I don't want to get too deep into it, but the basics are that Oliver discussed how ISPs differentiating prices to different customers is a bad idea. He then explained how that *could* be a way to price gouge small startups. Given his premise and assuming that consumers are robots, this is feasible. But the premise is only a portion of the story. ISPs don't want to differentiate prices "just because." They want to do it because some companies are using a lot more than other companies. Charging customers more for using more is standard. Price gouging startups is a non-issue. We don't see it happen in these sorts of economic spaces.

He then comments on the monopolies in ISPs and how they're bad. He doesn't describe any cause for the monopolies and instead jumps to concluding that because there is a lack of competition, we need net neutrality. Again, that's not the story of what's actually going on. The main cause of ISP monopolization is municipal regulation. Because of these it's near impossible to enter the market. Net neutrality is a way to further ensure that a lack of competition will not be changed.

Then he goes on to describe ISPs as evil. Pristine superciliousness is when he doesn't understand something yet moralizes about how much better he is.

He ends with the great savior: the FCC and government. If we just give them enough power, they surely won't do to the internet what they did to radio and TV.