Americans From Both Political Parties Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality, Poll Shows (mozilla.org)

Mozilla conducted a survey in which it found that a majority of Americans do not trust the government to protect Internet access. From an article, shared by a reader: A recent public opinion poll carried out by Mozilla and Ipsos revealed overwhelming support across party lines for net neutrality, with over three quarters of Americans (76%) supporting net neutrality. Eighty-one percent of Democrats and 73% of Republicans are in favor of it. Another key finding: Most Americans do not trust the U.S. government to protect access to the Internet. Seventy percent of Americans place no or little trust in the Trump administration or Congress (78%) to do so. Mozilla and Ipsos carried out the poll in late May, on the heels of the FCC's vote to begin dismantling Obama-era net neutrality rules. We polled approximately 1,000 American adults across the U.S., a sample that included 354 Democrats, 344 Republicans, and 224 Independents.

Comments

Government of the people

[Anonymous Coward]

by the elite, for the elite.

People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans do not trust the U.S. government to protect access to the Internet. Seventy percent of Americans place no or little trust in the Trump administration or Congress (78%) to do so.

And yet that is exactly what they are asking for with Net Neutrality...

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Xenx]

And the fact that the government is removing said protections just shows that most Americans are right not to trust them.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[PoopJuggler]

How does dismantling NN protect access to the internet?

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[mveloso]

There are no protections per se, since they never went into effect.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[HornWumpus]

Takes the government out of the position of defining exactly what is QoS (hence legal prioritization). Can't trust 'em.

There are no net neutrality rules that require all packets to be treated the same, because making QoS illegal breaks the net.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

protect access to the Internet.

Maybe they understood the "protect access" as meaning government programs to improve the broadband availability?

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[fodder69]

Most Americans do not trust the U.S. government to protect access to the Internet. Seventy percent of Americans place no or little trust in the Trump administration or Congress (78%) to do so.

And yet that is exactly what they are asking for with Net Neutrality...

How is this blatant troll comment rated insightful? Oh right, macedonians...

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

I love macedonians nuts, they are tasty but that have a lot of fat.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

But it isn't a QoS issue is it, unless you're being deliberately deceptive.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Bartles]

What protections?

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Bartles]

It certainly is an issue, maybe not the only issue.

Re: People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

QoS is simple. The ports all go at the same speed.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Xenx]

It's not deceptive at all.. Quality = how much money they bring in. Service = what you get when they think the quality is high enough.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[thegarbz]

And yet that is exactly what they are asking for with Net Neutrality...

Trusting the government to manage something in a limiting way and trusting a government to introduce regulation preventing the limiting of something are polar opposites.

People know fine what they are talking about. Unfortunately many people here on Slashdot just look up the term government regulation in the dictionary and apply it black and white, all or nothing, in every scenario.

Re: People don't know what they are talking about

[HornWumpus]

You just broke the net.

When you consider that politicians are even more technically clueless then the parent, consider the unintended consequences of putting them in charge.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[HornWumpus]

QoS/throttling, you can't see that ISPs will try and throttle via QoS settings? That clueless lawyer politicians will step on QoS issues when blundering about network throttling rules?

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

mongorians

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[hey!]

Sure. If all your doctor was a drunken quack, and you didn't have a choice of another doctor, you wouldn't trust him to save your life.

But you'd still want him to.

Re: People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet existed before QoS was implemented in Ethernet, dude. Removing it would screw with streaming services and VOIP, but would not "break the net."

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Sparowl]

A Protection/policy/law that is slated to be implemented is generally followed by businesses before it actively goes into effect, so that they are in compliance when it does go into effect. It gets them ahead of the curve and allows them to find issues they might have complying, before penalties for non-compliance come due.

Re: People don't know what they are talking about

[HornWumpus]

How much total traffic was there before QoS? What you describe would be 'breaking the net' to 99% of ISP customers.

QoS is not implemented 'in Ethernet'. It's in the routing not the switching.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Xenographic]

This is kind of the fundamental problem with NN.

I've long argued and it was obvious from being on Slashdot during the initial cash grab plans that pretty much everyone but the people hoping to rob us want NN. The real problem is with what we can DO about it. The government isn't exactly trustworthy either, so granting them broad powers is dangerous.

And yet, if we can find a more reasonable solution, we all want an internet where everyone gets to participate on an even footing, without the ISPs screwing everyone over for profit.

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

The question wasn't asking if the government should protect access.

It was asking how much you trust the current administration, current fcc, and current congress to do so. All of the current groups have shown ignorance to opposition to net neutrality.

Re: People don't know what they are talking about

[Duhavid]

Not necessarily.

There are many ways to use QoS.   Two of them are:

1, "The stuff I ( the bandwidth provider ) want to go faster, like my internal <pick service here>, will go faster, and external services from other vendors/services will go slower, actual bandwidth be damned, to make mine the 'best' ( or maybe even 'the only usable' )", because perceived profits / advantage to the provider.

2, "Services that are more time sensitive will have higher priority", because it is in the interests of the purchaser.

Number 2 is a perfectly valid reason and way to implement QoS.
I have a hard time seeing NN proponents being opposed to this.  In fact, in my opinion, #2 *is* NN.
Number 1 would be the reason to oppose, but it does not have to be that way.

I do not want Maytag working with my gas/electric provider to "ensure" that Maytag washers, dryers, stoves, etc work great, and everyone else's suck.
I do not want Goodyear working with Chevy to "make sure" that Goodyear tires are great, but all others suck.

*I* pay for my bandwidth.  *I* don't want the vendor choosing what services I can use over that bandwidth.
*I* pick what I use.
If they cant be profitable, that is on them, they need to find a way to make it work.
They should be in the business of transferring bits, nothing else.

You are correct about politicians being technically clueless.  So what?
Does that mean we all go back to living in caves?

Educate them.  We, as a community, have screeched loud enough to be heard on this before.
Lets do it again!

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[Anonymous Coward]

its not that we trust the gobermint to take care of our interwebs, it's that we trust Verizon and Cox cable even less than we trust the gobermint.

Republicans are often under the mistaken impression that corporations want free market competition. Just the opposite. Corporations want monopoly, regulation, and lack of competition. When corporations become large enough they become entrenched in bureacacy and cease to efficiently provide the services that made them so large. They do become really good at buying off politicians though.

You don't want the government controlling our lives, you also don't want corporations controlling our lives. What you want is a bunch of small mom and pop businesses provided the most services and most benefit for all. Teddy Roosevelt understood this and went after the predatory corporations while resisting the urge to turn the government into a predatory entity.

Today we have both the government and the corporations preying on the people. I guess this is a Republican / Democratic compromise.

I

Re:People don't know what they are talking about

[david_thornley]

Granting the government fairly broad powers to stop certain unfair business practices can be effective. Not granting the government some regulatory power is often much more dangerous than granting it.

The question then seems to be

[Anonymous Coward]

howcome so many Americans are supporting these parties that are at direct odds with our values?

Re:The question then seems to be

[Green Mountain Bot]

These parties? The Democratic party supports net neutrality.

Re:The question then seems to be

[__aaclcg7560]

But the Republican and Russian parties don't support net neutrality.

Re:The question then seems to be

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation needed.

Re:The question then seems to be

[MBGMorden]

Because unfortunately there is more than one issue on the table. I'm a Republican, and I support net neutrality (and I also believe in global warming). I'm trying to convince my representatives of its merits,however, realistically even if they end up scraping it I still will vote Republican, because there are other issues that I care about more that they DO line up with me ideologically on.

That's the reasonable thing. Rarely in life are you presented with perfect choices. You're presented limited imperfect options and you make the best choice from what you're given.

Re:The question then seems to be

[Anonymous Coward]

could you please run for office? i miss the old days of sane republicans

Re:The question then seems to be

[Captain Splendid]

Here ya go.

Re: The question then seems to be

[Anonymous Coward]

The people in the parties can disagree with each other but not too much.

Re:The question then seems to be

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Democratic party supports net neutrality."

Well i wish they'd quit keeping it a secret.

Re:The question then seems to be

[unixisc]

How many people even actually know what Net Neutrality really is? We know that most Republicans don't, since they seem to confuse it w/ the Fairness Doctrine, but what about the public? Do they think that Net Neutrality means that if you are a Left leaning site, you have to carry Right wing opinions (and vice versa), or do they know that it means that you can legally watch CNN, FNC, et al via your internet connection w/o signing up w/ any TV service provider?

It doesn't matter who supports it

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's lackies are going to do what they or their boss wants.

Re:It doesn't matter who supports it

[tattood]

Trump's lackies are going to do what they or their boss wants.

If the lackeys know that their constituents do not agree with what they are doing, they might not be inclined to do it. After all, we, the people, are responsible for their re-election. That's why you need to write your congressperson and senator and ask them to oppose the repealing of net neutrality.

Re:It doesn't matter who supports it

[Altus]

Of course the head of the FCC isn't elected and doesn't have constituents and will do pretty much whatever he and trump want. If he is out at the end of 4 years he can go back to a cushy job in the industry or maybe move on to lobbying.

Re:It doesn't matter who supports it

[fodder69]

You mean "move back to lobbying", right?

Re: It doesn't matter who supports it

[Anonymous Coward]

We want someone old who will listen to the millennial, someone like the last guy who did it.

Re: It doesn't matter who supports it

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck millenials. they're why we're in this current state.

Re:It doesn't matter who supports it

[aaarrrgggh]

Gunz!!! Jeebus!!

Network Neutrality is about #200 on their constituent's list of "issues," so it is ripe for exploitation.

Re: It doesn't matter who supports it

[KGIII]

I am old. Hell, I am a Boomer. Millennials aren't to blame for this. No... Not even remotely.

Now, I didn't say anything more than they aren't to blame for this. But, I am going to.

There are some lazy, useless, stupid, ignorant, willfully ignorant, troublesome, spineless, egotistical, offensive, aggressive, cowardly, and demanding Millennials.

They don't actually have much power, even though they are quite vocal.

Truth is, most of them are intelligent, kind, understanding, compassionate, growing in wisdom, creative, hard working, industrious, etc... For whatever reason, you just seem to not see them. They are not only there, they are the vast majority.

By the way, those negative traits can be applied to a subset of my generation. They were the vocal ones. We mostly called them hippies, if you're curious.

I have to wonder if half the trouble is that we're just exposed to so much more information and communication, and have so readily available a medium for exposure. I don't really know, I don't concern myself with the soft sciences very often. I don't know as people have changed so much as people have greater amplification. I'm not sure there's a change in core values so much as there's a change in displayed traits as the rewards for certain behaviors have become greater.

It used to be that being a jackass kid resulted in someone punishing you. Today, it results in you getting your own television shows. We've always had jackass kids, and adults, is the point. There's just now a cheap and easy mechanism to reward that behavior and amplify it.

Meh... What do I know?

The only people that oppose Net Neutrailty are...

[zifn4b]

...people who own stock in Comcast, AOL Time Warner and/or AT&T.

What about the only stat that matters?

[GameboyRMH]

These numbers are of little importance. What do people with lots of unoccupied land around them think about net neutrality? That's the most important statistic in American democracy.

Re:What about the only stat that matters?

[110010001000]

America isn't a democracy. The only statistic that matters is what do people who actually make the laws think?

Re:What about the only stat that matters?

[sconeu]

The only statistic that matters is what do the people who throw briefcases full of bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaing contributions at Congress think?

The percentages are way to low

[Anonymous Coward]

The people against are what old people who do not know what net neutrality is or America's morons?

Net Neutrality

[Oswald McWeany]

Of course no one wants Net Neutrality violated.

Republicans don't want the anti-business and anti-capitalism of blocking people from freely trading.

Democrats want equality of opportunity to all people.

Net Neutrality fits the rulebook for both parties.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course no one wants Net Neutrality violated.

Republicans don't want the anti-business and anti-capitalism of blocking people from freely trading.

Democrats want equality of RESULTS to all people.

Net Neutrality fits the rulebook for both parties.

FTFY

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

"FTFY" does not stand for "created a strawman".

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Those theoretical ideals are not relevant. This is a class issue.

The upper class wants to be able to further its wealth through monopolism and rent-seeking. The lower class wants to maintain affordability and full access.

Generally speaking, the upper class wins. The lower class has to hate it a whole lot to focus enough effort on fighting for it, and usually that just doesn't happen.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

Generally speaking, the upper class wins

In the US over the last 30 years, sure. Historically speaking, not even close.

Re:Net Neutrality

[green1]

I'm not sure why you're confused. You've managed to post the actual definition of net-neutrality correctly, so why wouldn't you be for it just because it's called by it's actual name?

You agree 100% with net neutrality per your quote, but you disagree with the name???

Re:Net Neutrality

[oldgraybeard]

All I meant was, when people throw out the term Net Neutrally. A majority of individuals have not clue what it means and thus just fill in their own often incorrect definition.
Thus who could be against it!
And Yes I am for true Net Neutrality ;)

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Great, so the upper class has figured out how not to lose, so the lower class is screwed.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Which history are you referring to?

Re:Net Neutrality

[Bartles]

It's not a strawman.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

The one where we're not governed by Kings and Lords, and citizenship isn't restricted based on sex or race.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Again, when was that?

Re:Net Neutrality

[HeckRuler]

You forgot to post anonymous on this on you idiot.

It IS a strawman, but I see where you're coming from. You see people complaining about, say, the wage gap which is an end-of-result thing rather than an opportunity thing. But the democratic party is big and has plenty of people in it with a variety of ideas. Just like how you can't possibly claim that there aren't republicans out there who want to nuke Mecca, I can't deny there are real asshats in the democratic party. But they don't run the show. Usually.

It wouldn't be a strawman if you had just said "SOME Democrats want equality of RESULTS to all people." And you'd be right. But those are wing-nuts and we try to self-police. Speaking of which, holy shit dude, get your party's leadership in order and stop them from destroying the Internet.

Oswald would be more right if he had slipped in a "most" qualifier in there, but really, that sort of shit is implied.

Re: Net Neutrality

[Bartles]

I don't post as ac. What you said would actually have been signficant if the OP had said all Democrats want equal results.

Re:Net Neutrality

[HornWumpus]

If the routers don't prioritize gaming packets over FTP, torrent etc your pings will go to hell.

Less so for VOIP but still true.

All packets are not the same. It's called Quality of Service (QoS). Deciding just what is and isn't QoS is tricky, I don't want it codified by lawyers.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently while you had a little nap, Mr Winkle.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't answer the question?

Re:Net Neutrality

[Anonymous Coward]

the past. the present. the future.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

Wow, I knew the American educational system was in dire straits, but to learn they don't even teach US history anymore? Sad!

Re:Net Neutrality

[Xtifr]

Prioritizing by type of packet is fine, and isn't a Net Neutrality issue. As long as you're doing so consistently, you're still neutral.

Prioritizing by source or destination of the packet is not fine, and, when done in order to try to extract money from non-customers, should be classified and prosecuted as extortion.

(And if you think that's a distinction which requires lawyers to parse, you're crazy.)

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Again, see if you can spell out any specific time period when the upper class hasn't won, generally speaking, since that was your initial premise.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

*Joseph-Ignace Guillotin turns, walks away down lonely country road. End theme fromThe Incredible Hulk starts playing*

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Not an answer (seems you don't have one, or simply don't know yourself), but if that's all you got, I guess I'll just have to go with it. Thanks for playing though.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

I guess I'll just have to go with it.

Cool! You can find some of the episodes on youtube still.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Still don't have an answer, eh? Thanks for your admission...

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

I like that you're wiling to stick by the assertion that no one of power or influence ever got it in the neck at any point in history, ever. I also like your ignorance of history and historical figures. And I especially like you not taking that sick burn like any sane adult. You wouldn't be a real American otherwise.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

I like that you're wiling to stick by the assertion that no one of power or influence ever got it in the neck at any point in history, ever.

As per your usual MO, you're making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort, not even close. And you still can't answer the question evidently. I suppose that would explain the nature of your smug responses.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

As per your usual MO, you're making shit up again.

Like what? Are you saying we're both in agreement that being an elite can, and has, resulted in a grisly demise? That you're pedantically playing devil's advocate in order to make some sort of obscure point? In that case, I'll play along and pretend you're an uneducated moron and say that one answer to your original question would be the French Revolution.

I suppose that would explain the nature of your smug responses.

Oh gods, no. The fountainhead for that is a completely different thing.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

You win again... Just can't argue with the obtuse.

Re:Net Neutrality

[HornWumpus]

What do you do with the asshole who runs his Torrents on a common gaming port? His Torrent client distro? It won't work, rule is too simple and open for abuse. All packets on port x are not the same.

You realize the problem is: Lawyers won't write the law relatively simply and reflecting a technical understanding. They will write it so every ISP needs three staff lawyers...funny how laws always end up like that. Somebody has a basic conflict, 'they' see additional shystering as a positive outcome. e.g. The actual proposed, but never enforced, net neutrality rules.

Let's not forget the discussion started with Netflix claiming that Comcast wanting money for rack space was a net neutrality issue. It's not so simple, even before lawyers get involved.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

You win again

No shit, Sherlock. "The French Revolution" is a damn good answer.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

One single instance also through high finance ('Revolution' can't happen without it, and you never mentioned it until now). And the guy replacing him wasn't exactly in the poor house, one rich guy replacing another, and it hardly fits under the original banner of 'generally speaking' in case you care about staying on topic.. So, please. pull the other one.

Re: Net Neutrality

[KGIII]

Yup. It's often trotted out as an example of the wealthy being beaten by the poor. Well, in reality, they simply exchanged rich people and killed more poor people than they killed rich people. They just kept on killing, too. They'd kill you for not having the right clothing. Hell, they even killed those who started the revolt. They killed a journalist pretty much for pointing out that they were just murdering people. Hell, they even changed the calendar, and days of the week, so as to have an excuse to keep murdering.

And no, they were killing the poor. A few rich people did die. New rich people took over. They murdered some more poor people. Then Napoleon happened, largely because they were too busy murdering poors and failed to pay their military that was, you guessed it, populated with poor people.

For the most part, they raped, murdered, pillaged, and burned poor people. This is somehow claimed as a success in class warfare.

Back then, the best fighter involved in class warfare was the motherfucking plague. The French Revolution did shit for class warfare. The plague did pretty good, however. Plague doesn't get enough credit. Plague is a badass and ain't afeared of nothin'!

Also, this is so not meant as a history lesson. I may be skipping a few parts, for brevity and humor. ;-)

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

('Revolution' can't happen without it, and you never mentioned it until now)

I love all these arguments you and I are having that only exist in your head.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Sorry, you're the one making shit up, not me. But hey, you're just messing around anyway, not reading what I wrote, etc. Pretty transparent.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

Read more carefully. I didn't accuse you of making shit up. I made fun of you for carrying on parts of this conversation in your head and then using that to give me shit. Up your med dose already, your crazy is showing.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

:-) You're jus' goofin' around...

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

wimp cries uncle

Good on ya mate.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

See how you make shit up? Of course nobody expects you to notice. You're kinda Trump-like and prone to projection... Eh...

Re: Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

Let's look at the offending text:

Democrats want equality of RESULTS to all people.

This implies that this is typical of Democrats, which it isn't. It is true of some democrats, just like "Republicans want to turn the US into a theocracy", but I suspect OP would reject that statement. There are stupid loudmouths all over any political spectrum you care to devise.

Re:Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

How about the labor union movement? Really, we've had income inequality vary in this country. It isn't monotonically increasing.

Re:Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

Writing and enforcing laws gets complicated. The murder laws for my state are detailed and hard to understand, and enforcement requires a some large government departments. However, I think it a Good Thing that it's illegal for someone to shoot me for no particular reason.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Check out who financed the labor union movement, and the kinds of people that run it now, or even then. It took a lot of money to make it happen.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

It took a lot of money to make it happen.

Which, again, was not anything anyone was arguing about, but here we are, with you insisting now for the third time how vital a piece of information this is to the thread.

At this point I honestly can't tell if you're mentally retarded or one of the slyest trolls this site has ever seen. Either way, congrats, you're special.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

You still here? And such projection!

Re:Net Neutrality

[david_thornley]

And this would be relevant...how?

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

The initial premise here was (at one time):

Generally speaking, the upper class wins

In the US over the last 30 years, sure. Historically speaking, not even close.

Which is highly inaccurate. The other person disagrees apparently, but he is wrong. Historically speaking the upper class always wins, whether it's 'revolution' or union organizing. 30 Years ago it merely became more obvious, and the trend accelerated, but there was no significant change.

Re:Net Neutrality

[Captain Splendid]

Historically speaking the upper class always wins, whether it's 'revolution' or union organizing.

Literally losing your head = winning! ROFLMAO!

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

? Laugh it up, furball. Ya still can't name a time where it's not the case.

Re:Net Neutrality

[fustakrakich]

Oh, and one rich guy losing his head to another rich guy does not make your silly case any more valid. But I thought I'd spell it out since you're not getting it

Who cares, most politicians don't

[Anonymous Coward]

For close to two decades this site has been peppering us with stories of elected officials across the political spectrum trying to regulate the internet.
They just use a constant cycle of attrition against us to get what they want.

The people overwhelmingly decry bill_x?
Wait a few months, call it something else, and go again until the people stop protesting. Let's not actually listen to the will of the people or industry or anything.

Just keep grinding until we have all the control we want.

who would be surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course we don't trust the government to do this. Who would?

And course they want to dismantle it. Anyone with sufficient money, it is a detriment, an obstacle. And they have the time and money and drive to push it to be dismantled.

Surprising nobody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Around 73% of Republicans vote against their interests

Re:Surprising nobody...

[pr0t0]

My guess is they left the phrase "net neutrality" off of the survey, and instead asked people if they were in favor or opposed to the various tenets of NN. Without the label that's painted with misinformation, of course everyone would be in favor of it.

If they sent out another survey that asked if people were in favor or opposed to net neutrality, I wouldn't be surprised to see the results would be different on the more right-leaning side of the political spectrum.

Re:Surprising nobody...

[GLMDesigns]

Would you like to explain your position? If not I can counter with:

Socialism is against everyone's interest. Therefore 100% of Democrats are voting against their interests.

Re:Surprising nobody...

[Captain Splendid]

Socialism is against everyone's interest. Therefore 100% of Democrats are voting against their interests.

Considering the average elected Demcritter loves him some Wall St. cock gobbling, I think your numbers are a little off.

Re:Surprising nobody...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the average elected Demcritter loves him some Wall St. cock gobbling, I think your numbers are a little off.

Sure, Democrat *politicians*, bureaucrats, and other various party apparatchik among the most corrupt and abusive of capitalism. That doesn't stop them from promoting Marxist/Stalinist class-warfare. Socialism is for the little people, not for them! They seek to redistribute other people's wealth and property, not theirs. They need theirs, not like those other *evil* people who oppose us.

Re:The reason?

[thaylin]

what drawbacks for net neutrality? the only drawback is that of the ISP trying to double dip. If you want to sell me a service then I get the service, you should not be trying to limit that service beyond the scope of the agreement.

These Americans seem confused

[WaxParadigm]

They don't trust the government to protect internet access, but they want the government to do it anyway. SMH

Re:These Americans seem confused

[drinkypoo]

They don't trust the government to protect internet access, but they want the government to do it anyway. SMH

They want them to do it, but don't expect that they will. What part of this is difficult to comprehend?

Re:These Americans seem confused

[Green Mountain Bot]

Probably because government is the only entity that can protect internet service. It seems to me that they - rightly - don't trust the current government to do so.

Re:These Americans seem confused

[Areyoukiddingme]

They don't trust the government to protect internet access, but they want the government to do it anyway.

Correct. We want government to function properly. Republicans want government to malfunction horribly. Republicans control the government. Therefore, we believe that a shitheel FCC commissioner who uses phrases like "honor their wishes" when talking about the comments of a fucking astroturfing botnet can only be trusted to do what Comcast tells him to do, despite our wishes.

We thought Tom Wheeler was going to be an industry shill, because that was his job for many years before he became FCC Chair. He surprised us. Now we know Ajit Pai is an industry shill, because we've heard him talk, we've noticed that he's blatantly lied to us repeatedly, and we don't trust him.

It's not hard to grasp.

Re:These Americans seem confused

[BlueStrat]

They don't trust the government to protect internet access, but they want the government to do it anyway.

Correct. We want government to function properly.

If you expect a whole slew of gigantic super-bureaucracies, which is what the current US government is, to not be supremely corrupt, dysfunctional, and unresponsive to citizens, you expect what has never been and will never be.

Strat

Re:These Americans seem confused

[david_thornley]

If you expect large for-profit corporations to be responsive to citizens, you're crazy. They'll do whatever makes the most profit, unless restrained by government. Large corporations are dysfunctional in the economic sense because they externalize all the costs they possibly can, and they're corrupt in that their actions are influenced by money. and not any idea of the greater good.

Re:The reason?

[Green Mountain Bot]

The drawbacks being primarily less money for Comcast and Time Warner to spend on paid trolls.

polls...

[Anonymous Coward]

A recent public opinion poll

Are these the same polls that predicted Hillary would win by a landslide?

Re: polls...

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhh. How can people ignore things like this if you keep pointing them out.

Re:polls...

[Anonymous Coward]

it seems unlikely, as those would not be recent. Would you like to make an actual claim about the validity and/or rigor of the methodology, or do you just want to whinge?

Re:The reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fake news mainstream media (which is overwhelmingly leftist) refuses to report on the drawbacks of net neutrality. Of course people will support net neutrality when you continuously feed them propaganda in favor of it.

What are the drawbacks of net neutrality?

The media polls are bullshit

[fustakrakich]

The real polls show people voting against net neutrality by constantly reelecting the same old politicians over and over again. So I'll believe people support net neutrality when they vote for people that will fully implement it, and vote them out if/when they fail.

Re:The media polls are bullshit

[Captain Splendid]

This would be a good argument if NN were in the top 20 issues of most voters in the US. Once again, slashdot =/= everyone else.

Re:The media polls are bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Right! I mean, just look at the previous guy. He was totally anti-neutrality. I mean, except for the part where he was implementing net neutrality. But don't let facts stand in the way of your reductionist opinions! Everybody is exactly the same! Woo!

Re:The media polls are bullshit

[david_thornley]

Last time I voted, Net Neutrality wasn't on the ballot. People's names were. I happen to know where some of them stand on NN, but I am concerned with other issues also. In order to get what I most want, I'm willing to compromise on most issues.

Re:The media polls are bullshit

[fustakrakich]

Compromise means victory, for the other side. That is what the election results show.

Re:The media polls are bullshit

[david_thornley]

Compromise is necessary. If you're unwilling to compromise in politics, you're going to lose sooner or later.

Unless I want to give one issue overriding priority, such that I will vote for the one who favors that position despite the fact that he or she wants to do things I consider deeply immoral on all other issues, I have to compromise. Do you think I should vote for a white supremacist who wants to legalize murdering blacks and Muslims and introduce a regressive income tax to be enforced by IRS agents with licenses to kill just because of his or her position on net neutrality?

Re:The media polls are bullshit

[fustakrakich]

We saw what compromise do did the democrats in 2010. There comes a time when you have to say no and take a stand. Otherwise it's nothing but a slow surrender, pretty much what we have done since 2001 in surrendering our rights in general.

Re:The reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are no drawbacks you fucking shyster

There are tons of things Americans support

[liquid_schwartz]

Most Americans support estate taxes on millionaires, most Americans do not support mass illegal immigration, and if the option "none of the above" was allowed it would have won the last election. Unfortunately most Americans are not as well connected as moneyed interests who buy (AKA fund) elections. If we had a functioning democracy, instead of the oligarchy that we currently have, I'm sure things would be both much different and better.

Citations:

http://www.businessinsider.com...

Re:There are tons of things Americans support

[Anonymous Coward]

Most Americans didn't vote in the last election.

Re:There are tons of things Americans support

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people didn't vote at all? That's your "none of the above" option.

Net Neutrality != Title II

[jimmifett]

You can have net neutrality without title II, which leads to government tyranny. Just look at england. They want to censor the entire series of tubes bc they can't handle an incompatible culture attacking from within. Like gun restrictions, all those rules would do is impact every day law abiding citizens instead of addressing the actual problem.

Keeping title ii will lead to increased intrusion from the government in something they have little understanding how and why it works, only that they want to tax and control it.

Re:Net Neutrality != Title II

[HeckRuler]

Oh sure, you CAN have network neutrality without title II, but that's looking less and less likely. In the 80's and 90's there was enough competition of ISPs that none of them thought to break the fundamental principle of how the Internet works because they wanted to retain customers and didn't want to hand their competitors an obvious advantage. Yay free market. It works great! When there's competition.

There is no more competition. Not if you want broadband. The US ISP market has consolidated down to the telecom oligarchies dividing the USA into territories where they agree not to compete with each other. If a new player tries to enter the market, they bottom out the price and make sure google Fiber doesn't make any money.

And the Telecoms have repeatedly been caught trying to violate network neutrality in an effort make a buck. I'm still pissed they bundle ESPN360.com into the service just like cable TV bundles. Throttling competitors VoIP. Blocking torrents. This is bullshit. So bullshit that the FCC stepped in and tried to regulate them.

Removing title II would lead to the telecoms abusing their monopoly for power and money. It would create additional barriers to entry into the market, create bundle-based access rights, kill torrenting, jack up the price of getting services like VoIP to work, and kill innovation on the Internet.

We can either let the FCC regulate what should be a public utility as it's a natural monopoly or we can let the FTC whip out Sherman's hammer and bust up the telecoms for anti-competitive practices. Otherwise we'll see the decline of the Internet.

Re:Net Neutrality != Title II

[Anonymous Coward]

Now I've seen it all... Title II = government tyranny and censorship like England.

Care to explain how you got from point A to point *(&@#*()(UJFS:DI(#(#P@ ?

Re:Net Neutrality != Title II

[Neuronwelder]

Great commentary! There's even more, but it would turn into a page longer than the 'War and Peace' book.

Re:Net Neutrality != Title II

[cloud.pt]

well, technically the measure was put in place back in the 40's (50's?), and only recently reverted ISPs to Title I, so you can't say Title II is tyranny, it's just businesses wanting to reverse policy, because, well, businessess are driven by investment, and that investment took into account policing under the old Title. Now they can't make the money they were expected to from robbing small internet startups, by cap'ing their sheer productive power unless they buy the fast lane. Oh, and of course, user-bound throttling, which is actually the worse as it blocks the individual and not organizations.

But yes, you got it right on the UK dept. (not England alone btw) - they are imposing a lot of restriction themselves (the govm't) like what the ISPs are doing here, but when you really look at it, they're actually not hampering small startups nor individual user rights as much, since they are targetting mostly adult content and piracy outlets by fully blocking them whenever possible (e.g. parental controls ON by default, or pirate sites completely filtered at the backbone level, not the ISP). Technically they are still going against some basic rights, but they do seem to have the posture of a real people-representing entity that the govm't should be. I personally don't like what they do, but you really can't compare it to what the FCC is trying to give away for free to financially-bound parties.

Re:Net Neutrality != Title II

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, given the way Title II is written, it's more likely to prevent censorship, as ISP's are required to carry content, and are immunized from the illegality of any content they carry. Net Neutrality without Title II Common Carrier status has already been ruled against in court (Thanks Verizon, for suing.), and the courts have said "If you want these regulations, Title II is the correct starting point".

Additionally, considering ARPA, the precursor to DARPA, created the basis of the internet, I would say that the government has institutional knowledge available. However, with the regulators chosen from lobbyist's, sycophants, and dingo's rather than from the technical or even unbiased legislative personnel, It's no wonder that it's a clusterfuck.

Slashdot should make its own mesh network

[Anonymous Coward]

And allow my fat ass to download gigabytes of porn on it. Don't like that, then you know how ISPs feel.

Re:Slashdot should make its own mesh network

[green1]

Having you pay per gigabyte for what you download would not violate net-neutrality.

Blocking the porn site that the provider doesn't want you to go to, and only allowing you to go to the one they own shares in, would.

ISPs "felt" just fine when they were raking in large sums of money before they figured out how to violate net-neutrality, why do you suddenly think it would kill them to have to follow those same rules now?

Net neutrality isn't that tough a concept to grasp, and yet comments like yours seem to purposefully try to confuse the issue.

That's cute and all

[rsilvergun]

but seeing as how we're not really a democracy I don't see how it matters. Wake me up when we've switched to a parliamentary system with no voter registration process and an executive elected by popular vote.

Re:That's cute and all

[Train0987]

With a king too?

Re:That's cute and all

[Captain Splendid]

Sure, as long as they bring in lots of tourism revenue and basically do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to do.

pal joe

[Anonymous Coward]

i think you are looking for court cases that last over 100 years

And the survey says?

[Topwiz]

I wonder what percent of the people actually understand what net neutrality is? Pretty low I guess.

Re:And the survey says?

[aaarrrgggh]

Very low. That's ok. It is people like us that should be educating them on what it is, why it is important, and making sure we are active in voicing our opinion to the companies and government.

Dumbing down the discussion to "remember how Netflix used to go to really bad resolution when you tried to watch TV?" or "If there is no Network Neutrality, your ISP could decide to make it too slow to go to NRA.org, FoxNews, or Brietbart without paying extra money."

Net Neutrality

[oldgraybeard]

Using a term like Net Neutrality is a trap, Who could be against that. But the important part is what the definition is!!
Manipulate/Manage packets in order to market Special Services/Spy/Track/Record. ISP should lose their common carrier status.
If an ISP just passes the traffic, without inspection, they should have common carrier status.
Just my 2 cents.

small minds

[Anonymous Coward]

west springfield massachusetts home of the worlds most powerful businessmen

Re:The only people that oppose Net Neutrailty are.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or whose stock is owned by Comcast, AT&T, or the like. (I think Time Warner spun off AOL, actually.)

Next up

[Chris Mattern]

Poll shows an overwhelming majority of Americans from both parties have no idea what net neutrality is.

Re:The reason?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

This. I pay Netflix and I pay my ISP for a given data rate. If the ISP slows down Netflix because Netflix isn't giving them a cut, something the ISP does not specify in my contract, they are comitting fraud.

The future will turn into lies about the need to do this when all the ISPs will have done is attach to your Netflix fee in perpeturity, regardless of how big the tubes get in the future.

Most Americans do not trust the U.S. government

[Anonymous Coward]

full stop

Re:The reason?

[gnick]

...you should not be trying to limit that service beyond the scope of the agreement.

"I am altering the agreement. Pray that I don't alter it any further."
-- ISP

Don't count voters...

[Anonymous Coward]

...count campaign dollars. There are some very big companies that care a lot about the freedom to make big bucks selling better internet to other big companies. And they spend lavishly. Voters don't mean as much as campaign contributions.

Means vs End

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument is clearly a matter of means. Across the board, there's agreement that the end of net neutrality is a good.

The debate centers on whether Pai's reclassification of ISPs as Title I rather than Title II companies is the right way to go -- Title II requires that ISPs follow the regulation that accompanies "utilities" and puts the burden onto the FCC to investigate any unneutrality, whereas the Title I would put them squarely under the purview of the FTC (who aren't allowed to regulate Title II companies), which is more reactionary in nature rather than preemptive.

Re:Means vs End

[desdinova 216]

which one will require connection providers to provide actual service to all addresses in a given area (just a routine service call to start service, no "we have to get approval from the building manager) and treating all traffic of a specific type the same.

Re: Means vs End

[KGIII]

Hmm...

Without contacting the owner, or authorized representative, you run the risk of trampling on the property owner's rights.

I am halfway convinced that a reasonable exception should be made, to do just that. I'd go so far as to say that I feel Internet access, at least availability, should be a right and that reasonable access should be mandated by law for renters where such service is available.

It is not currently a right. There's a whole lot of caveats that make it difficult to make a right. I could, literally, rent a house to you - right this minute - where there is no terrestrial service, nor is a cell tower close enough to provide service. I'd probably disallow you, the renter, permission to mount a satellite dish on said property. (I would do so for you, or have a professional install it.)

So, what would this law look like? I can't agree, at this moment in time and with this information, that you should be allowed to have them come run cable, if the owner doesn't want cable. I can agree that telephone lines are a right.

Convince me, in other words. I'm already halfway there. Tell me what this right, and law, would look like?

You'll need to establish that the renter's rights exceed the value of the property owner's rights, and where and when they are. I trust you'll try to be rational about this.

Keep in mind that some areas have limited choices and some have no reasonable options available, at all.

Take, for example, the house I mentioned. It is up above Stratton, Maine. I'm not even sure if satellite is an option without a tower/mast and/or removing trees from the property - reasonably. At what point does the property owner become responsible for maintaining this? What are uptime and bandwidth expectations?

I'm genuinely curious and, as I said, I'm halfway convinced it should be a right. I'm just not sure how. You will need building owner consent to even run new phone lines. That's the current system and phones are covered by utility laws, meaning they are already pretty much considered a necessity.

I absolutely welcome feedback and suggestions. No, "They have to let me do what I want!" is not actually helpful and will convince nobody. ;-) So, I trust you'll be same and rational. I've been away for a bit, so I am not sure if we've previously interacted. Suffice to say, some folks aren't rational.

Re: Means vs End

[Blapvedder]

It is not currently a right. There's a whole lot of caveats that make it difficult to make a right. I could, literally, rent a house to you - right this minute - where there is no terrestrial service, nor is a cell tower close enough to provide service. I'd probably disallow you, the renter, permission to mount a satellite dish on said property. (I would do so for you, or have a professional install it.)

I am fairly certain that the FCC has you covered here, cf. FCC 98-273. They state in there that actually a renter may not be prohibited from mounting a satellite dish and at the same time make it clear that the property owner should not be required to mount one.

Re:The reason?

[HornWumpus]

Dude you don't even understand the history of the discussion.

ISP's want to charge Netflix for rackspace. Netflix doesn't want to pay, claims 'net neutrality' means they get free racks everywhere.

Re:The reason?

[HornWumpus]

Put the government in charge of what is and isn't QoS...what could go wrong?

Re:The reason?

[Captain Splendid]

ISP's want to charge Netflix for rackspace

Is this a typo?

Not a democracy

[wirehead_rick]

Look it up. U.S. is a republic.

Thank goodness for that too . . .

Re:Not a democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're saying that the U.S. is not a democracy because it is a kind of democracy? That's a contradiction. Don't you know what a republic is?

In fact, the U.S. is a constitutional republic a.k.a. representative democracy. That's not merely a variety of democracy, it's the textbook example of a democracy.

Loaded questions

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who believes strongly in Net neutrality, I still find these 'guided' questions a bit shady.

From the survey, res ponders weer asked to choose one:

Consumers should be able to freely and quickly access their preferred content on the internet

      or

ISPs should be able to offer fast lanes with quicker load times to websites that pay a premium

The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[geekmux]

"We polled approximately 1,000 American adults across the U.S., a sample that included 354 Democrats, 344 Republicans, and 224 Independents."

Apparently polling 1,000 citizens out of a population of 330 million now tells us how the majority of Americans feel.

I guess the sample size makes sense, since the other 99.9999% of the population doesn't have a fucking clue what Net Neutrality is, nor do they give a shit.

At least now we can add titles worthy of being called fake news to the infamous tool we use to manipulate the masses. Why even bother polling? Just cut straight to the bullshit next time.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[Headw1nd]

Do you honestly not know how surveys work?

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you not know how political parties work? They would have been better off asking Independents.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[geekmux]

Do you honestly not know how surveys work?

Yes. I also understand why statistical results are often dismissed and mocked as bullshit and hype too.

Watering down statistical analysis with such an obscenely small sample size tends to showcase its capability to assume which provides little or no real value, especially when polling about something that does affect the majority of the population.

And in the day and age of social media, it's pretty fucking easy to get a poll in front of the actual majority, making any and all excuses to not do so rather lame. Perhaps surveys like this should put for the effort to create accurate results so it can stop being the butt of analysis jokes.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[PopeRatzo]

Do you not know how political parties work? They would have been better off asking Independents.

There are no independents. Only people who are ashamed to be called "Republican" or "Democrat".

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an independent.

I am not ashamed to be called a Democrat or a Republican, for the same reason I am not ashamed to be called a purple elephant from Betelgeuse.

Your false dichotomy is a clumsy attempt at emotional blackmail.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[PopeRatzo]

I am an independent.

No, you're a Republican.

Your false dichotomy is a clumsy attempt at emotional blackmail.

You're clearly a Republican and definitely male. I'd bet dollars to donuts from your last sentence that you're a men's rights activist, too. And probably post on /pol/

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am male - not that that's in any way relevant or an insightful guess.

That's the only correct thing you said.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thinking 1000 people is a small sample size shows that you should study math more.

Reputable studies show their margin of error anyway. It's not like you have to work very hard to figure out how big it is.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[Neuronwelder]

'He who has the gold rules' Ya know something? Gold sucks.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[geekmux]

Thinking 1000 people is a small sample size shows that you should study math more.

Assuming that 1000 people could not be bought and sold shows you should study the world more, for the problem has little to do with math. Statistical results are used and abused to do anything from sway public opinion to establish legal precedent, proving that statistical manipulation is often worth the effort. Given the amount of corruption and collusion we're finding in the world today, perhaps it's time to mitigate the risks.

Reputable studies show their margin of error anyway. It's not like you have to work very hard to figure out how big it is.

Facebook alone has over 200 million American users. It's not like you have to work very hard to increase the sample size considerably to increase accuracy exponentially. Needless to say, my confidence level with smaller samples is not high based on my previous statements.

Speaking of manipulating results, it's almost time for the world to tune into the testimony of Mr. Comey...

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[david_thornley]

Learn some statistics, guy. A thousand individuals is a pretty big sample, provided they's no systemic bias. If there is one, a sample size of half the population won't be enough.

A sample has to be big enough to make the chance that the appropriate statistics differ much from the population low enough, and it doesn't matter much what the population size is.

Suppose 60% of the population is of a particular opinion. (Technically, I should work the other way, from sample statistics, but that's more complicated, and this shows the general principle.) Now, suppose we sample ten people at random. The expected number of people who are of that opinion is six, but the standard deviation is about 1.5*, and so it would not surprise us if only four people in the sample had that opinion, since four is only somewhat over one standard deviation from six. (For samples of this size with discrete values, standard deviations aren't nearly as useful as with larger numbers.)

Now, try a thousand people. We've increased the sample size by a factor of 100, and that increases the expected value by 100 and the standard deviation by 10, to about 15. Now, we'd expect six hundred people, and two standard deviations out from the mean gives us 570 to 630. That's about a 98% chance it's 570-600.) We're almost certainly going to get pretty close to the real value no matter what the population size is.

*The expected value, or mean, is the number in the sample times the probability of "yes". The variance is the number in the sample times the probability of "yes" times the probability of "no". The standard deviation, which is a more useful figure for expressing randomness, is the square root of the variance. Figure that one standard deviation from the mean each way gets about two-thirds of the cases, and two gets about 98% of the cases, for most purposes. That will help you understand polls and the like.

Re:The "majority" of 1,000 opinions.

[david_thornley]

Yup. People are working on the Bitcoin Rule to replace the Golden Rule.

Re:The reason?

[Bartles]

No, you pay your ISP for up to a given data rate.

Easy Solution

[sycodon]

You only need one regulation.

If you advertise X speed service, they you must provide that service, 24/7, regardless of service.

Period.

No "up to", no, "Peak Times", etc. If you are going to cap data, it must be obvious. And...no take backs during the term of the contract.

If you can't, don't advertise it. If that puts you at a disadvantage, upgrade your infrastructure.

In short, don't be a fucking asshole and sell what you can't provide.

Re:Easy Solution

[zifn4b]

If you advertise X speed service, they you must provide that service, 24/7, regardless of service.

This is customary in every other type of product market. Would a car manufacturer ever say "This car goes up to 60mph" with a whole bunch of caveats in the fine print? And then when you drive said car it only goes 5mph on a 55mph highway? No. In fact, in the car industry, this would never happen because if one manufacturer made a better car than the other, the other car would disappear due to lack of demand. However, because these providers are playing the game based on ownership of the "highways" they have no reason to compete. That is the root cause of the problem.

Re:Easy Solution

[SuperSlacker64]

As a counterpoint, cars are often advertised as getting '30 mpg', when that often has a whole bunch of caveats in the fine print. And that analogy can also include the fact that some 'roads' (routes) on the internet might not be able to sustain that (you'll get worse gas mileage driving up and down hills in a city than on a flat freeway, just as some routes on the internet might not be able to sustain gigabit downloads). I don't mean to say that ISPs should be off the hook, they should still provide good service, but residential customers don't usually pay to have a guaranteed up/down speed, though commercial accounts with those guarantees do exist.

mumandu security milwaukee

[Anonymous Coward]

no you are not allowed to undo what barack did

Re: The reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, it's not fraud, just shitty service from your local monopoly.

Clear and Simple

[Tenebrousedge]

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

It makes zero sense to reserve dedicated bandwidth for most consumers. Measuring bandwidth to the ISP's routers is the best option and it's still pretty useless as an indication of real world speeds. If you're not willing to pay extra for a SLA that's on you.

I feel like the quality of your posts has decreased markedly in the last few years.

Re:Clear and Simple

[spire3661]

I dont pay a fucking SLA for my gas line or electric service, I shouldn't have to have one for my data connection. The gas line to my house is sized for our needs, as is trunk that leads to my neighborhood, so should data be.

TL-DR: Every home in America should have been Fiber-to-the-Premisis 15 years ago.

Re:Clear and Simple

[BronsCon]

You do pay for usage of those services, though. In that case, it makes sense for the supplier to ensure availability of throughput.

Re:Clear and Simple

[Strider-]

Right, and their networks (Electric and Water supply) can't supply every customer at their rated capacity either.

In the case of the water system, this is observable in cities who's local sports team is partaking in the league championship. During half time/intermission, the water reservoirs drain noticeably due to everyone relieving themselves and flushing. If everyone was using their water supply at full capacity, the infrastructure and the source would not be able to sustain it.

Same thing with the electrical grid. Look at the problems they've had in California over the years with daytime peaking, load management, and so forth. If everyone used all the power available to them all the time, the utility simply would not be able to sustain it. If you were/are using your full 200A service to capacity, all the time, the power company is going to come and figure out what's going on. Near where I grew up, a couple of neighbors on large properties got into a neighborly competition around each Christmas as to who could present the most spectacular light display. In the end, the power company had to rebuild the network in their neiborhood to supply the additional load without impacting their non-participating neighbors. The grid just wasn't built to have two houses, off of one transformer, where both were drawing 200A continuously for hours at a time.

The gas trunk line to your neighborhood is sized for the average usage of the area it serves, plus some margin. If everyone's furnace was running full bore, all stove burners on, hot water tanks, etc... the pressure would drop, demand would slow down, and the system would stabilize, and you would be wondering why you're getting piss poor flame out of your stove.

The difference is that, in the case of Electricity it's metered, so the more you use, the more you pay. Also, it's pretty common to have a step function in there. You pay one rate up to X kWh used, and Y thereafter.

So yeah, your comparison is flawed. The only way it would work is if you were willing to accept a metered account. Are you? I didn't think so. Instead, you get best effort.

Re:Clear and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Metered accounts are actually one of the best ideas I have heard.

Re:Clear and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing with the electrical grid. Look at the problems they've had in California over the years with daytime peaking, load management, and so forth. If everyone used all the power available to them all the time, the utility simply would not be able to sustain it. If you were/are using your full 200A service to capacity, all the time, the power company is going to come and figure out what's going on. Near where I grew up, a couple of neighbors on large properties got into a neighborly competition around each Christmas as to who could present the most spectacular light display. In the end, the power company had to rebuild the network in their neiborhood to supply the additional load without impacting their non-participating neighbors. The grid just wasn't built to have two houses, off of one transformer, where both were drawing 200A continuously for hours at a time.

So the rather than capping power to those two houses or allowing the neighbors to be impacted, the power utility upgraded the network capacity? Why did the power utility HAVE to do this? Do power utilities have to follow some sort of rules based on the fact that their best interests are not always in line with those of power utility customers?

Re:Clear and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying to self here:

Incidentally, I am both a customer and an owner of my power utility. The service is extremely reliable, reasonably priced. The stock is extremely stable and accounting for splits and dividend reinvestment, it has beaten NASDEQ, S&P. Hasn't beaten the DOW but it also doesn't share the volatility.

I guess it has something to do with long term strategy vs. quarterly bonus chasing.

Re:Clear and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to my cable line which is just there for looks?

The word you're looking for is 'metered'. You pay per unit of X used. Some people have internet like this, too.

Pointing out that one service is effectively flat-rate and the other isn't doesn't really have the impact you think it does, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Re:Clear and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you're looking for is 'metered'. You pay per unit of X used. Some people have internet like this, too.

Yes, and those providers ensure that their customers can use as much data as they want; not doing so limits their income.

Pointing out that one service is effectively flat-rate and the other isn't doesn't really have the impact you think it does, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

I got his point, so let me lay it out. When you pay a flat rate for "up to" speeds, providers are incentivized to provide the bare minimum level of service the average customer will accept. Only when you pay per unit will the provider go out of their way to make sure you can use as many units as possible each month.

Nobody said it was fair or right, just that it is. And it is.

Re:Clear and Simple

[zifn4b]

It makes zero sense to reserve dedicated bandwidth for most consumers.

You can ask the reverse question, does it make sense to over-subscribe? That is akin to overbooking flights. The difference is in the airline industry, we actually have several choices for who to buy airline tickets from. For internet providers, this is not the case. See the problem?

Re: Clear and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Airline the industry has the same problem: too few *viable* competitors. Any industry where the competition is so low it is run by a small handful of companies is essentially a monopoly market. Each of those businesses is making such a killing they have no incentive to improve. This applies to ISPs as well, which are usually cable providers too. Cable providers, cellphone providers, etc... all have the same problem. They are essentially monopolies. Stupid Republicans voters don't realize that by electing Republicans they are effectively keeping monopolies in power.

Re: Clear and Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The christmas lights thing is complete baloney, and that taints everything else you say.

Re:Clear and Simple

[Tenebrousedge]

See the problem?

Nope. Overbooking flights is a moderately good analogy, but not similar enough to usefully talk about pricing. We don't need to discuss analogies, however.

Bandwidth is a time-sensitive commodity. If it is unused it is simply gone, a waste of resources. Very few people use the maximum allotted bandwidth for anything except short bursts. If the capacity is exceeded service is merely degraded, not cut off. If you're planning capacity, you're not going to consider the maximum possible usage but the actual typical usage. You are definitely not going to overprovision your service by a factor of hundreds just so all of your customers can saturate their connections all at once.

Complaining about what you're voluntarily choosing to buy is asinine. You can buy a dedicated line or a SLA; your ISP will be happy to arrange this for you. These things are not arbitrarily expensive; losing the guarantee of perfect service is exactly why home broadband is cheaper. The number of competitors in the field is a completely different issue; it has no bearing on provisioning or usage.

Re:Clear and Simple

[david_thornley]

Electrical power companies are normally regulated to certain levels of service, since power distribution is a natural monopoly. They may be required to upgrade the network to keep the neighbors within spec.

Hm

[argStyopa]

Hm, really?
An ONLINE poll collected from SELF-SELECTED volunteers through an ONLINE panel of people who like to take polls (WTF?) and who are then culled according to:
"Suppliers who meet the following criteria are deemed Acceptable (meaning we continue our recruitment efforts with them):
- Responsive panelists (with high response rates, click/conversion rates)
- High volume and low percentage of duplicate/bad data
- High compositions of demographics that our panel is lacking" https://www.ipsos.com/sites/de...

Re:Hm

[argStyopa]

stupid pre 21st century shit-code slashdot.

My point was to illustrate that this was hardly a 'neutral' pool - they were a pool of enthusiastic internet users who (likely, as they regularly want to participate in polls) are probably unemployed.

Re:Hm

[david_thornley]

Which would indicate statistical bias, and once more we see that the sample size is big enough, since such bias isn't a problem with the sample size.

full stop

[PopeRatzo]

Most Americans do not trust their cable companies.

Re: full stop

[KGIII]

That does raise an interesting question... Well, I think it is interesting, but that's just me.

So, who do you trust more, Trump or Comcast?

Re: full stop

[PopeRatzo]

So, who do you trust more, Trump or Comcast?

Hold on, I'm thinking.

Re: full stop

[KGIII]

I am kinda partial to being cautious when ceding power to the government. You never know who is going to be elected. Businesses, while capable of being vile bastards, don't usually get to use threats of violence. Usually...

And, because this is Slashdot, no that doesn't mean I'm in favor of no government or against all regulations. Folks will willfully misinterpret the phrase, "being cautious."

Re: full stop

[Anonymous Coward]

So, who do you trust more, Trump or Comcast?

Hold on, I'm thinking.

Bogus question. Apples & oranges.

I trust Comcast to be evil.

I trust Trump to be stupid.

Equally & completely.

Re:The reason?

[HornWumpus]

Grammer mistake. Fuckn sue me.

Problem with most americans

[pauldy]

Most Americans have in their heads have an opinion on what net neutrality means to them regardless of what's in the legislation. This can lead to disastrous outcomes, case in point the affordable care act. People thought this would make their healthcare more affordable but for many it has done the exact opposite. The same is possible for net neutrality and it allows people to assign their own meanings to it making it palatable to a larger group..

Re:Problem with most americans

[OrangeTide]

net neutrality is relatively simple (313 pages?), and ACA is large (I believe the bill alone is 900+ pages, and it references some 2300 pages of documents). Nearly all voters are going to go after the one paragraph definition of what a bill is trying to accomplish. And a handful of pros and cons that pundits report on.

We have a democracy but every voter isn't necessarily responsible for tracking the minutiae of legislation.

Re:The reason?

[Hentes]

Well here was your chance to report on those drawbacks, shame you didn't take it.

Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump will do it his way anyhow, whatever puts more money into big business. If he wants your opinion, he'll give it to you.

And unless someone plops this data on his desk

[Anonymous Coward]

He will never know.

Most people thought Netflix was about NN

[thule]

... and most people are wrong. People thought that ISP's were shaping Netflix traffic. ISP's were NOT shaping Netflix traffic. It was a peering problem where one party didn't want to upgrade the peering links. Most people assume the culprit must be the evil ISP, but that wasn't true. Cogent didn't want to upgrade the links because they like their settlement-free peering links. When they took on Netflix as a customer, those numbers changed and they didn't want to pay for it. The best solution was for Netflix to make their own peering agreements outside of Cogent. Problem solved.

Re:Most people thought Netflix was about NN

[Anonymous Coward]

Your clarity and knowledge are refreshing. Thank you.

Re:The reason?

[Captain Splendid]

I meant rackspace.

But do they actually understand what it is?

[bobbied]

This whole thing is more about the selection of a catchy name and less about the actual rules than most people know. I'm guessing the polled people don't really understand what "Net Neutrality" is. Heck, even the FCC commissioners don't fully understand what a mess "Net Neutrality" actually is and how it's neither good networking nor Neutral as written. Oh no, it's really just a lobbyist written set if rules designed to protect carriers and not making the internet Neutral in any way.

So, shame on the pollsters for just how they poll this. Who's going to say "NO!" to "Do you like "Net Neutrality"?

It's like calling an EPA funding law the "Clean Air Act" or adding education funding by calling it "No Child Left Behind"... It's all in the name, the marketing the PR value of what you call it, not so much in what it actually accomplishes. Which is going to be the down fall of our democracy if we don't stop doing this kind of thing, putting labels on things that describe political goals instead of what the legislation actually does.

Re:The only people that oppose Net Neutrailty are.

[aaarrrgggh]

No... while I do own stock in T and VZ, I am very much in favor of Network Neutrality. Comcast/Charter could be different, but I believe the big telco's are best served with an advanced, educated population and a growing economy. Short-sighted profit seeking with "fast lanes" does not fit into this scenario.

Classic Libertarian Dillema

[jediborg]

"I support Net Neutrality" but "I don't want the government to regulate the internet"

As much as I want to believe all the people that say regulating the Internet as a utility would allow us to keep net neutrality without allowing the FCC to impose other regulations.... I have to remind people that the FCC is why you can't say '7 naughty words' on television. They are also in the business of enforcing monopolistic advantages for the big companies that pay for spectrum at auction, instead of using the common-law property rights process that worked great in the early days of radio..

Cant trust the government to regulate the internet, but can't trust the companies either, since they have a history of manipulating state governments in order to secure their regional monopolies. ARGGGHH!!

Re:Classic Libertarian Dillema

[david_thornley]

Broadcast television and radio require bandwidth, which is a limited resource. The EM spectrum is regulated precisely because it's a limited public resource. Get off the air and the FCC doesn't have a hold on you anymore.

Net Neutrality would actually mean you pay more

[aristotle-dude]

Wireless carriers would be unable to cut deals with companies to provide unlimited streaming of certain services while only charging you for metered service. Wireless services would be unable to guarantee networks connectivity through QoS protocols to throttle heavy data users. ISPs would be unable to guarantee high QoS for streaming services like Netflix.

What many of you do not realize is that certain business interests are actually pushing for Neutrality so that they can charge you more.

I actually want to have competition driven not just on price but levels of service. I want to be able to choose the ISP that meets my needs. Some people are gamers, some are streamers while others are downloaders.

Imagine if your provider offered you IPTV but then they had to charge you for data at the same rate as Netflix. Imagine if your provider offered you VOIP or Wifi calling but then had to charge you for the data you used for voice.

Re:Net Neutrality would actually mean you pay more

[Neuronwelder]

Could you imagine going to a library and putting a quarter in a parking meter to get some "internet" service. (Once they pass this we don't have an Internet anymore) Oh well, I'll guess I'll be using the phone more.. or will that be metered too?. Guess I'll go back to reading books.

Re:Net Neutrality would actually mean you pay more

[david_thornley]

ISPs don't charge you on a cost-plus basis. They charge people at what they figure is the optimum rate to get the most profit. If they can get paid for preferring Netflix traffic, they will take that money and whatever they can get out of the customers in addition. The result is that it's harder to get non-Netflix traffic for probably the same amount of money.

Net Neutrality is a stupid name. It's really just being a common carrier, which is a term more people understand. It makes people think NN forbids QoS.

Competition would be nice. Right now, there's three ways to get a connection to my house: through the cable company, through the phone company, and wirelessly. I'm fortunate in that I get to pick which of the three I want, although I really don't want the wireless service that's available for other reasons, so I'm basically down to phone company and cable company That's two companies for an evil entrepeneur to bribe. That's not nearly enough competition.

Re:The only people that oppose Net Neutrailty are.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are also the ones that matter.

What? You thought in this brave new world of "got mine, fuck yours", that anything that is a benefit to you would even be remotely considered if it impacted the ability for established interests to make money???? HA!

Go cry over there, there's a microphone for you to use. Feel free to bawl into it as much as you want, we'll be laughing at it all the way to the bank. (And so will the fucking idiots who we tricked into giving us the power to do so. Gleefully even.)

Except the Plurality that DON'T!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fake News on Slashdot from Mozilla.org

Re:The reason?

[HornWumpus]

Netflix wanted to cut backbone traffic by putting servers in the ISP's data centers, for free. Claimed being charged for rackspace was a violation net neutrality.

"Network Neutrality"

[Anonymous Coward]

What the Obama administration was paid for was not network neutrality. It was vendor lock in. Learn a little about network architecture and you'll figure out that it was exactly what Comcast paid for; no threat to Comcast, but would weaken the small competitors.

Re:"Network Neutrality"

[david_thornley]

I know something about network architecture. Would you care to explain yourself?

As if that matter to folks that wont even

[Anonymous Coward]

Answer Senators questions. At least Hillary answered.

Re: The reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be free. If they are paying for the servers and the installation then what is the problem? And don't say electricity. These servers cache content so it doesn't have to travel far for viewers.

Why won't Comcast put netflix caching servers in their data centers? Because money? That is bullshit and you know it.

Useless survey

[jader3rd]

I want a survey of the major campaign contributors. That's what really drives change.

why net neutrality?

[aisaac]

Quoting the EFF:

Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a service can be either a “telecommunications service” that lets the subscriber choose the content they receive and send without interference from the service provider; or it can be an “information service,” like cable television, that curates and selects what subscribers will get.

That's why.

Re: The reason?

[KGIII]

Wait...

Did you just claim that Comcast *must* house Netflix's equipment, on Comcast's property, for free? Am I understanding this correctly?

Not that they should, but that they must do so? That they should be forced to do so?

Out of curiosity, how many companies should they be forced to do this for? Should they house my CDN, as well? Do I get to install any other equipment, or just a single server? How much space should I be able to demand for, say, storage?

And Netflix has to give them no renumeration, at all? Any equipment standards, or just any old server they want to put in there?

'Cause I am sensing a great business opportunity. I'd come out of retirement, for that. Shit yeah...

Also, I'm pretty sure you're mentally retarded and have a piss-poor grasp of simple concepts like property rights. I'd usually give you the benefit of doubt, but I'm not going to do so.

Marsha...

[Anonymous Coward]

Marsha Blackburn, is that you?

Re:Marsha...

[zifn4b]

Marsha Blackburn, is that you?

Nah, I think we've got Jordan Belfort there...

Irrellevant Poll

[seven of five]

Silly "citizens." The only thing that matters is what the current FCC chairman thinks.

Re: The reason?

[Neuronwelder]

Corporate Subsidies are Welfare for corporations and we give these out like candy on Halloween. So.. Why not continue with their idiot logic on freebies??

Re:The reason?

[Neuronwelder]

Ok then.. I want a free car. I feel they charge too much for parking meters... What an insane world of idiotic entitlements we live in!!

Re: The reason?

[KGIII]

LOL

I sense a business opportunity. I'm gonna start a CDN service and pay for nothing. I'm just gonna make the ISP house my equipment. They have to do it for free, too. Well, they will after some imagined law. It's closer to the people!

I should be able to offer this service pretty cheap. Hell, I might even do cloud storage and SaaS. They better upgrade their switches when I tell them to, or there's gonna be hell to pay. I will write angry tweets!

Idiot Results

[Neuronwelder]

Let's see how your profits drop. Everyone here knows that there is a time limit a person will wait for a page to load. This country runs on consumerism, not unbridled greed. I'd love to be a fly on the wall with a camera to take a picture of the horror on their faces when they have seen the results of what they've done!

You won't like the result

[OrangeTide]

Bailouts for the telecoms providing the backbone, since they are "too big to fail".

Re:You won't like the result

[Neuronwelder]

The original post is sarcasm.

Re:You won't like the result

[OrangeTide]

Poe's law strikes again.

Who cares what Americans want?

[luttapi]

The two political parties don't care a damn what Americans want.

Re:The only people that oppose Net Neutrailty are.

[zifn4b]

They are also the ones that matter.

What? You thought in this brave new world of "got mine, fuck yours", that anything that is a benefit to you would even be remotely considered if it impacted the ability for established interests to make money???? HA!

Go cry over there, there's a microphone for you to use. Feel free to bawl into it as much as you want, we'll be laughing at it all the way to the bank. (And so will the fucking idiots who we tricked into giving us the power to do so. Gleefully even.)

Wow how condescending of you. You assume because of my comment that I am ignorant of the "game" aka economic game theory? That's very presumptuous of you. Has it ever occurred to you that not everyone feels compelled to be a narcissistic, elitist prick like you to gain other people's admiration? Strong people don't need anyone else's admiration and approval. That's a very blinky neon sign of weakness and frequently evidence of an inferiority complex. Perhaps you're compensating for the lack of something? Carry on though. You are quite amusing. :) We need more people like you in the world. You actually create opportunities for others with your hubris.

NOT So FAST

[Anonymous Coward]

There are TWO kinds.

1. Net neutrality - the idea that the internet should be an even playing field for everybody. The way it has been for 20 years. This is what everybody agrees they want, but it's NOT what you got.

2. "Net Neutrality" - the name of a plan to seize control of the Internet and get aspects of it under federal control and still other parts under international control. This plan was created by the Obama administration.

I told you so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7WHoqsRuxU

Re:The reason?

[david_thornley]

GP's point is entirely valid, and has nothing to do with the rackspace dispute. Substitute any other widely used video source and it's just as valid.