Slashdot Mirror
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.
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...
...people who own stock in Comcast, AOL Time Warner and/or AT&T.
We'll make great pets
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
These parties? The Democratic party supports net neutrality.
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.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
They don't trust the government to protect internet access, but they want the government to do it anyway. SMH
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.
WTB [sig], PST!!!
The drawbacks being primarily less money for Comcast and Time Warner to spend on paid trolls.
A recent public opinion poll
Are these the same polls that predicted Hillary would win by a landslide?
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.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
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.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Citations:
http://www.businessinsider.com...
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But the Republican and Russian parties don't support net neutrality.
I wonder what percent of the people actually understand what net neutrality is? Pretty low I guess.
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.
Poll shows an overwhelming majority of Americans from both parties have no idea what net neutrality is.
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.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
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.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
Citation needed.
...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
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
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.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Put the government in charge of what is and isn't QoS...what could go wrong?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
could you please run for office? i miss the old days of sane republicans
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.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
ISP's want to charge Netflix for rackspace
Is this a typo?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Look it up. U.S. is a republic.
Thank goodness for that too . . .
-- Mean People Suck
You mean "move back to lobbying", right?
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.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
"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.
No, you pay your ISP for up to a given data rate.
Here ya go.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
"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.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
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.
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...
-Styopa
Most Americans do not trust their cable companies.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Grammer mistake. Fuckn sue me.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
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.
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..
Well here was your chance to report on those drawbacks, shame you didn't take it.
... 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.
I meant rackspace.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Gunz!!! Jeebus!!
Network Neutrality is about #200 on their constituent's list of "issues," so it is ripe for exploitation.
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.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
"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!!
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.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
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.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I want a survey of the major campaign contributors. That's what really drives change.
Quoting the EFF:
That's why.
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?
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Silly "citizens." The only thing that matters is what the current FCC chairman thinks.
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??
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!!
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!
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
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!
Great commentary! There's even more, but it would turn into a page longer than the 'War and Peace' book.
Bailouts for the telecoms providing the backbone, since they are "too big to fail".
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
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.
The two political parties don't care a damn what Americans want.
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.
We'll make great pets
Marsha Blackburn, is that you?
Nah, I think we've got Jordan Belfort there...
We'll make great pets
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 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.
I know something about network architecture. Would you care to explain yourself?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes