04x11 - Net neutrality II

[bunniefuu]

[bright tone]

[upbeat rock music]

♪ ♪

[cheers and applause]

- Welcome, welcome, welcome

to "Last Week Tonight!"

I'm John Oliver, thank you
so much for joining us.

Let's get right into it,
there's a lot to get through,

and let's begin this week
with New Zealand,

home of the planet's
most worthless bird.

You are nothing.
Look at me.

You are nothing.

The ruling party of New Zealand
has been at the center

of a ridiculous court case
this week.

- The High Court in Wellington
has today been filled

with the sounds of bad boy
American rapper Eminem.

The hip-hop heavyweight's
accused the National Party

of ripping off
one of his biggest hits

for an election campaign ad.

- Here's
Eminem's "Lose Yourself"...

- ♪ If you had... ♪

- And this is National's advert.

[dramatic orchestral beat]

- Yes, as we have mentioned
before on this show,

New Zealand's National Party
has been accused

of ripping off Eminem,

or as they call him, "Eemineem."

And it is unquestionably

the lamest rap beef

since Lil Wayne's five-year feud
with William H. Macy.

Now--now,
the National Party's defense

is that they didn't use Eminem--
they used a different song.

- It was revealed in court

the name of the song
used by National

was "Eminem Esque."

- It's true.

The track they used is
literally called "Eminem Esque,"

and if you are going to rip off
someone else's work,

maybe don't include the name

of the person
you're ripping off.

Call it something less obvious,

like "This May or May Not Be
Copyright Infringement"

or "Please Don't Tell Anyone
About This"

or "Blurred Lines."

But I-I am truly thankful

that neither side backed down
on this,

because this court case has been
everything I needed right now.

Just watch this moment
from the trial on Monday.

- I'm now going to, um, play
the sound recording,

which embodies the musical work
"Lose Yourself."

♪ ♪

- ♪ Look ♪

♪ If you had ♪

♪ One shot ♪

♪ Or one opportunity ♪

♪ To seize
everything you ever wanted ♪

♪ In one moment ♪

♪ Would you capture it ♪

♪ Or just let it slip? ♪

♪ Yo, his palms are sweaty ♪

- That's the greatest thing
I've ever seen.

You know, some define comedy
as tragedy plus time,

but for me,
the purest definition

is a middle-aged Kiwi in a robe
playing Eminem's "Lose Yourself"

to a completely silent
and motionless court room.

And perhaps my favorite thing
about that

is this woman's reaction.

She's silently questioning
every life choice

that led her to this moment

and hopefully not regretting
a single one of them.

But it gets even better,
because that lawyer

for Eminem's music publisher

offered his own
deep interpretation

of the song.

- The idea
of losing yourself in the moment

and not missing opportunities
in life

is closely associated
with the guitar rift

at the beginning of the song

and is why the song appeals
to both the public

and those who wish
to influence the public

by using it in advertising.

- I now want to
hear him describe

every single iconic rap song
in history.

"When the artist Juvenile uses
his incessant drum pattern,

"it eloquently underlines
his central thesis

"that the young woman in
question appears

"pleasing to the eye
and that he,

"the singer,
would very much appreciate it

if she were to back,
if you will, that ass up."

And look,
there is nothing I want more

than to spend
the whole rest of this show

breaking down what is projected
to be a six-day court case,

but sadly, we must move on

to the U.S. House
of Representatives,

basically 434 dorks
and Virginia's Don Beyer.

The guy is a f*cking baller.

Look at him.
He knows.

This week,
the House made big news.

- Our top story tonight:

the House has passed a bill

to repeal and replace Obamacare.

The vote was tight--


- Yes, in a shock move,

the U.S. House passed

the American Health Care Act
by a whisker.

They were so desperate
for votes,

Jason Chaffetz flew in
following foot surgery

with his leg up
on a jaunty scooter,

zipping around
like a corgi with hip dysplasia.

The real shock, though,

was how quickly
all this went down.

Changes were still being made
to the bill this week,

and the CBO, which estimates

the cost and impacts
of proposed laws,

hadn't even had time
to score the final version,

and multiple members of Congress
admitted

they hadn't even read
the whole thing.

- Did you read this entire bill?

- Uh, yeah.

I-I wouldn't say every--
uh, uh, yes,

I turned through every page.

As to whether or not
I-I got through

some of the details
in some of the pages,

no, uh, but yes, I attempted
to read the entire bill.

- Wait,
you turned through every page?

That's not how you read a bill.

That's how you check a bill
for spiders.

"Oh, I can't say
whether this bill will cause

millions to lose insurance,
but it does have

the Mark Sanford
'no spiders' guarantee."

Now, in fairness,

as Congressman Chris Collins
pointed out,

it is not essential
that representatives read

every single word of a bill.

- We rely on our staff,

and we rely on our committees,

and I'm comfortable
that I understand this bill

in its entirety, Wolf,

without poring
through every word,

and, uh,
I'm just being quite honest.

That's the way it is.

- Now, you know what,
that is actually fair.

What really matters
is that politicians like Collins

fully understand
the contents of this bill,

but when the "Buffalo News"
asked him if he knew

that it would cut funding
for a program

providing insurance
to over 600,000

low- and middle-income people
in New York state,

including over 19,000 people

in two counties
that he represents parts of,

he indicated that he didn't

and said, "Explain that to me,"

and okay, I can explain that
to you right now:

this bill could cause
many of your constituents

to get thrown into
an individual marketplace

they cannot afford,
and when they realize that,

they are going to be furious
with you.

Essentially, you f*cked up.

In fact, here is the amount that
you f*cked up shown graphically,

here is you f*cking up
shown in a scatter plot,

and here is
a Precious Moments figurine

explaining exactly
what you just did.

Have I explained this
clearly enough?

Maybe ask your staff
to read what she's holding

and tell you what it means.

Now--now, we've talked
multiple times on this show

about everything that was bad

with the previous version
of this bill,

a bill, incidentally,
that was estimated to result

in 24 million fewer Americans

having insurance
after ten years,

and the bill that passed
this week had all of the things

that were bad
about the last one,

with a particularly
unpleasant addition.

- The Republican bill
would roll back

the Affordable Care Act's
protections

for patients
with pre-existing conditions.

Health insurers would
still have to cover them,

but the bill includes
a mechanism

allowing insurance companies
to raise rates

on those patients.

- Yes, they took a bad thing

and managed
to make it even worse.

It's like watching Mariah
Carey's "Glitter" and saying,

"You know what this needs?

Jar Jar Binks."

And look, look,

Republicans are currently saying

that no one
can be denied coverage

for pre-existing conditions
under this bill,

but the truth is,
if you have one

and there is a gap
in your coverage

for any reason,

you could be charged a lot more,

potentially so much more

that coverage becomes
unaffordable.

It's like if your daughter asks,

"Can I have a cookie?"

And you say, "Sure,
that'll be $1.5 billion, Katie.

"You have not been denied
this cookie,

"you still have full access
to it,

"should you choose
to become successful enough

"to be able to afford it.

Now, get out of my sight."

So this bill now heads
to the U.S. Senate,

who are expected
to write their own version,

and while it may be
slightly more moderate,

that could really still amount
to basically

cutting a shit sandwich in half.

And if any bill gets
to President Trump's desk,

we already know he will sign it.

This guy would sign a live snake
as long as it had

"Obamacare repeal"
written on it.

So it is dangerous to assume

that this bill will die
on its own.

Your senators are incredibly
important right now,

and they're going
to recess soon,

so you need to let them know
how you feel about this.

You only get one shot at this,
one opportunity,

and I know the perfect song
to pump you up,

but as New Zealand has shown me,

we cannot legally play it.

What we can play you
is "8 Mile Thug,"

an actual
"Eminem Esque"-esque song

that we found.

The point is--
the point here is...

[clears throat]
If I may.

[dramatic guitar riff]

♪ You got to lose track
of yourself ♪

♪ In the tune the minute-- ♪

You know what?
I'm not doing this.

Just call your senators.

Call your senators.

And now this.

- Oh, my God.
Okay.

That's, like, the fourth time.
We get the point.

- No, you don't--
no, you don't get the point.

You're the last person
on the face of the Earth

that appears to get the point.

- Are you kidding me?

I need to talk.
Hold on one second.

- Well, I-I'd like you to answer
the question, though.

Because--
- Yes, it's silly.

I'm answering.

- The horse is on the street.

- But it's not what you said.

- No, it is what I--
it is what I said!

You don't have to be so snotty.

I was about to say.

You didn't let me get it out.

You don't have to be so rude.
- Well, no, I--

- Let me say this.
- Excuse me, excuse--

- Let me say this, okay?

Because it means nothing
coming from you, okay?

You're a Democrat.
- Excuse me?

You're being chauvinistic
right now.

- [gasps] Oh, am I really?
- And you need to stop.

- Oh.
- All right?

- Stop the apologizing!

- I'm not apologizing--

- You're apologizing, like,
"Who would like politics?"

I haven't seen
any evidence of that.

- Did you want me to talk?
- Well, no, I'm just--

- I can go back
to the south of France.

- You wanted
to get your cheap shot in,

so you got your cheap shot in.

- It's not.
- I wouldn't be quite so smug.

- What's wrong with you?

What is wrong with you?

- Bring it down,
and relax a little bit.

- Stop.
- You're mad at me?

- A little bit, yeah.

- Oh, just shut up.
- No, I'm just wondering.

- All right, Mika.

- So that they can say anything
they want and answer questions.

- Mika!

both: Mm.

- Okay, there you go.

[camera shutter clicks]

[jovial orchestral music]

- Moving on.

Our main story tonight
concerns the Internet:

repository of
all human knowledge

and videos of goats
singing Taylor Swift songs.

- ♪ Now I'm lying
on the cold hard ground ♪

[lamb screaming]

♪ Trouble, trouble, trouble ♪

[lamb screams]

- Come on!

The Internet is
an incredible place.

And tonight,
we need to talk about an issue

that is impacting it:
net neutrality.

If that term rings a bell,

we actually talked about it

in our fifth-ever episode

three years ago,

a piece that got
a weird amount of attention.

- "Last Week Tonight
With John Oliver"

has languished
in relative obscurity

since its debut in April,
but this week,

an Oliver diatribe
about net neutrality went viral.

- Hey!
f*ck you, lady!

I didn't languish
in relative obscurity.

I thrived in relative obscurity!

Relative obscurity
is my middle name.

But incredibly,
being negged by WGBH Boston

was not the weirdest bit
of attention

that that segment attracted.

That, without a doubt,
would be this.

[dramatic music]

- All right! It's comedian
John Oliver in New York.

- They did a big piece
on net neutrality and the FCC,

and he directed everybody
to go to the FCC website

and leave,
like, hateful comments.

- And it turns out
it totally worked!

The FCC's website crashed!

You did it, John!

Now--yeah.

I will admit, that is

a quintessentially
British excuse.

"You cannot possibly
hold me responsible

"for what the masses decide
to make a fuss about.

"Now, run along, scallywag.

"I said good day to you.

Good day, sir!"

Now--now, the reason
for our segment three years ago

was that the future
of net neutrality

was in question,
and to their credit,

the FCC took steps
to safeguard it,

and if you're wondering why
I'm even bringing up a problem

that was seemingly solved,

this is why.

- The Trump administration today
announcing plans

to roll back
Obama-era net neutrality rules

on equal access.

- Of course.

It seems that the Trump era

will basically control-Z

everything that happened
on Obama's watch.

I genuinely would not
be surprised if one night,

Trump went on TV just to tell us
that he personally k*lled

every Turkey
Obama ever pardoned.

The--the--the point is, though,

once again,
net neutrality is in trouble,

and if you need a refresher
on what it involves,

please let the star
of the 2007 viral smash video

"Chocolate Rain"
explain it to you in 30 seconds.

- Net neutrality is the idea
that your pipe to the Internet,

whether that is
your cable Internet connection,

your LGE wireless
Internet connection,

however you are receiving
information via the Internet,

that pipeline to the Internet
is not allowed

to arbitrarily pick favorites

in terms of the content
that you consume.

For example,
if you like to use Google search

and your roommate likes
to use Bing search,

your Internet service provider
can't say,

"Well, Bing is paying us
a lot of money,

"so we're gonna slow down
Google and Yahoo

"and their other
search engine competitors

to make Bing load fast."

- He's right,
although that's obviously

just a hypothetical.

There is clearly
no such search engine as Bing,

or--or I don't--
maybe there is, I don't know.

There's really only one way
to find out,

and that's by Googling it,

and that's kind of the point.

But--but net neutrality is about
more than just speed.

At its heart,
it is the principle

that Internet service providers,
or ISPs like these guys,

should not be able
to engage in any sort of fuckery

that limits or manipulates
the choices you make online.

It also helps ensure
a level playing field

so that big companies
cannot undermine small companies

before they can take off,
and without it,

Ancestry.com could easily crush
my new site

JustTellMe-
IfImRelatedToANazi.com.

It's like Ancestry.com,

except you get to skip
all the bullshit.

Net neutrality
is objectively boring,

and that used to work
to ISPs' advantage,

but more people know
what it is now,

which is why
some companies have started

putting out statements

trumpeting their support

for a "free and open Internet."

In fact,
Verizon even created a video

to calm any concerns
that you might have.

- Hey, what's up, everybody?

Jeremy here with Craig Silliman,

who is our general counsel

and leads
our public policy group.

Let's jump right into it.

Is the FCC going to k*ll
what we know

as the open Internet rules
or net neutrality?

- The FCC is not talking about

k*lling
the net neutrality rules,

and in fact,
not we nor any other ISP

are asking them
to k*ll the open Internet rules.

All they're doing is looking
to put the open Internet rules

in an enforceable way
on a different legal footing.

- Now, that sounds reasonable,

and why wouldn't you trust
the commitment to open access

of a man sitting at a table

literally blocking
an entire hallway?

But--but while--but while
a different legal footing

sounds pretty benign, it is not.

And it is also
worth understanding

how net neutrality landed
on its current legal footing,

because it happens
to directly involve Verizon.

So, let me explain,

and unfortunately,
to do that,

I have to introduce you
to two terms

even more boring
than net neutrality,

specifically
Title I and Title II

of the Communications Act
of 1934,

the equivalent
of chasing an Ambien

with a shot of chloroform.

But here is, very broadly,
what happened.

Back in 2010,

the FCC wrote
net neutrality rules

governing ISPs,
which, at the time,

were regulated
under the less strict Title I,

and the companies found

those net neutrality rules
inconvenient.

In fact, Verizon successfully
sued the FCC,

arguing that it didn't have
enough authority

to enforce those rules,

and the court ruled
that if the FCC did want

strong, enforceable
net neutrality,

their best option
would be to reclassify ISPs

under Title II, which allows
for much stronger oversight,

so the FCC did that,

and the fact they did was huge.

So when Verizon claims, "Hey,
we love the open Internet,

but why don't we just put it
on a different legal footing,"

it's basically OJ Simpson asking
why you won't let him hold

any of your samurai swords.

Come on, Juice.

You know why.

You of anyone should know why.

And--and the ISPs now have
a powerful ally on their side,

because Trump has appointed
a new head of the FCC,

and it is this guy.

- Ajit Pai is known
for being anti-regulation,

pro-merger--

last month, he said

he wanted to, quote,

"take a Weedwacker"

to current FCC rules

and predicted net neutrality's,

quote, "days are numbered."

- Wow, okay.

"Days are numbered"

and "take a weed whacker"

are serial k*ller talk,

so that is pretty ominous.

When the code
of federal regulations

looks out of its window
at night,

there's just Ajit Pai,
standing silently,

holding his weed whacker,
waiting for his chance.

But the dangerous thing
about Pai

is that he presents himself
as a fun, down-to-Earth nerd,

the kind of guy
whose Twitter feed

is full of quotes
from "The Big Lebowski"--

he quotes it all the time--
and look,

quoting "The Big Lebowski"
is fine in certain contexts--

for example,
if you're an actor and it's 1998

and you're filming
the movie "The Big Lebowski."

But it is completely intolerable

in any other context.

And that's--that's not his only
"fun guy at the office" traits.

Just watch his very first
press conference as chairman.

- I would be happy
to take, uh, questions,

uh, from the panel.

- Monty, why don't you go ahead?

- Monty Tayloe, "Comm Daily."

Uh, how do you plan
to examine...

- Yes, Ajit Pai is
the kind of guy

who has a fun, oversized,
novelty mug,

and he is really proud of it.

Here's--here he is
showing off to a reporter,

here he is showing it off
to his Twitter feed,

and in his first speech
to his staff as commissioner,

he said...

And you heard right--

he described his own mug
as infamous,

which is offensive
for two reasons:

first, at no point

should you be describing
your own fun mug

allowed in the company
of other adults,

and second, it's a f*cking mug.

Calling a mug infamous is like

calling your neti pot
a real panty-dropper.

In no context
can that be remotely true!

But for all of Pai's doofy "hey,
I'm just like you guys" persona,

there are some things about him

that you should really know.

He's a former lawyer
for Verizon,

and despite being a smart man,

he sure loves to play dumb

over why ISPs were ever moved
to Title II.

- For decades before 2015,

we had a free and open Internet.

Indeed,
the free and open Internet

developed and flourished
under light-touch regulation.

We weren't living
in some digital dystopia

before the partisan imposition
of a massive plan

hatched in Washington
saved all of us.

- Now, that is true:


for anyone,
with the possible exception

of Pizza Rat,

because think about it,

the Internet put that rat
through hell.

One cheat day in three months
of eating Paleo,

and she never hears
the f*cking end of it.

Oh, that's right.
I said "she."

#GREASYFILTHMONSTER.
#FEMINISM.

But--but Pai's--
Pai's larger argument there

is deeply disingenuous,

because he has to know
that Verizon, his ex-employer,

won a lawsuit
that meant if the FCC wanted

strong, enforceable protection,

its only real option
was to reclassify the ISPs,

and yet, he cheerily insists
under questioning

that there is just no evidence

that cable companies
were engaging

in rampant wrongdoing.

- Let's just say Comcast created
a new TV series,

and it just so happened
that that competed

with a Netflix series
very similarly.

If these rules go away,
how is the--

how is there not
an incredible incentive

for Comcast to slow Netflix down
coming into my house

and make their video,
the Comcast video, very robust?

- So, under that hypothetical,

one of the things
that's important to remember

is that it is a hypothetical,

that we don't see evidence
of that happening

in the marketplace
on a widespread level.

- But here's the thing,
there are multiple examples

of ISP fuckery over the years.

For instance, a few years back,

Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile

at one point shut out
Google Wallet

from their phones,

a product that coincidentally

happened to compete

with their own
mobile payment app,

an app, incidentally,
that had a significant flaw.

It's a little subtle,
but see if you can spot it.

- Following in the footsteps
of PayPal and Google Wallet

is a virtual mobile wallet app
called !sis.

- That is f*cking incredible.

If--if only because
it means that at some point,

someone's mom probably sent
a text along the lines of,

"How do I make a payment
to !sis? Love, Mom.

P.S.
Let me know about Passover."

And--and incidentally,

when people complained

that they couldn't use
Google Wallet,

T-Mobile sent out tweets,
and this is true, like,

"We're supporting !sis,"

"We're really loving !sis,"

and "We have chosen
to work with !sis

and hope to roll that out
to everyone very soon."

And yet, despite T-Mobile's
vocal support for !sis,

which is all you should
ever think about now

whenever you hear
the word "T-Mobile"--

or "!sis," for that matter,

they're essentially
the same thing--

Pai's main argument
is that we don't need Title II

to have net neutrality,

but some of his ideas
for what to have instead

are almost laughably lax.

For instance,
he reportedly floated

just having ISPs
voluntarily agree

not to obstruct or slow
consumer access to web content

by putting that promise
in their terms of service--

you know, the things that
no human being has ever read

and that can change
whenever companies want them to.

That idea would basically make
net neutrality

as binding as a proposal
on "The Bachelor."

"Vanessa, I have determined you

"to be marginally better
for my brand than Corinne,

"but I reserve the right

"to change this agreement
in the future

should ABC ever offer me
a slot on 'f*ck Pile Island.'"

And--and--and Pai's
other big argument

to remove ISPs from Title II

is that it places too great
a regulatory burden on companies

and that
it's already caused them

to scale back their investment

in broadband networks.

- The economics are simple here.

The more heavy
you regulate something,

the less of it
you're going to get.

So, what happened
after the FCC imposed Title II?

Sure enough,

infrastructure investment
declines.

- Okay, so what he's essentially
suggesting there

is that as soon
as Title II came in,

companies said, "f*ck it,
investing in infrastructure

"is way too difficult now.

"We're not doing it anymore.

"In fact, pull some of the cable

"out of the ground.

We're going back
to the telegraph."

But--but it is worth noting

infrastructure investment
is harder to measure

than you may think,

and Pai's numbers
are in dispute.

In fact, several companies
have gone on the record

saying their business
has largely been unaffected

by Title II,

and maybe the best way
to gauge Title II's impact

is to listen
to what cable companies

told their own investors,

to whom
they are legally obligated

to tell the truth.

So here is what Verizon
told its investors in 2014

about what the switch
to Title II would mean for them.

- Oh, okay.

So that doesn't really sound

like net neutrality
was jeopardizing investment

at all, although to be fair,
that was a phone call,

and it was Verizon,
so it's entirely possible

that every other word
was dropped.

The--the fact is--
the fact is,

Title II is the most solid
legal foundation

we have right now

for a strong, enforceable

net neutrality protections,

so Pai saying

"let's have an open Internet
without it"

is like me saying
"hey, how about

"you have a gallon of coffee

"without
your stupid f*cking mug?

"Just pour it into your hands,

and trust
that you won't get burned."

Oh, and Mr. Chairman,

I know that
you're probably thinking,

"Well,
you're only making fun of my mug

because you're jealous of it,"

to which--to which I would say,
why would I be jealous?

Your mug's not that big.

[cheers and applause]

You want to know
what I'm drinking?

I'm drinking
the blood of smaller mugs.

Cheers.

Now--
now, the ISPs--

the ISPs will tell you

that net neutrality
could be protected

by an act of Congress,

but I do not particularly trust
this or any Congress

to get something
as complicated as this right,

and I definitely wouldn't want
the current president involved,

as,
and this will not surprise you,

he doesn't seem to have any idea
what any of this is.

- Trump once tweeted
back in 2014,

"Obama's attack on the Internet

"is another top-down power grab.

"Net neutrality is
the Fairness Doctrine.

Will target conservative media."

- But that's the exact opposite
of what it did!

Trump could not have been
more off-base if he tweeted,

"Net neutrality is
the Monroe Doctrine.

Will target the Wu-Tang Clan."

So, sadly, it seems once more

we the people must take
this matter into our own hands,

uh, 'cause the FCC are again
going to invite public comment

on their website,
and conveniently for them,

the process is actually
a lot more complicated this time

than it was three years ago.

You have to go to...

Then, when you get to this page,

put in the proceeding number,
which is 17-108,

then hit "search,"

and on the next page,

"Restoring Internet Freedom"

should be the only result
you see.

Then click on
the link that says "express,"

and then, and only then,
can you leave your comment.

And if you're thinking,
"Well, look,

that's just too complicated,
I'm not doing it,"

don't worry, 'cause that's why
we bought the URL

gofccyourself.com,

and if you simply go there,

it will land you
straight on this page

where all you have to do

is hit "express"

and comment, telling Ajit Pai

that you specifically support
strong net neutrality

backed by Title II oversight
of ISPs,

and every Internet group needs
to come together

like you successfully did
three years ago.

Every subculture must join
as one:

gamers, YouTube celebrities,

Instagram models,

Tom from Myspace,
if you're still alive.

We need all of you,

even, and I cannot believe
I'm saying this,

Donald Trump's Internet fans
on sites like 4chan and Reddit,

the most powerful online trolls
of all.

This subject
is one of the few things

that we actually
really agree on,

so simply express yourselves,
and harness the rage

that you normally reserve
for me,

the rage you used when you said

I'm "genuinely one
of the most visually

and intellectually repulsive
people I've ever seen,"

with "oddly long thumbs,"
"batshit crazy eyes,"

and a "mouth that looks like
a cemetery after an earthquake."

That's pretty good.
That's pretty good.

The point is,
everyone needs to get involved.

Comment now,

and then maybe comment again

once the FCC makes
its proposal official.

Even call your representative
and your senators,

and do not tell me

that you don't have time
to do this.

If the Internet is evidence
of nothing else,

it is evidence that we all have
way too much time on our hands,

and yes, I'm talking to you,

everyone who posted
"may the fourth be with you"

for Star Wars Day
this and every f*cking year,

and I'm talking to you,
everyone who posted on Facebook

about ten concerts you've seen
and one you didn't,

and to you,
everyone who did it ironically

and added a clever joke twist,

because, and this is important,

you are exactly as bad,

because you cannot say
that you are too busy

when 540,000 of you commented

on Beyoncé's
pregnancy announcement

and 673 of you took the time

to review the Grand Canyon
on Yelp,

seven of whom gave it
a one-star review.

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

And I'm specifically
looking at you,

person on Amazon

who gave
"The Wolf of Wall Street"

one star because, and I quote,

"There were no wolves
in the movie."

And to you,
the 31 people who took the time

to say
they found that review helpful.

And finally, I'm looking

at the frankly
surprising number of people

who for some reason
keep tweeting "choke me, daddy"

at the Pope.

You are--
you're wasting your time!

He's not going to choke you.

The optics would be very bad!

So come on.

I'm calling upon all of you,

the Internet's timewasters
and troublemakers,

to join me once more

in just five to ten minutes
of minor effort.

I need you to do this.

Once more unto the breach,
my friends.

Simply go to this URL
and tell the FCC

to preserve net neutrality
and Title II.

Once again, commenters,
America needs you to rise,

or, more accurately,
remain seated

in front of
your computer screen,

to this occasion,

so please, fly, my pretties!

Fly once more!

That is our show!

Thanks for watching!

See you next week!

Good night!
Fly away!

[cheers and applause]