Cable Lobby Survey Backfires; Most Americans Support Net Neutrality (consumerist.com) 119
New submitter Rick Schumann writes from a report via Consumerist: The NCTA hired polling firm Morning Consult to survey people about their attitudes toward net neutrality. In the results and a blog post about the survey, the organization crows that clearly, everyone thinks regulation is bad. Here's the "TL;DR" version: The NCTA claims Americans want "light touch" regulation of the "internet," but did not ask about regulation of internet service providers. The survey claims most voters believe regulation will harm innovation and investment, but their own numbers show that just as many people believe it won't. Most people don't believe the internet should be regulated like a "public utility," which is good because that's not what net neutrality does. When people were asked their feelings about what neutrality actually does, they overwhelmingly support it.
As someone that has 1 Mbps... (Score:4, Interesting)
with Comcast, and I live less than a mile from Microsoft's HQ, I still can't believe Comcast is allowed to get away with this. They're charging me for 200 Mbps.
Re: As someone that has 1 Mbps... (Score:1)
The Seattle area is just a mess. Between the Early Adapter problem and NIMBYism, CenturyLink, Frontier, and Comcast simply can't provide good service. My HOA where I've lived for eleven years hasn't allowed Comcast to replace wiring so while we can get TV on the two bottom floors, no one can get Internet access through them.
Re: (Score:2)
NIMBY applies, but that's not quite why. Rather, in the case of fiber, many want to avoid having lawn refrigerators permanently installed on their property.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My HOA
Yet another reason why the Baby Boomers need to hurry up and start dropping like flies. They're literally holding back progress. Usually they just hold back social progress, but as this instance shows, technological progress too. Max Planck said that science advances one funeral at a time, as the old guard dies off and new ideas emerge. Not solely due to new information. Science isn't unique in this way. It's just reflecting how humans do things. Egos just can't admit new ideas, not when they contrad
Re: (Score:2)
My HOA
First problem.
hasn't allowed Comcast to replace wiring
This should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Try to opt out of a HOA when buying a house in a HOA area.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't buy a house in an HOA area. If enough people realized what they were getting into, houses in HOAs would lose value and people would the whole HOA system would fall apart.
Re: (Score:1)
Not have an alternative to ISDN would be a deal breaker for me, and most people my age I imagine (mid 30's). What I'm getting at is that without adequate Internet Connectivity your house is already worth $0.00 to a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
I am right near the Kirkland, Bothell, Woodinville boundaries. I have Frontier FiOS (which was installed by Verizon just before they unloaded the system onto Frontier). I pay for 30 Mbps and get around 24 up and down. So, not too bad.
Verizon, Comcast, Centurylink and all fought dirty over what they considered to be 'valuable' neighborhoods and managed to screw each other over. Where I live used to be unincorporated (now Kirkland) and therefore a shit-hole to the providers. So nobody played politics keeping
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live we can get 1Gbps for about $100/month.
Re: (Score:2)
I just moved to a little place 3 miles outside a little town of about 10,000 people. The cable company provides 300Mbps and it's rock steady at that speed.
crows (Score:2)
Misleading summary as usual (Score:2)
The numbers in the survey indicate that 78% of Americans are in favor of either the equivalent of Title I or of no regulations at all.
Re: Misleading summary as usual (Score:1)
Another survey indicates that 96% of Americans think that Title I I think name of the spaceship from Star Wars.
Forty percent of all people know that.
We're being divided and conquered (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, if you go back to when Net Neutrality wasn't yet a thing and everyone was outraged by the plans of telcos to hobble 3rd party site traffic over their networks unless they were paid a protection fee, you'll find that pretty much everyone who isn't going to profit from it really and truly hates that idea. Go back to the original Slashdot stories and you'll find that practically everyone agreed that it was an absolutely despicable money grab. What's changed since then is that the telcos bought lobbyists and worked hard to split the public along party lines as to how we should stop them from doing this disgusting cash grab.
If the public could build consensus around some solution without getting split up in D vs. R nonsense, most of us really hate the scumbag tactics the telcos and their lobbyists were using. The public has mostly forgotten this and is being divided and conquered by lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
The con argument goes something like "it will make it harder for small ISPs to enter the market because they need to comply with the regulations."
But I'm not even sure small ISPs *can* enter the market anymore anyway, and if they can, how hard is it to make a provision for them in the regulations?
Re: (Score:1)
Even big ISP can't enter the market. Why do you think Google Fiber is dwindling.
But no. Let's add more regulations into the mix. When no ISP is left, maybe a regulation to force ISP to remain in business would work.
Where's John Galt when we need him.
Re: (Score:1)
Even big ISP can't enter the market. Why do you think Google Fiber is dwindling.
Google never wanted to be in the business, it was always a distraction from their core interests. What, you want it to b something else? Maybe you want to believe it was because somebody didn't put on their shoes right, or because of Canada.
But no. Let's add more regulations into the mix.
You're not calling for less regulation, you just want a private company doing it.
When no ISP is left, maybe a regulation to force ISP to remain in business would work.
That's why your government isn't allowed to just quit, huh?
Where's John Galt when we need him.
In the nuthouse where his nihilism led him. He was a crazy moron afflicted with magical thinking. He'd be better off if he h
Re: (Score:1)
For all the fear-mongering, no one has implemented such a thing. Not in the US, not anywhere in the world, as far as I know.
Just one more way to use an imaginary threat to expand government control...
Re: We're being divided and conquered (Score:1)
You mean the multiple demonstrated sections where ISP Comcast deliberately slowed trafficâ to competitor content distributor Netflix? That's in our heads and never happened?
Re: (Score:2)
So SBC's CEO was an imaginary CEO? [archive.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The threat that I'm going to force you to reply to me. Oh no, sorry, I mean
Which, by the way, they are paying for. By paying their ISPs, that pay for the difference in data usage at the peering points according to established contracts. So it's totally an imaginary threat, or at least a pointless threat (just like my threat I'd force you to reply to me, which you already had).
Unless, of
Re: (Score:1)
Contracts expire and are renegotiated. Some ISPs are simply peers, but others are decidedly "downstream" from others and receive a lot more traffic from others, than they push out. As a consumer, I've always wondered, why am I paying the same per month as the folks who Netflix and similar video-sources — in addition to hosting torrents. And why is it, that broadcast TV is paid for b
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. I'm sure Comcast has had long and protracted discussions with Level 3 during those contract renegotiations. Heck, one time, the internet got cut in half [computerworld.com] for 3 days over these negotiations.
OK, so having signed the contract now they those "downstream" ISPs are free to ignore it? Be sure to use terms like "forced to sign a con
Re: (Score:2)
If the public could build consensus around some solution without getting split up in D vs. R nonsense, most of us really hate the scumbag tactics the telcos and their lobbyists were using. The public has mostly forgotten this and is being divided and conquered by lobbyists.
Yes but that's not ISP specific. It's a universal truth.
Re:Misleading summary as usual (Score:5, Informative)
As you may know, net neutrality is a set of rules which say Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon, cannot block, throttle or prioritize certain content on the Internet. Knowing this, do you support or oppose net neutrality?
So that's 61% in favour of net neutrality rather than the abstract jargon-laden questions of 88% of people disagreeing with "the government should have the ability to set the specific prices, terms and conditions for Internet access," the 43% people who believe the internet would "get worse" if "government were to regulate Internet access as a utility" (ignoring the fact that it arguably already does, and things clearly are not getting progressively worse already), and the 51% who said "Internet access should not be considered a public utility regulated by the federal government" when it was compared to everything but telecommunications.
Two points arise from this: the 5% of people who 'strongly oppose' net neutrality may very well believe they're supporting censorship of terrorist propaganda, and if there is a major overlap between the population segment that wants an open internet and the one that wants minimal government interference in ISPs, they're probably free-market idealists who want the ISPs to have the good taste to maintain net neutrality without government oversight, much like the software industry created the ESRB to avoid government regulation of video game ratings.
It is, I think, absurd to conclude that any majority of the population is in favour of Comcast absorbing a bunch of media companies [wikipedia.org] and manipulating rules [theverge.com] so it can steal Netflix's income with XFINITY TV [xfinity.com]—no matter how many layers of bullshit they bury it under.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, the only conclusion I can draw from this is that people are stupid. Dumb, panicky dangerous animals.
Re: (Score:2)
If people really don't want that, well, net neutrality is the next best thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
2/3 of the people don't know what net neutrality is. How can you say 60% are in favor.
The short answer is because that is what the numbers showed; however your comment rightly points out a problem with surveys when it comes to making claims based o answers. The first problem is people may have no idea what you are talking about which leads to the second problem is that how you ask the question can bias a person's answer to what you want. In addition, what questions are asked and what order can also lead people to the "desired" results. Most sponsored surveys are designed to get a desired out
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with you, and I consider this survey to be worthless. What I disagree with is the summary, which does not reflect the content of the results of the survey.
It would have been so easy to do it right. Something like: "Biased survey fails to convey a clear position of Americans on net neutralty". But no. The propaganda machine of Slashdot had to spin this into a net neutrality win.
More and more this website is becoming a platform for virtue signalling. It reminds me of those videos from North
Re: (Score:2)
You get the answer you want depending on how you ask. People in general thinks regulation is bad, but you will always have regulation, be it from the government or from the ISP. And the OSP regulations may be a lot more draconian.
Simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of asking if people want to get screwed over by telecoms, they should instead ask if people support 'Restoring Internet Freedom.' Since most people will say yes to freedom, their lackey in congress can then pass a bill doing exactly the opposite, but call it that. Just lie more, problem solved!
This is the 21st C. equivalent of the Post Office (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a reason that we had a Postmaster General (1775) before we had a President: communication is vitally important to both government and the people. That is also why the Postmaster General was a cabinet post for nearly 150 years.
There were and still are strict laws which penalize anyone interfering with the delivery, processing, etc. of the US mail. In 2017, the Internet is even more important to government and the people than the Postal Service.
I am definitely a free market, small government sort of person, but it is absolutely clear that strong net neutrality is desperately needed. Saying we don't need net neutrality would be like someone in the 19th century saying that it was OK for the Pony Express (remember they were a private mail service) rider to interfere with someone else's correspondence sent through the US mail. The fact that private entities provide what has become an absolutely vital public service (in some cases where only a single provider is even an option) is not a reason to try and apply a free market dynamic where it so clearly cannot work. We aren't talking about flower shops or clothing stores. We are talking about the basis of modern daily life. What we really need to consider is whether for every law protecting physical US mail, whether we need an analogous law protecting our packets on the Internet.
I can't believe I actually said/wrote all that, but I recently had an Aha! moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: This is the 21st C. equivalent of the Post Off (Score:1)
That's a perfect analogy, thank you.
Re: (Score:1)
Yea, but, what kind of Net Neutrality (Score:1)
Net Neutrality is great, if you can get people to come up with a good definition of what net neutrality is. The translation from the ideal to what has ended up in regulations isn't so pretty. I'm kind of left wondering if the issue would be better solved with some highly visible truth in advertising requirements. I believe if ATT/COX/Verizon were required to state in LARGE BOLD print "100MBS...except Netflix, which we are going to throttle, particularly on Friday night while you are watching a movie with y
Question to fans of the government (Score:1)
Although net neutrality is currently the law of the land, Amtrak's WiFi service blocks Apple's "apps upgrade" as well as Playboy.com — likely, some other sites as well.
Why is Amtrak allowed to do that today? Are some Internet service-providers — such as the government-owned ones — more equal than others?
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know that Amtrak was an ISP. How much do you pay them a month for internet?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course. Why aren't they?
I take your question as a claim, that, if it is free (included in the ticket price), they can do whatever they want?
So, if a cable company gave you "free" Internet connectivity — in exchange for a raised price for cable TV and/or telephone — you would happily accept restrictions on that Internet-service, because it is "free"? Wow, I think, we have the solution for the telcos!
Well THAT survey will disappear FAST! (Score:2)
Survey?
What survey?
Nonono! I think you are MISTAKEN!
A Failure of Education and Government (Score:2)
People support Net Neutrality because of imagined abuses by ISPs, and the only way to fix that, in the minds of too many, is more government.
Imagine, instead, an alternative: These large companies exercising monopolistic strength being broken up into several smaller entities that have to compete.
Capitalism works.It always works. But it only works when there is competition, only when regulations don't stifle innovation, and only when the government isn't injecting cronyism to pick winners and losers.
But, nob
Re: (Score:2)
You, sir are a clueless idiot.
Breaking up the companies won't make an iota of difference. Well, maybe it will make an iota of difference, but only that. The smaller companies will not compete with each other. The issue is lack of competition for the last mile, which come about because there is a natural monopoly on last mile access, plus many cities have exclusive agreements with ISPs.
No, the solution is laws mandating access at wholesale prices for competing telecoms companies to the last mile connection
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the solution is laws mandating access at wholesale prices for competing telecoms companies to the last mile connections. .
Incidentally, that is how it works in Europe. Does work reasonably well and only very few people are stuck in the dark ages of Internet access speeds or prices as a result. But of course, the US has to make its own mistakes longer, and more intense than anybody else, because it is frankly impossible that other countries are doing things better....
Re: (Score:3)
> People support Net Neutrality because of imagined abuses by ISPs,
Without quibbling over the word "abuse", I'll just put forth the term "traffic shaping" as an analogue.
Cable companies have been shown to abuse each other (now they collaborate and abuse other industries, like Netflix) when there is financial gain. Basically, always. There's no imagining necessary for that.
Much like DNS registration (when there was only Network Solutions), people who could measure and remember the actual abuses by both NS
OP is misleading! Misleading! (Score:2)
Re:OP is misleading! Misleading! (Score:4, Insightful)
As I just posted in another reply, you sir are a clueless idiot.
The reason the FCC declared ISPs to be common carriers was because Verizon sued and won when the FCC tried to impose net neutrality rules without the common carrier status. The court sided with Verizon, but pointed out that the FCC could achieve its objective by making the common carrier declaration.
So, no, net neutrality cannot occur without doing this.
Network Neutrality is good, but Title II isn't. (Score:3)
The problem with Title II is that it replaces the free principles that the internet was founded on with overbearing regulations. An example: Let's assume that your neighborhood wasn't adequately served by internet service. You decide to do something about it. You start a small internet provider for your neighborhood, convincing all of your neighbors to invest. You go get an expensive resellable gigabit (or 10 gig) internet feed, and then run fiber from the feed to everyone's homes. Or use wireless technology to distribute it. Everyone is happy, until you realize that you are now an internet provider and have to also jump through the Title II hoops, which include a pile of regulations, and have to hire employees simply to comply with the government mandate.
There are many many small, independent internet providers out there which are feeling the pain of Title II. This isn't pain because of anything they've done wrong. If anything, they all are shining examples of how network neutrality should work. Fortunately, much of the regulatory burden of Title II has been deferred for these providers, and now won't be implemented - but this level of regulation definitely has a much heavier impact on a small internet provider with a handful of employees.
Everyone who is considering their position on this issue really should go read Ajit Pai's disssent on the original passing of the order classifying ISP's under Title II. It's available at on the FCC website [fcc.gov]. I would encourage everyone to read it to truly understand Commisioner Pai's position.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh no, small startup ISPs that disappeared in the 1990's won't be able to be restarted up! Seriously, that hasn't happened in decades, even without regulations.
Also, the trade group of small and/or municipal ISPs wrote to the FCC [muninetworks.org] saying that they were fine under Title II
Re: (Score:2)
Even locally, I'm aware of one which has started within my rather small community within the last couple of years years. There are also two older ones so there are now at least 3 different providers besides the telco and the cable company providing service to the area.
Another trade group which represents a large chunk of them
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR (Score:2)
If you bias the questions and cherry pick the results, you can get pretty much any statistic you want.
Who woulda thunk it?
Apologies, Slashdotters.. (Score:2)
Very biased article (Score:2)
This article is spinning pretty hard.
First of all, YES, the Network Neutrality policy regulates internet services as a public utility. The FCC's order on NN reclassifies internet service as a common carrier service under Title II of the Communications Act, just like other public utilities. Why try to deny this? If we're going to protect the internet for the public, be proud about doing so.
The article itself contains many similar dodges. Here's a particularly rough one: