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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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: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?

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...

Next up

[Chris Mattern]

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

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.

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

[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.