The Vimeo Blog

More Posts

Join Vimeo in supporting net neutrality

Andrea Allen
September 10, 2014 by Andrea Allen PRO

In July, we asked you to help us protect an open Internet. Today, we’re joining forces with our digital brethren including Etsy, Reddit, and Kickstarter, to once again ask that you help us fight the FCC’s proposed rule — one that would bring an end to the net neutrality we know and love.

This time, we’re asking you to call your Senators and tell them you’re against the FCC’s proposal.

To refresh your memory:
The FCC proposal would allow broadband providers to charge online companies like Vimeo to deliver traffic (like video uploads and plays) to their customers in a timely manner. We think this will create a two-tiered Internet — fast tubes for those who can afford to pay a hefty toll and slow tubes for everyone else — and will ultimately harm innovation and creative expression. As a result, we’re calling on the FCC to demand "net neutrality" — rules that prevent broadband providers from discriminating against content that runs through their pipes.

Independent creators and their audiences would also suffer from this two-tiered Internet world. If you, like us, want to keep a free and open Internet, please click the button above and let your voice be heard.


Ice Block Plus

Thank you for posting the video and the helpful link. Here's hoping we can continue to beat this monster back! As April O'Neil said to whichever turtles were left alive to diffuse the bombs on the damn, "You have my support!"

1 More TV Plus

just called them and told them about our right to have net neutrality and they said they will give the message to the senator. Thanks for informing us about this and good luck.

Adam Siegel PRO

Just called and they said they would pass message on. Thanks Andrea.. you rock!

Falguni Kishore

Thank you for supporting this movement and posting for it.

Dean Kaiser

I am sick and tired of the America that 'we" the small people created being constantly taken away from us by the "big shot pencil pushers" (the guys that only think about "their" pockets). When will someone ever stand up again in America and bring America back? This is all really getting sick. I long for the good 'ol America so badly.

Be HoPe

I agree… But it' not only in the U.S. … because also (here) in Europe, we have to stand up against the the multi-national companies (multi-nationals) and reClaim Our Rights ! ! ! … it's a constant struggle…
We – the so-called 99 percent – need to stick together and fight back against the huge corporations who are buying up the land, and the natural resources, while not caring one bit about the local population or the state of the eco-systems, animals etc. that exist in nature… To get a better understanding of what I'm saying here, please watch... "A World Without Water" (2006), "The Corporation" (2003), "FLOW: For Love of Water" (2008), "" (2008), "The Coca-Cola Case" (200x) & others like them… For more info, contact me @Facebook.

JP Pelc Plus

I understand the fear associated with little guys being taken over by big nasty corporations, but the discussion of all this net neutrality business is backwards. For one thing, whoever built and owns the tubes has the right to use them however they please. For another, net neutrality does not mean an "open" internet, it means a regulated one. The internet has been "open" since it was invented, and ISPs have always had the opportunity to deny higher speeds to certain sites and grant them to others, yet they never did this. So what's the fear? If we beg the government for command over the internet, we will just be limiting the greatest invention that we have seen in our lifetimes

Buell Robot

I disagree that since it has never happened before it won't happen in the future.

US telcos and cable operators would like nothing more than to be able to legitimately slow down and/or set up toll gates for competitors like Netflix, YouTube, or Vimeo. Without neutrality, you may end up paying a lot more than $60/year for your Vimeo plus membership.

A few links help illustrate this point: and

JP Pelc Plus

At this moment technology is more advanced than it has ever been before, and it only continues to advance. Access to high-speed internet and ability to handle heavy bandwidth burdens are better than ever. Yet we are supposed to believe that for some reason if we don't take immediate action, right now is the time when ISPs will decide to limit their customers. Why?

Jefferson Donald PRO

In a word, profit. When the concept of net neutrality was struck down, it freed up owners of the "pipes" to charge for those connections. So, JP Pelc, you are right in that the companies who built those connections should be able to make a profit from the technology and labor that was invested. We as a country have decided that there are industries that should be regulated, however, even though private industry(ies) has/have born the brunt of the investment(s).

You needn't look very far to see how these fights will play out between content providers (e.g., Netflix) and distribution centers (teleco's). Any of the recent skirmishes between cable/satellite providers and networks over re-trans fees offer us a glimpse into how this current climate of corporate self-interest will play out. Certain customers with a particular ISP won't have access to a given site until that site is able to pay the fees associated with content delivery. Each side of the argument will blame the other for customers' inability to access content.

What happens when a specific teleco doesn't like the political or ideological content presented by a certain site? is the company allowed to charge more based on this content? Is it allowed to stifle the message or force the content deliverer to alter its message in order to be accessible by its intended audience?

I suspect you believe that free speech should be unhindered in a democracy, but that innovation should be awarded in a market economy. So do I. The question is how do you pay for and award companies for innovation and still allow others (companies, individuals, nonprofits, et cetera) - even those with diametrically opposed ideas - to have a voice when the gatekeepers only have a bottom-line, dividend, shareholder value mentality? Though I don't have the answer, I suspect it lies in carefully crafted, fair and balanced regulation with consumers and corporations represented in the negotiations.

Andrew Pile Staff

A couple of thoughts on this:

1) Actually there is a history of ISPs prioritizing traffic. Part of the whole impetus of the NN debate is that the FCC penalized Comcast for intentionally slowing down P2P in 2008. Comcast sued them, and here we are. Since then, ISPs have pre-emptively sued on several occasions to prevent the FCC from implementing traffic non-discrimination rules. The only thing keeping ISPs from discriminating traffic today is the political environment surrounding these issues, it would only work against ISPs to start discriminating before they were protected by law to do so.

2) It's timely because the FCC has to rule on it soon, regardless of how and when ISPs choose to act, the rules they have to abide by in the future are being decided now.

3) While I generally agree with your thoughts on regulation, it's important to remember that non-discrimination rules ALREADY APPLY for dialup connections. Years ago the FCC classified dialup as "common carriers" which essentially made internet access a utility like water or phone service. The NN debate that's raging today is not new, it's just the latest round involves "broadband", which is not legally classified in the same was as copper wire phone lines. It's a silly distinction but refutes one of your points: the internet flourished BECAUSE of regulation in it's early days. We just want the same rules to apply that always have.


In order for this to come up there has to have been some lobbying going on, don't you think? I don't think providers would move without the FCC's blessing. Why does everything have to be about money and profit. And by the way communications and everything else has always been regulated to protect the little guy against the pencil pushers, lobbyists, lawyers and all the self interest that corporation heads maneuver for.

JP Pelc Plus

Net Neutrality is a moral issue first, a practical/end user issue second. Let's say I buy a truck, and decide to deliver packages or food around town for a small fee, the government has no right to force me into regulation saying I must deliver to everyone in the the country, for the same price, regardless of how costly it is to me. It's my truck, I can do what I want with it (other than harm people). Now these companies have built (or acquired) the infrastructure to transfer 1's and 0's, and Net Neutrality is a way of telling them where and for what price they must be delivered. That is immoral.

Beyond that, the ultimate fear that you and many NN proponents have seems highly unreasonable to me. So supposedly Comcast or any ISP will decide that they don't like the message of some website, be it anti-comcast or anti-some political party, and then will not give their customers access to it unless the site and/or the user pays an impossible fee. Or they start charging you $150 a month to access bandwidth heavy Netflix/Hulu/Vimeo. How long would you stay with Comcast? Not very long I imagine. I know that the vast majority of the country is currently very limited in ISP options, but it wouldn't take much hostility before competitors see a market opportunity and rise to the occasion.

To Andrew,

1) Your example is a reason why ISP's would be shooting themselves in the foot to discriminate too harshly against traffic. They did once, and the outrage was enormous. They got off the hook legally, but I doubt they will be doing that again.

3) They already apply to dialup, but do they apply to broadband? I am admittedly somewhat uncertain of what exactly the current regulations or lack thereof are. From my understanding broadband is more or less completely unregulated, and obviously dialup has been influential for quite some time now

Crush Wunho

"Comcast for intentionally slowing down P2P in 2008."

Comcast limited P2P traffic because the Federal law made it a potential liability to providers.

JP Pelc Plus

*Dialup has not been influential for quite some time now.

Jamie Mather

I could write a long rant but I think this guy sums it up better than me.

The providers operate like a cartel and cover all the bases. This is not about your example of buying a truck and charging whatever you please to deliver things. Its about you buying a delivery license and then agreeing with all the other delivery companies to hike up prices and monopolize the marketplace. This goes on already its not about them starting it, its about stopping them doing it!

Edoardo Causarano

JP,. to stick to your truck delivery analogy: imagine that you pay your imaginary driver to send an expedited parcel. Then the driver turns around to the destination party and says: "I've got this expedite parcel for you, you've got to pay an extra fee or we'll toss it in the backlog. Thank you." How moral is that?

NN regulation is not about state imposed fees, it's about forbidding companies from double-dipping on the service they already got paid for: high-speed data delivery. The subscribers already paid for it dearly, there's no ethical justification for exacting a fee from the other side of the tube.

JP Pelc Plus

Edoardo I am very confused. Isn't this exactly what happens now? If we want something delivered ASAP we pay extra for the speed, if we are more patient we wait a few days and save some money. It is reasonable for delivery services to charge extra if it is delivered quicker, and it is nice to have the option either way. I don't see why the internet having the same model would be so terrible

Thomas Wrobel

Its not the same model.
With post you pay for distance or quantity - your not charged more arbitrarily for one company or another. A post company cant decide "hay, well, we don't like this firm so we charge them 50% more".

Theres nothing wrong with ISPs charging more for bandwidth use. Its the picking and choosing arbitrarily thats the difference and thats where the danger lies.
Phone companies, incidentally, arnt allowed to charge more arbitrarily either.
Internet shouldn't be any different.

"net neutrality does not mean an "open" Internet, it means a regulated one. "

It means everyone must be treated equally.
To say net neutrality = regulation is no more true then saying free speech = regulation.
Technically true, but not remotely relevant or resulting in ANY new government employs, monitoring, paperwork or anything else negative associated with "regulation".

It simply means if your website has been slowed down you have a legal right to complain. Thats all.


internet access can be cut off already in other countriies. I know for a fact that wifi can be shut down, or access can be shutdown in china or opened in china or america or any strong nation with digital prowess...china already prevents certain companies from showing their websites to most of their population...they control information and slow down sites that talk poorly of their could easily happen in europe, africa, australia america and any nation if a government or company is corrupt and wants to control information freedom and control communication to dominate their people

they used to burn books, now they cut access or slow down connections purposelfy


in fact large companies cut off from china often have to pay a large sum of money or promise other goods or trades to the government to gain internet access to their people...corruption breeds more corruption...honesty, creates love, forgiveness, understanding and acceptace of brokenness and humanity...and redemption...I am not blamin all chinese people....just governments that are out to censor their population from the world...if anything they should censor pornography from the internet that would be a good service to all families that I would be happy to pay my american taxes towards

JP Pelc Plus

Thomas I guess that is where you and I disagree. I don't know the current laws for post houses, but as far as I am concerned they should be able to arbitrarily charge whatever they want. If you own a post company and you know one potential client is going to be extremely difficult and stressful, you can make your proposal higher than you normally would. That is completely your right. I do this very thing with weddings. If I usually charge $X dollars for a highlight video, and I meet with the client and find out she is clearly a bridezilla, then I will give her a proposal that is $X + %50 because I don't want to deal with the extra headache without making extra money. I can do this because I have a natural right to offer my services for whatever amount I want. Internet is no different.

"To say net neutrality = regulation is no more true then saying free speech = regulation." I have no idea how you came up with this. Net neutrality is the government forcing ISPs to provide their services a certain way. That is regulation, and it will absolutely require monitoring, paperwork, and all kinds of government activity. Free speech is something that we have by virtue of our ability to talk and reason. It is in no way provided by government.

To awesomearchangel, the solution to your fear is nonsensical. You're saying that the government could begin to censor information on the internet, so we should put the government in charge of the internet so that big ISPs don't censor it. Why don't we just keep the government off the internet altogether?

Giulio Sciorio PRO

Love to see the animated poster frames start to roll out. When will they become available for the public?

Andrea Allen PRO

That's great! I hope you try again, though when the lines clear up.

Zebbler Plus

I wish there was a web-only link to action provided as well. I am a bit phone shy, and don't want to give away my phone information for any reason, but still want to act.

Andrea Allen PRO

We just made a call from Vimeo HQ. I'm also phone shy but it was a lot easier than I thought it was going to be!

Eric Argento

Thanks for making contacting our senators easy. Just called in favor of net neutrality and added that the smaller internet companies bring fresh ideas, more creativity and new energy which is great for stimulating the economy.

Ask a Scientist


Question: is the phone-number & zip-code app open-source, Vimeo plug-in, or option? Ask a Scientist is a science advocacy non-profit, and would love to use that app in our up-coming videos on some of the pressing science issues of our generation. The simplicity and elegance of that app is perhaps the best medium for registering public opinion to our legislators I have ever seen. Thank you very much for posting, and any additional information on the app would be much appreciated!

Kevin Sweeney Staff

Hey Scientist!

We worked with a company called Mobile Commons. They gave us a form to drop in on our site and then handle all of the call routing logic. Pretty cool, right?

Ask a Scientist

Very cool!

Thanks for the fast reply. Assuming our organization has an agreement with Mobile Commons, could a similar form be added on top of our Vimeo videos?

Dustin Plus

You guys rule, but rule even more for supporting net neutrality. Calling and sharing my support.

Jim Simon

I can understand the little guy not wanting his traffic to be pushed back or limited in any way, but my Netflix experience for the past year and a half has been pretty dismal, and according to online articles, this is a pretty common experience. Things got so bad I cancelled my membership for several months. It wasn't until Netflix signed a deal back in June with Verizon for priority access that I was able to once again watch whatever I want, whenever I want, in full HD quality.

I'm a bit worried that Net Neutrality will take that performance away, and Netflix in peak hours will once again return to the buffering, low-quality, dismal experience it was for over a year.

KO Productions Plus

Soooo, as a one man band production company, my ability to deliver 1080 video in a smooth and convenient manner to my clients who paid thousands of dollars for a video they can share with friends and family should take a back seat to your $9/month Netflix experience? Not sure what is fair about that.

JP Pelc Plus

So the entire consumer base of Netflix should be subject to sub-par video quality and speed so that your client can receive their video slightly quicker? Not sure what is fair about that.

Pauline Schneider PRO

Sooooo the US is already sub par and wayyy back in something like 30-40th place ranked in the world for internet service quality. Little tiny countries like Belarus, Estonia and Slovenia have 100 times faster and better internet service than we do in the US. Because corporations have no competition here.
Monopolies killed the US internet. Net Neutrality is the LAST LINE OF DEFENSE!

ATS-David Productions

Excellent point, JP.

Companies should be able to provide/distribute content to their customers based on consumer demand. The problem isn't necessarily with the ISPs - it's with the governments that essentially create these near-monopolies in each municipality, state, or region. Less intervention into the internet marketplace, particularly all of the barriers to entry, would provide the "little guy" content creators and providers much more (and much better) options to deliver their products.

It seems to me that "Net Neutrality" is the government trying to correct a hypothetical problem that can only arise due to their own incompetent intervention into this market.

Thomas Wrobel

Some areas got exclusive contracts - and thats disgusting.

But the lack of competition from the big names is mostly down to deliberate planning and co-operation between them. They dont want to compete. They dont want competition driving prices down.

Theres zero chance for "mom and pop" ISPs here and its got nothing to do with government. Its simply very very expensive to lay cables physically over large land mass's. And even if you did the big ISPs (who are also Media Corps) don't have to supply you with their content.
You have to be as big as Google to ever attempt being a new ISP here.

"It seems to me that "Net Neutrality" is the government..."

It really, really isn't.
The government is being lobbyied by the ISPs to go the other way. The FCC is run by a lobbist for them. "the government" doesnt want this bother at all, and would be happy to let the ISPs pay them to do what they like.

And its not hypothetical Netflix already suffered due to it. Google around for the full (more complex) story. But selectively picking traffic priority has happened, and as the big media ISPs get more competition from online sources, the market pressure will be for them to do it more and more.
It can even be legally argued they have to throttle due shareholder obligations - and because of that the law has to prevent them being being able too.

ATS-David Productions


Governments are always the problem in broken markets. Central planning is the antithesis of supply and demand, competition, price discovery - essentially any function of a free market. Granting someone a "legal right to complain" is asking for government involvement and brings all of the negatives into a market that governments always introduce to them. There's no getting around it. You can be sure that once politicians and the agents of different government branches/agencies are involved in a regulation or "legal process" there will be lots of money thrown around by corporations and their lobbyists to get the best treatment - to ensure that their financial interests are protected. "Favors," or any other kind of corruption, are what drive the political world. Sad, but true.

The problem is not that there is an "unregulated" internet. The problem is that the companies that control internet access have their local, regional, or the federal government in their pockets. Barrier to entry is the name of the game and existing companies (usually the large corporations that can afford it) use the "law" to secure their market share by sending their lobbyists to meet with write the laws. When you can do that, you can control your market and dictate to consumers what your product and prices will be. How else could one of the worst service companies in the world (Comcast) acquire and hold the largest share of their market?

This really isn't a complicated issue. "Net Neutrality" is just the smokescreen intended to hide the real problems. And too many people continue to blindly go along with the charade.

Andrea Allen PRO

Stick with it! Or if you can't wait on hold now, maybe try again in a bit. It's worth it. :D

Connor Coleman

This is great. Thanks for being proactive Vimeo! Just got off the phone with the Senator's office.

Tom Hackshaw

Need to be careful though, things like this will start to appear outside of the US. It nearly happened in Germany.

Elephant Prods PRO

I called Washington State's Patty Murray's office and was allowed to leave a message. The answer, my friends, is blowin' in the wind...

CerebralPro PRO

Only took an hour to get through, but success for those who persist.

Liberty and Matt Orr

That was easy. The representative contacted ME in South Carolina. They took my comments and registered my name. Praying for success!

Pauline Schneider PRO

Liked & Shared. The US is already running far behind other countries with internet service quality. This just ramps up the stupid and the cost and the unfairness for the rest of us, all top priorities of the wealthy corporations.

Sacramento Yoga Center PRO

An important point that is being overlooked is that there cannot be a "free market" for the internet. Electricity, water, communications, etc are are call "public utilities" because of, among other things, limited physical right of way. Your local ISP cannot run a line down your street; instead they buy access from the utility that has monopoly rights given by the local jurisdiction. Without regulation and NN that local monopoly can gouge you, distort the "free market", or throttle your access and you will not be able to do anything about it.

The reason for Public Utility Commissions is to regulate what is recognized as a public necessity for everyone's well being specifically in situations where a "free market" cannot work because of limited physical right of way.

Michael Frick Staff

Excellent point. As you said, often overlooked, but very key to this debate. This is precisely why Verizon requested Title II authority under the Communications Act of 1934 in order to help it expand their fiber network (Title II allows it access to other public utility conduits at a federally regulated price) while keeping FiOS classified as "information services", out of the reach of Title II. They want the perks to help expand without any of the drawbacks... and so far they've gotten just that.


I went as far as to send my pro Net Neutrality comments directly to the FCC ((proceeding 14-28) today. My local ISP (CenturyLink) already charges me for internet speed based on what I want to achieve in upload or download speeds. They have a four tier speed choice. To achieve speed levels consistent with being able to view most VIMEO content, I had to move up the speed chain. That cost me more. I don't have a problem paying my ISP a bit more to get instant access without buffering. So, I, as a consumer pay more to get higher connection speeds.

America does not need more government intrusion on what would eventually become ISP / government control of internet content anyway, if Net Neutrality were negated.

Remember this: if the government gets even one finger in this game, Net Neutrality will become just another federal bureaucracy to control us.

On the other hand, I am totally against the Comcast-Time Warner merger. That would ensure the demise of competition completely.

Chezney Plus

The FCC does more harm than good, much like the rest of the government.

mr.Chase.K Plus

I feel sorry that I can't help 'cuz I'm living in S.Korea.

Chris Ava PRO

support from europe! i would gladly sign an international petition, as this is coming to europe one day after it passes in the US as always!


The video looks like it was directed by Dave Hughes! :)

James Pier

Sorry, Vimeo, but you have the whole problem upside-down. Our internet access and bandwidth will get better and better when ISPs are able to charge a market price for use of their pipes. Right now, each and every one of us is subsidizing YouTube and Netflix--they are not paying for their share of the pipes that they use. The reason they are in favor of "Net Neutrality" (a misleading euphemism if ever there was one) is so they can continue the free ride they are getting now. Increasing the capacity of the pipes internet traffic travels on is going to cost tens of billions of dollars. The ISPs won't make the investment if they can't recoup the costs. It's basic economics, folks. Regulation in the end costs the consumer, not the producer.

Mike Robinson Plus

I already pay an exorbitant monthly fee to receive content that I choose to receive. Now, the operators want to charge content providers as well in order to give me what I have already paid to receive. This is double dipping isn't it--getting money from both ends of the line. Further, I am denied content that I pay for on a monthly basis if the content provider fails to pay what is nothing more than extortion.

No, the result will not be better service, but even higher prices for a nation that already has the costliest Internet fees while simultaneously receiving among the worst Internet service and slowest speeds on the planet. Monopolies have no incentive to provide better service; corporate greed knows no bounds and is constantly seeking additional means of increasing NOI. Once they have destroyed Net Neutrality, you can be assured they will be very busy looking for further ways to take more of your money and mine.

Andrew Whitcomb Staff

To conclude your argument that "regulation costs the consumer and not the producer" is honestly a bit disingenuous. Look at toxic waste disposal and the laws governing that in the United States. Does it technically cost the consumer some? It does directly. However, without said laws, it will likely cost the consumers more indirectly because of health issues, possibly destruction of fertile/farming land, etc. Look at the history of transportation of certain (hazardous) goods on railways - there were lots of spills and explosions of said goods and there was commonly a fight against regulation to install appropriate equipment to prevent said such spills and explosions. Did it technically cost the consumer more? Most likely, but nowadays, if you hear about such an explosion/spill, it is related to tar sands, because - surprise - the classification of tar sands makes them exempt.

When it comes to how the lack of net neutrality affects the internet, it becomes anti-competitive. In order to service customers properly, large corporations will have to dig deep just to keep the same quality they currently serve, smaller corporations will receive plenty of complaints that it is slow/unreliable (since most consumers are ignorant of the inner workings of how their information is delivered to them), and ultimately the only people who walk away happier are the ISPs, even though they already more or less have regional monopolies and can extort the residents of given areas pretty well. (If you want a good point of reference, see John Oliver's segment on Net Neutrality)

No one is saying all regulation is good, but to suggest that just because regulation increases the direct costs of a good or service does not mean it is a bad regulation. I think we can all agree factories not having access to child labor is a positive, even if it means our goods are more costly.

ATS-David Productions

Agreed, James.


"...they already more or less have regional monopolies and can extort the residents of given areas pretty well."

THIS is the issue, not "Net Neutrality." The biggest problem we have as consumers is the complete lack of options in many municipalities and regions due to government-created and perpetuated monopolies. More government intervention into markets is not going to resolve the problems that government intervention created. Reduce or eliminate the legal barriers to entry and allow businesses to provide their products and services based on consumer demand and you will see that the internet will continue to flourish - and bring sites like this, and the creators who use it, to greater heights.

Andrew Whitcomb Staff


The reason why there are regional monopolies is because it is not profitable to go into more rural areas without insurance that you are essentially the only player in the region. While I am in NYC now, I come from a small town called Bethel, NY. If the town name rings a bell, it is the home of the original Woodstock site. The town density is around 50 people per square mile, i.e. it is pretty god damn sparse. We only have TWC as an option because of an agreement between TWC and the town. The options were: A. Accept TWC's offer to give them exclusive cable access to the town or B. Not have internet access in the town. Needless to say, option B is not exactly a real option in 2014, let alone even in the early 2000s.

No one is saying that having regional monopolies is healthy, but towns are forced between a rock and a hard place and have to choose the less bad option. Do you not think it is the government's (and by the government, I mean in this context either the state or federal government) to fix the mistakes of the governments below them within their means, i.e. net neutrality? Even if there was a large amount of competition (which there will likely never be, especially in very rural areas due to the profitability of setting up shop), what makes net neutrality a bad thing? You realize how many millions upon millions of websites there are out there? Should the content from sites that are rarely accessed (or even just "less" accessed) be artificially slowed down by providers because the owners of said sites did not pay to let their users access their site better?

LightRain Images Plus

James Pier, thanks for the great video. I didn't read all the comments, but JP Pelc has it right and there are a lot of people either duped, or just totally biased toward smothering legislation (net neutrality) at the expense of innovation. Maybe they think we should go back to regulating the phone system with one massive AT&T government monopoly and long distance at $1 per minute. Vimeo you have it wrong, don't wish net neutrality on yourself. Let's keep the Internet as free as it is now! It is amazing how the statists have convinced people that everyone should pay the same rates, despite different usage patterns.

jack jones

Net neutrality is so important and necessary. How could greedy telecommunication companies like Comcast, Verizon, AT and T and others just set up "toll roads," for faster internet service here, and slower internet service there.

Make the internet into a utility, so the greed and corruption can stop once and for all from the corporations.

Jeffery R Custeau Plus

Unfortunately I'm Canadian and can't join in on this but obviously it will effect me too. Once again government agencies trying to shut down free thought. Thank you for this important information.


Thank you for supporting this movement and posting for it, i really thank full

Mark Simon

I live in Australia!!! Is there an "other" Senator. (the IRS doesn't seem to care...)


It was my pleaSURE to support as much as i can through shouts and links on every platform I know...Poke the FFCrappy rule \m/

Polly WJ

I called! Just like another poster, I also long the the good 'ole America that we once knew and loved. But once again, something that was created to better the lives of Americans, by Americans, is threatened to be taken away by our Government for their use!

fernando Plus

We have no senators in the UK but here´s my full support.
Keep it up, the great video service and the fight for a neutral Internet.

Oh, it's not only a problem within the United States. In Germany we are having these problems since ... let me think about ... ever. Our national telephone and internet service provider "Deutsche Telekom" routes every traffic of (for example) YouTube over the US because Google is afraid to pay a internet fee for transfering tera/gigabytes of data directly into the Deutsche Telekom network.
(Yeah, it's cheaper to route traffic from Germany -> US -> Germany then Germany -> Germany...)

If you don't use a proxy as a german customer you can not view YouTube correctly without buffering. (That's the reason why I switched over to Vimeo.. :D )

I think that the war of "free internet" is already lost. It's to late to change things because companys lied to (our) politician. If your ISP tolds your local politician that the technical requirements for such a large amount of internet traffic are not met and without a traffic fee there is no way to fix this ... what should you do? :(

Daniel Cross PRO

I support Vimeo in net neutrality....add me to the list too!.


There is no such thing, the NSA will run it in the ground just like the rest of the international institutions including the monetary fund and the united nations, give me a break. Do you really think this will be handled fairly. No way right?

Leslie Stockton

Sadly Orlando the current environment politically not in this favor. We can try and I believe we will get some concessions. But we will not have a free. Key word: *terrorism* .. that is the new junket. It will take more very powerful men and women (i mean powerful) to make this a FREE .. that's just my opinion. Not many have jumped on this bandwagon as yet.


Thank you for reminding us x

Dani Croitor Plus

you should all move to Romania, here you can easily have 200mps for $10

Mike McHale

How to trouble shoot?
Sometimes videos play with no problem, sometimes they get choppy. I run and it says I am around my usual 3MB. I come back later, and the video plays fine. Is there a way to tell if vimeo just could not handle the load for free members (no complaint, love the site and community) or if my ISP decided to throttle?

Antonio Cariola

tutti corrono dietro ai soldi la vera felicita'sta'dietro alle piccole cose

Vaughn Baskin

Hey We're All Gonna Need A Much Bigger Help To Take A Stand Against The Effin' FCC!

Training Tilt Plus

I don't have a senator as we are based in New Zealand, if you have any ideas on how we could help from the other side of the world please let us know.

Ryan Murray

This video makes me laugh. Of course I support net neutrality 100%. But Vimeo is a little hypocritical here. Net neutrality is all about not letting some people pay for better, faster access while letting others suffer through slow loading times. And yet Vimeo does this exact thing! The fact that I can only upload one HD video a week, and have to wait through an extra wait time for my videos to be processed, compared to people who can pay to have unlimited access with much faster speeds? I fully support net neutrality but I think Vimeo should really think about adopting those same policies.

This conversation is missing your voice. Please join Vimeo or log in.