893/how-john-oliver-transformed-net-neutrality-debate|title=How John Oliver transformed Net neutrality debate|date=February 26, 2015|work=Crain's New York Business|access-date=2017-09-11|publisher=Bloomberg News}}</ref> The late ''New York Times'' columnist [[David Carr (journalist)|David Carr]] commented that prior to the net neutrality segment, he thought Oliver's comedic style would "never work."<ref name=":1">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/business/media/john-olivers-complicated-fun-connects-for-hbo.html|title=John Oliver's Complicated Fun Connects for HBO|last=Carr|first=David|date=2014-11-16|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-09-11|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref>

===2014 fast-lane proposal===
In January 2014, the [[United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia]] provided a ruling in the case of ''[[Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014)|Verizon v. FCC]]'',<ref>[http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/5DFE38F28E7CAC9185257C610074579E/$file/11-1355-1475317.pdf Full text of decision] and [http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/2B05B57390DF805185257C61007457DB/$file/11-1355-1475316.pdf correction]. [[United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia]] (2014).</ref> in which [[Verizon Communications]], an [[internet service provider]] (ISP), sued the Federal Communications Commission for violating its rights under the [[United States Constitution]]. The FCC had passed the [[FCC Open Internet Order 2010|Open Internet Order]] in 2010 following the outcome of ''[[Comcast Corp. v. FCC]]'', where it was found that the FCC could not censure [[Comcast]]'s interference with their customers' [[peer-to-peer]] traffic.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/business/media/21fcc.html|title=Verizon Sues F.C.C. over Order on Blocking Web Sites|last=Wyatt|first=Edward|date=2011|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-09-11|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The order was meant as a further step toward ensuring net neutrality in the sense that ISPs could not block or discriminate against lawfully operated websites, apps, or web services.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-201A1.pdf|title=Preserving the Open Internet|last=Federal Communications Commission|date=December 23, 2010|work=Policy Statement|accessdate=September 11, 2017}}</ref> The ruling in ''Verizon v. FCC'' was that the FCC could not enforce net neutrality rules as long as service providers were not identified as "common carriers".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules|title=Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules|last=Robertson|first=Adi|date=2014-01-14|website=The Verge|accessdate=January 14, 2014}}</ref> However, the FCC was given permission to regulate broadband and craft more specific rules that stop short of identifying service providers as common carriers.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/net-neutrality-is-half-dead-court-strikes-down-fccs-anti-blocking-rules/|title=Net neutrality is half-dead: Court strikes down FCC's anti-blocking rules|date=2014-01-14|website=Ars Technica|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref>

The ruling created a dispute as to whether net neutrality could be guaranteed under existing law, or if reclassification of ISPs was needed to ensure net neutrality.<ref name="dispute">{{cite news|url=http://www.dailydot.com/politics/what-is-title-ii-net-neutrality-fcc/|title=Title II is the key to net neutrality—so what is it?|last=Berkman|first=Fran|date=May 20, 2014|newspaper=The Daily Dot|accessdate=November 13, 2014}}</ref> FCC chair [[Tom Wheeler]] stated that the FCC had the authority under Section 706 of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]] to regulate ISPs. However, others including President [[Barack Obama]] supported reclassifying ISPs using the [[Communications Act of 1934]]. Their reclassification would move ISPs from being a general provision, which fell under the act's Title I, to a [[common carrier]], which fell under the act's Title II.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html|title=Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules|last=Wyatt|first=Edward|date=November 10, 2014|newspaper=The New York Times|accessdate=November 13, 2014}}</ref> Critics of Section 706 pointed out that the section has no clear mandate to guarantee equal access to content provided over the [[internet]], while subsection 202(a) of the Communications Act stated that common carriers cannot "make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services." Advocates of net neutrality generally supported reclassifying ISPs under Title II, while FCC leadership and ISPs generally opposed such reclassification. The FCC stated that if they reclassified ISPs as common carriers, the commission would selectively enforce Title II, so that only sections relating to broadband would apply to ISPs.<ref name="dispute" />

In April 2014, the FCC proposed a set of new regulations that, among other things, would allow for ISPs to levy charges on websites in exchange for faster connection speeds.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-61A1.pdf|title=NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING|date=May 15, 2014|publisher=[[Federal Communications Commission]]|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref>{{Rp|3&ndash;4}}<ref name=":4">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html|title=F.C.C., in a Shift, Backs Fast Lanes for Web Traffic|last=Wyatt|first=Edward|date=2014-04-23|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-09-11|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> The "fast lane", as the proposal was called,<ref name=":3">{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/fcc-proposal-would-allow-broadband-providers-to-charge-content-companies-for-special-access-to-consumers-1398281412|title=FCC to Propose New 'Net Neutrality' Rules|last=Nagesh|first=Gautham|date=2014-04-24|work=Wall Street Journal|access-date=2017-09-11|language=en-US|issn=0099-9660}}</ref> would prioritize that website's internet connection over those of other websites that did not pay, although the ISP could not outright block web users from accessing websites that did not pay for "fast lanes".<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|3&ndash;4}} In addition, in enacting these "fast lanes", ISPs had to divulge whether they were promoting the content of [[Sponsor (commercial)|sponsors]] or [[Affiliate (commerce)|affiliates]].<ref name=":2" />{{Rp|6}}<ref name=":4" /> This was at least the FCC's third attempt to create internet fast lanes.<ref name=":3" /> By May 2014, the FCC was considering two options: permitting fast and slow broadband lanes, thereby compromising net neutrality; or reclassifying broadband as a [[telecommunication]] service, thereby preserving net neutrality.<ref name=":5">{{Cite magazine|url=http://time.com/101418/fcc-fast-lane-net-neutrality/|title=FCC Votes to Move Forward on Internet 'Fast Lane'|last=Edwards|first=Haley Sweetland|date=May 15, 2014|magazine=Time|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/searching-for-fairness-on-the-internet.html|title=Searching for Fairness on the Internet|date=2014-05-15|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-09-11|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Draft plans for the "fast-lane" option were approved, with three Democratic FCC commissioners voting to have the public review the proposal, and two Republican communications voting against public feedback.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/fcc-votes-for-internet-fast-lanes-but-could-change-its-mind-later/|title=FCC votes for Internet "fast lanes" but could change its mind later|date=2014-05-15|website=Ars Technica|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref>

The FCC's proposal was heavily criticized for its two-tier, preferential system, whose very core would go against the principle of net neutrality. The director of the [[Common Cause]] organization's Media and Democracy Reform Initiative compared the FCC proposal to "[[toll road]]s" that "represent Washington at its worst."<ref name=":4" /> A reporter for ''[[The Verge]]'' wrote that these regulations "would destroy net neutrality" precisely because it slowed down traffic.<ref name="Kastrenakes 2014">{{cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/4/23/5644246/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules-draft-coming-in-may|title=FCC proposal would destroy net neutrality|last=Kastrenakes|first=Jacob|date=2014-04-23|website=The Verge|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref> In response, Wheeler said that any statements saying that the proposed regulations would restrict the open Internet were "flat out wrong".<ref name=":4" />'

==Episode==
===Description===
{{External media|video2={{YouTube|id=fpbOEoRrHyU|title=''Last Week Tonight with John Oliver'': Net Neutrality (HBO)}}}}
Oliver delivered his 13-minute segment about net neutrality on June 1, 2014, as part of the show's main segment.<ref name="Moss 2014">{{cite web|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/john-oliver-explains-net-neutrality-2014-6|title=John Oliver Hilariously Explains The Dire Importance Of Net Neutrality In A Way That Makes Sense|last=Moss|first=Caroline|date=2014-06-08|website=Business Insider|access-date=2017-09-12}}</ref><ref name="Hartsell 20142">{{cite web|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/02/john-oliver-net-neutrality-last-week-tonight_n_5431215.html|title=John Oliver Calls Upon Internet Trolls To Save Net Neutrality|last=Hartsell|first=Carol|date=2014-06-02|website=HuffPost|access-date=2017-09-12}}</ref> He introduces the subject by praising "the internet, a.k.a. the [[Cats and the Internet|electronic cat database]]," and noting how easy it is to buy merchandise such as coyote urine on the internet compared to if these items were bought in person.<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601" /> Oliver uses the coyote-urine analogy as a way to [[segue]] into a discussion of Wheeler's net-neutrality proposal. He pans "net neutrality" as a seemingly uninteresting topic,<ref name="Moss 2014" /> saying that videotaped FCC meetings about the issue might seem very boring "even by [[C-SPAN]] standards." Oliver then introduces the concept of net neutrality as something where all data is given the same priority regardless of its creator. He states that the Internet's relative equality, up to that point, had allowed [[startup company|startup companies]] to supersede bigger companies.<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601">{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpbOEoRrHyU|title=Net Neutrality|date=June 1, 2014|publisher=[[HBO]]|via=[[YouTube]]|last=Oliver|first=John|author-link=John Oliver|accessdate=September 11, 2017}}</ref><ref name="Moss 2014" />

Oliver introduces the topic of how "the Internet is not broken, and the FCC is taking steps to fix that". The segment then displays some news clippings and broadcasts that explain the FCC's priority-lane proposal. Oliver returns onto the segment, and he protests vehemently against the proposed rules, jokingly stating that the rules would ensure "my startup video streaming service, Nutflix, a one-stop resource for videos of men getting hit in the [[Testicle|nuts]]", would not be able to compete with larger companies like [[Netflix]].<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601"/> He then takes a more serious approach, stating that the proposal would allow large ISPs such as Verizon and [[Comcast]] to buy the "fast-lane" data more easily compared to smaller ISPs with fewer funds. Oliver rebuts a telecommunication lawyer's claim that it would be a "fast-lane-versus-hyperspeed-lane" contrast, stating that the proposed rules were more comparable to Olympic gold medalist sprinter [[Usain Bolt]] versus "Usain bolted to an anchor".<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601"/>

The comedian refutes telecommunications companies' claims that they would not slow down other web traffic to get more internet users to subscribe to their services instead. Oliver points out an example in which Comcast slowed down Netflix download speeds in 2013 and 2014 unless Netflix paid Comcast a smooth-streaming fee.<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601" /> From October 2013 until Netflix finally agreed to pay in February 2014,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-improve-its-streaming-1393175346|title=Netflix to Pay Comcast for Smoother Streaming|last=Ramachandran|first=Shalini|date=2014-02-24|work=Wall Street Journal|access-date=2017-09-25|language=en-US|issn=0099-9660}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/02/23/comcasts-deal-with-netflix-makes-network-neutrality-obsolete/|title=Comcast's deal with Netflix makes network neutrality obsolete|last=Lee|first=Timothy B.|date=2014-02-23|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-09-25|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Netflix download speeds for Comcast customers had slowed up to 25%, compared to on other ISPs where download speeds had consistently increased in the same time period.<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://qz.com/256586/the-inside-story-of-how-netflix-came-to-pay-comcast-for-internet-traffic/|title=The inside story of how Netflix came to pay Comcast for internet traffic|last=Seward|first=Zachary M.|work=Quartz|access-date=2017-09-25|language=en-US}}</ref> Oliver compared it to a "mob shakedown."<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601" />

The comedian then says that the fight to keep net neutrality is so important that pro-net-neutrality activists are on the same side as corporations like [[Google]], [[Netflix]], [[Amazon.com|Amazon]], and [[Facebook]], an alliance which Oliver describes as very unlikely. He compares this to [[Lex Luthor]] knocking on his nemesis [[Superman]]'s apartment door for an offer to team up to "get rid of the asshole in apartment 3B". Oliver then says that the only entities that would benefit from the rule change were the cable companies who are lobbying Congress, including Comcast, who is the second-largest congressional lobbyist. Oliver says that President [[Barack Obama]] had been seen golfing with Comcast's CEO [[Brian L. Roberts|Brian Roberts]], as well as invited Roberts to a fundraiser dinner. He also states that Obama's nomination of Tom Wheeler, a former cable and wireless lobbyist, for the FCC Chairman position was "the equivalent of needing a babysitter and hiring a [[dingo]]".<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601"/>

Oliver cites a 2010 FCC report on broadband, and says that 96% of Americans have at most two cable broadband providers to choose from.<ref>{{cite book|url=http://www.broadband.gov/plan/4-broadband-competition-and-innovation-policy/#s4-1|title=Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan|publisher=[[Federal Communications Commission]]|date=2010|accessdate=2017-11-28|chapter=Chapter 4: Broadband Competition and Innovation Policy}}</ref> The segment then displays a clip of Roberts saying that if Comcast were to merge with another major ISP like Time Warner, there would be no reduction in competition. Oliver responds, "you could not be describing a monopoly more clearly if you were wearing a metal top hat", a [[Game piece (board game)|player token]] used in the game ''[[Monopoly (game)|Monopoly]]''.<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601"/> Then the segment shows a graphic of [[Speedtest.net|Ookla Speed Test]] that shows a list of countries, sorted by their average broadband speed. The U.S., ranking 31st on the list, had an average speed slower than [[Estonia]], a country Oliver described as "still worried about [[Shrek (character)|Shrek]] attacks".<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601"/> Oliver goes on to point out that Comcast and Time Warner had the lowest customer satisfaction ratings of any corporation in America, according to the quarterly [[American Customer Satisfaction Index]] that was released two weeks prior to the segment.<ref>{{cite web | last=Reed | first=Brad | title=Massive survey finds Comcast and TWC are the two most hated companies in America – period | website=BGR | date=2014-05-20 | url=http://bgr.com/2014/05/20/comcast-twc-customer-satisfaction-survey-study/ | access-date=2017-11-28}}</ref> He says that ISPs were not being truthful when they said they are committed to an open internet, and that representatives for the ISPs describe their plans in such a boring way that it goes unnoticed by many Americans. Oliver quips, "The cable companies have figured out the great truth of America: if you want to do something evil, put it inside something boring", comparing it to [[Apple Inc.]] putting ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' inside their [[End-user license agreement|user agreement]].<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601"/>

At the end of the segment, Oliver displays the web address for the FCC's comment section. He delivers an exhortation toward "the Internet commenters out there", saying that "we need you to get out there and, for once in your life, focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction. Seize your moment, my lovely trolls, turn on caps lock, and fly my pretties! Fly! Fly!"<ref name="youtube-lwt20140601"/><ref name=":8"/>

===Aftermath===
The segment received 800,000 views on [[YouTube]] in two days,<ref name=":11">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/03/john-oliver-fcc-website-net-neutrality|title=John Oliver's cheeky net neutrality plea crashes FCC website|last=Holpuch|first=Amanda|date=2014-06-03|work=The Guardian|access-date=2017-11-22|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077}}</ref> while the TV broadcast saw over 1 million views.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/john-olivers-net-neutrality-rallying-cry-swamps-fcc/|title=John Oliver's Net neutrality response swamps FCC|last=Solsman|first=Joan E.|date=2014-06-03|work=CNET|access-date=2017-11-22|language=en}}</ref> The segment was thought to spur over 45,000 comments on the FCC's electronic filing page about the net neutrality proposal. The FCC also received an extra 300,000 comments in an email inbox designated specifically for the proposal. By comparison, the proposal with the second highest number of comments had 2,000 such responses.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/03/318458496/john-oliver-helps-rally-45-000-net-neutrality-comments-to-fcc|title=John Oliver Helps Rally 45,000 Net Neutrality Comments To FCC|last=Hu|first=Elise|date=June 3, 2014|work=NPR|access-date=2017-09-12|language=en}}</ref> The day after the episode, the FCC comment page experienced a surge in traffic.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":8">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/04/john-olivers-net-neutrality-rant-may-have-caused-fcc-site-crash/|title=John Oliver's net neutrality rant may have caused FCC site crash|last=McDonald|first=Soraya Nadia|date=2014-06-04|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-09-25|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286}}</ref> Shortly after the first segment aired, the FCC website [[Crash (computing)|crashed]],<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=http://time.com/2817567/john-oliver-net-neutrality-fcc/|title=John Oliver's Net Neutrality Rant Crashes FCC Servers|last=Aamoth|first=Doug|date=June 5, 2014|magazine=Time|access-date=2017-11-22}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/2014/06/03/last-week-tonight-net-neutrality/|title=Congratulations, internet: you collapsed part of the FCC website with comments|last=Gilbert|first=Ben|date=2014-06-03|website=Engadget|access-date=2017-12-12}}</ref> and ''Last Week Tonight'' viewers noted that the website's commenting function was not working.<ref name=":11" /> A spokeswoman for the FCC said that it was "unclear if the high volume was directly related to the John Oliver segment".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://variety.com/2014/biz/news/john-oliver-crashes-fcc-net-neutrality-1201210405/|title=John Oliver Crashes FCC Comments System After Net Neutrality Segment|last=Johnson|first=Ted|date=2014-06-03|work=Variety|access-date=2017-11-22|language=en-US}}</ref>

''[[Bloomberg News]]'' wrote that even though the segment was only a small part of the net-neutrality debate, as compared to the [[electronic mailing list]]s convincing tens of millions of people to vote against the proposed rules, it "gave a bump to a political movement" and ultimately helped to reverse the FCC's position in regards to net neutrality.<ref name=":0" /> Soraya Nadia McDonald of ''[[The Washington Post]]'' stated that Oliver "may be just the firebrand activist we’re looking for" in regards to the net-neutrality debate.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":0" /> Terrance F. Ross of ''[[The Atlantic]]'' wrote, "John Oliver’s segment on net neutrality this past June perfectly summed up what his HBO show ''Last Week Tonight'' is so good at: transcending apathy."<ref name="atlantic20140614">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/08/how-john-oliver-is-procuring-latent-activism/376036/|title=How John Oliver Beats Apathy|last=Ross|first=Terrance F.|date=2014-08-14|work=The Atlantic|access-date=2017-11-22|language=en-US}}</ref>

Not all commentators had positive reviews of the segment. Jon Healey of the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' wrote that "Oliver misled his audience badly on a couple of key points", saying that the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|federal courts]] would not allow the FCC to unfairly discriminate between different forms of web traffic; that large ISPs would not need the new rules to implement a speed-tiered system; and that Wheeler had left open the possibility of outlawing the ISPs' promotion of certain websites for a fee. He stated that in the case of Netflix versus Comcast, the problem had been a third-party [[transit provider]] who had argued with Comcast over the price and amount of data that the ISP would provide.<ref>{{cite web | last=Healey | first=Jon | title=John Oliver finds humor in net neutrality, but loses the facts | work=Los Angeles Times | date=2014-06-05 | url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-john-oliver-gets-net-neutrality-wrong-20140604-story.html | access-date=2017-11-29}}</ref> Robert McMillan of ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' said that "complaints about a fast-lane don't make much sense" because large websites like Google and Facebook already benefited from "fast lanes", albeit in the form of large servers embedded in the ISPs' [[Internet exchange point]]s. He wrote that instead of advocating against a change that had already occurred, internet users should look for ways to increase ISPs' competitiveness.<ref>{{cite magazine | last=McMillan | first=Robert | title=What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality | magazine=WIRED | date=2014-06-23 | url=https://www.wired.com/2014/06/net_neutrality_missing/ | access-date=2017-11-29}}</ref>

Chairman Wheeler himself responded to the segment, praising it as "creative" but saying "I am not a dingo".<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-responds-john-oliver-net-neutrality-rant-not-dingo-article-1.1830359|title=FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler responds to John Oliver's net neutrality rant: 'I am not a dingo'|last=Sorrentino|first=Michael|date=June 14, 2014|work=NY Daily News|access-date=2017-11-22|language=en}}</ref><ref name="Risen 2014">{{cite web|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2014/06/13/fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler-i-am-not-a-dingo|title=FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: 'I Am Not a Dingo'|last=Risen|first=Tom|date=2014-06-13|website=U.S. News & World Report|access-date=2017-11-22}}</ref> Wheeler said, "I think that it represents the high level of interest that exists in the topic in the country, and that's good."<ref name=":0" /><ref name="Risen 2014" /> However, he also stated that the segment did not talk about the FCC's plan to reinstate the open-internet protections that had been halted in an appeals court earlier that year.<ref name="Risen 2014" />

The [[University of Delaware]]'s [[University of Delaware Center for Political Communication|Center for Political Communication]] conducted a study in which it concluded that viewers of late-night shows were generally more informed about the net neutrality issue than regular [[cable news]] viewers.<ref>{{cite web | last=Epstein | first=Adam | title=Fox News viewers are the least informed about net neutrality | website=Quartz | date=2014-11-12 | url=https://qz.com/295530/fox-news-viewers-are-the-least-informed-about-net-neutrality/ | access-date=2017-11-29}}</ref> The study found that knowledge of the net neutrality debate was highest among ''Last Week Tonight'' viewers and lowest among [[Fox News]] viewers. According to the study, 74% of ''Last Week Tonight'' watchers heard about net neutrality, of which 29% heard "a lot" about the issue, compared to 52% of [[Fox News]] watchers, only 7% of which heard "a lot".<ref>{{Cite press release|url=http://www.udel.edu/cpc/research/fall2014/UD-CPC-NatAgenda2014PR_2014NetNeutrality.pdf|title=National survey shows public overwhelmingly opposes "Internet fast lanes"|publisher=University of Delaware Center for Political Communication|date=November 10, 2014|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141119092122/http://www.udel.edu/cpc/research/fall2014/UD-CPC-NatAgenda2014PR_2014NetNeutrality.pdf|archivedate=2014-11-19|url-status=dead|accessdate=2017-11-28|page=2}}</ref>

The "Net Neutrality" segment increased ''Last Week Tonight''<nowiki/>'s viewership to approximately 4 million per episode by the end of the first season,<ref name=":1" /> and contributed to its popularity in [[Late night television in the United States|U.S. late-night television]].<ref name=":0" /> In November 2014, after the season had ended, David Carr of ''The New York Times'' wrote that the show had become "a smash" since the segment first aired. Carr stated that the "Net Neutrality" segment had helped convince FCC leadership to support net neutrality.<ref name=":1" />

=== Effect on net-neutrality debate ===
In September 2014, the [[Pew Research Center]] found that the FCC filing page received 3,076 comments the week before the June 1 segment, and that there were another 79,838 comments posted the week immediately afterward. [[Google Search|Google searches]] for the term "net neutrality" rose in popularity that week compared to the previous and following weeks. Two interns analyzing the data for the Pew Research Center wrote that the sudden rise in the number of comments on the FCC net-neutrality page could not be attributed to [[Television news in the United States|cable]] or [[Newspaper|printed news]] media, since these outlets' coverage of net neutrality was more infrequent than in previous weeks.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/05/what-drove-spike-in-public-comments-on-net-neutrality-likely-a-comedian/|title=What drove spike in public comments on net neutrality? Likely, a comedian|last1=Williams|first1=Alex T.|date=2014-09-05|work=Pew Research Center|access-date=2017-09-15|last2=Shelton|first2=Martin|language=en-US}}</ref> Ultimately, less than 1 percent of the proposal's total 800,000 comments could be classified as "clearly opposed to net neutrality", with the majority either indicating support, taking no particular position, or being irrelevant comments.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://sunlightfoundation.com/2014/09/02/what-can-we-learn-from-800000-public-comments-on-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan/|title=What can we learn from 800,000 public comments on the FCC's net neutrality plan?|date=2014-09-02|work=Sunlight Foundation|access-date=2017-09-15|language=en-US}}</ref>

''The Verge'' later requested that the FCC publish emails related to the ''Last Week Tonight'' episode under the [[Freedom of Information Act (United States)|Freedom of Information Act]]. Of the emails that were released, most were positively critical of the video. In one exchange, a CBS executive sent a link to FCC employees, who joked about "Nutflix" and Usain Bolt. One of the FCC employees said, "We had a good laugh about it. The cable companies... not so much."<ref name=":12">{{Cite news|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7205817/fcc-john-oliver-net-neutrality-emails|title=Read the FCC's internal emails about John Oliver's net neutrality segment|last=Lecher|first=Colin|date=2014-11-13|work=The Verge|access-date=2017-09-11}}</ref> When one reporter satirically asked if Chairman Wheeler commented on the "dingo" quip, an FCC spokesperson said "Hey John, no, no comment on that" with a [[smiley]] emoticon. This prompted Oliver to create a subsequent video parodying the FCC's response.<ref name=":12" /><ref name="youtube-lwt20140615">{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkjkQ-wCZ5A|title=Tom Wheeler Is Not A Dingo|date=June 15, 2014|publisher=[[HBO]]|via=[[YouTube]]|last=Oliver|first=John|author-link=John Oliver|accessdate=September 11, 2017}}</ref>

A Twitter policy spokesman said, "We all agreed that John Oliver’s brilliant net neutrality segment explained a very complex policy issue in a simple, compelling way that had a wider reach than many expensive advocacy campaigns."<ref name=":1" />

On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted to apply the "common carrier" designation of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the internet.<ref name="FCC-20150226">{{cite news|url=http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0226/DOC-332260A1.pdf|title=FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet|author=Staff|date=February 26, 2015|work=[[Federal Communications Commission]]|accessdate=February 26, 2015}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20150226">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html|title=In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility|last1=Ruiz|first1=Rebecca R.|date=February 26, 2015|work=[[New York Times]]|accessdate=February 26, 2015|last2=Lohr|first2=Steve}}</ref><ref name="AP-20150225">{{cite news|url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150225/us--net_neutrality-fact_check-e30cfb560f.html|title=FACT CHECK: Talking heads skew 'net neutrality' debate|last=Flaherty|first=Anne|date=February 25, 2015|work=[[AP News]]|accessdate=February 26, 2015}}</ref> The decision was driven partly because most Americans only had one high-speed internet provider available in their areas.<ref name="NYT-20150225">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/technology/limited-high-speed-internet-choices-underlie-net-neutrality-rules.html|title=The Push for Net Neutrality Arose From Lack of Choice|last=Lohr|first=Steve|date=February 25, 2015|work=[[New York Times]]|accessdate=February 25, 2015}}</ref> On the same day, the FCC also voted to preempt state laws in [[North Carolina]] and [[Tennessee]] that limited the ability of local governments in those states to provide broadband services to potential customers outside of their service areas. While the latter ruling affected only those two states, the FCC indicated that the agency would make similar rulings if it received petitions from localities in other states.<ref name="CIO 20150226">{{cite web|url=http://www.cio.com/article/2889633/fcc-votes-to-overturn-state-laws-limiting-municipal-broadband.html|title=FCC votes to overturn state laws limiting municipal broadband|last=Gross|first=Grant|date=February 26, 2015|accessdate=February 28, 2015|magazine=CIO Magazine|agency=IDG News Service}}</ref> In response to ISPs and opponents, FCC Chairman Wheeler said, "This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concept."<ref name="HP-20150226">{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/26/net-neutrality-fcc-vote_n_6761702.html|title=Net Neutrality Prevails in Historic FCC Vote|last=Liebelson|first=Dana|date=February 26, 2015|work=[[The Huffington Post]]|accessdate=February 27, 2015}}</ref> On March 12, 2015, the FCC released the specific details of its new net neutrality rules,<ref name="NYT-20150312a">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/13/technology/fcc-releases-net-neutrality-rules.html|title=F.C.C. Sets Net Neutrality Rules|last=Ruiz|first=Rebecca R.|date=March 12, 2015|work=[[New York Times]]|accessdate=March 13, 2015}}</ref><ref name="FCC-20150315">{{cite web|url=http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf|title=Federal Communications Commission – FCC 15–24 – In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet – GN Docket No. 14-28 – Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order|author=FCC Staff|date=March 12, 2015|work=[[Federal Communications Commission]]|accessdate=March 13, 2015}}</ref> which included prohibiting content blocking, slower connections to websites, and "fast and slow lanes".<ref name="NYT-20150312b">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/12/technology/net-neutrality-rules-explained.html|title=What the Net Neutrality Rules Say|last=Sommer|first=Jeff|date=March 12, 2015|work=[[New York Times]]|accessdate=March 13, 2015}}</ref> It was thought that Oliver's segment had a major role in the decision, which was the opposite of the FCC's original "lane" proposal.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0226/Net-neutrality-s-stunning-reversal-of-fortune-Is-it-John-Oliver-s-doing|title=Net neutrality's stunning reversal of fortune: Is it John Oliver's doing?|last=Bruinius|first=Harry|date=2015-02-26|work=Christian Science Monitor|access-date=2017-09-15|issn=0882-7729}}</ref> On April 13, 2015, the final rule was published.<ref name="CNET-20150413">{{cite web|url=http://www.cnet.com/news/fccs-net-neutrality-rules-hit-federal-register-lawsuit-underway/|title=Net neutrality rules get published – let the lawsuits begin|last=Reisinger|first=Don|date=April 13, 2015|work=[[CNET]]|accessdate=April 13, 2015}}</ref><ref name="FR-20150413">{{cite web|url=https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/04/13/2015-07841/protecting-and-promoting-the-open-internet|title=Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet – A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/13/2015|author=[[Federal Communications Commission]]|date=April 13, 2015|work=[[Federal Register]]|accessdate=April 13, 2015}}</ref>

=== Updates since "Net Neutrality" ===

After [[Donald Trump]] won the [[2016 United States presidential election]], he appointed Republican FCC board member [[Ajit Pai]] as chairman of the FCC. Pai announced proposals to scrap Title II shortly after his appointment<ref name=":13">{{Cite news|last=Kang|first=Cecilia|date=2017-02-05|title=Trump's F.C.C. Pick Quickly Targets Net Neutrality Rules|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/05/technology/trumps-fcc-quickly-targets-net-neutrality-rules.html|access-date=2017-09-11|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> on the grounds that higher regulation of the internet led to decreased business.<ref name=":6">{{Cite news|last=Kang|first=Cecilia|date=2017-04-26|title=F.C.C. Chairman Pushes Sweeping Changes to Net Neutrality Rules|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/technology/net-neutrality.html|access-date=2017-09-11|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> This marked a turnaround from the previous FCC's position under Chairman Wheeler.<ref name=":6" /> In May 2017, the FCC successfully voted to proceed with a plan to remove the net neutrality rules enacted under the Obama administration.<ref>{{cite web|date=2017-05-19|title=FCC votes to end net neutrality rules|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39973787|access-date=2017-09-11|website=BBC News}}</ref><ref name=":7">{{cite web|date=2017-05-18|title=FCC Votes To Begin Rollback Of Net Neutrality Regulations|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/05/18/528941897/fcc-votes-to-begin-rollback-of-net-neutrality-regulations|access-date=2017-09-12|website=NPR}}</ref> Like the 2014 proposal vote, this vote was also partisan, with one Democratic board member opposing the removal and two Republicans supporting it.<ref name=":7" /><ref>{{cite news|date=2017-05-18|title=FCC votes to start rolling back landmark net neutrality rules|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/05/18/fcc-votes-to-start-rolling-back-landmark-net-neutrality-rules/|access-date=2017-09-11|newspaper=Washington Post}}</ref> The vote caused John Oliver to release a second segment on the subject three years later, entitled "[[Net Neutrality II]]".{{clear}}

==See also==
* [[2014 in American television]]

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

{{Last Week Tonight}}
{{Portal bar|Comedy|Internet|Television|United States}}

[[Category:2014 in American television]]
[[Category:Net neutrality]]
[[Category:Last Week Tonight with John Oliver segments]]