[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 fucking 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-- 217 for and 213 against.
- 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 fucked up.
In fact, here is the amount that you fucked up shown graphically,
here is you fucking 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! Fuck 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 killed
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 kill what we know
as the open Internet rules or net neutrality?
- The FCC is not talking about
killing the net neutrality rules,
and in fact, not we nor any other ISP
are asking them to kill 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 killer 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 fucking 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: 2015 was not a digital dystopia
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 fucking 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 ISIS.
- That is fucking 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 ISIS? 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 ISIS,"
"We're really loving ISIS,"
and "We have chosen to work with ISIS
and hope to roll that out to everyone very soon."
And yet, despite T-Mobile's vocal support for ISIS,
which is all you should ever think about now
whenever you hear the word "T-Mobile"--
or "ISIS," 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 'Fuck 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, "Fuck 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 fucking 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 fucking 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 fuck 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]