dslreports logo
 story category
Rasmussen: 1 In 5 Want Neutrality Rules
But do people know what neutrality is? Does Rasmussen?

According to a new survey of 1,000 likely voters by Rasmussen Reports, just 21% of those surveyed "want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television." Given this is a very complicated issue and the high level of political disinformation and noise surrounding it, it's not too hard to think that most Americans don't really have a solid grasp on what network neutrality even is. However, judging from the specific questions asked by Rasmussen, it's not particularly clear that Rasmussen does either. The four questions asked are simplistic, subtly misleading, and reek of "push polling":

quote:
Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?

What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet—more government regulation or more free market competition?

If the Federal Communications Commission is given the authority to regulate the Internet, will they use that power in an unbiased manner or will they use it to promote a political agenda?


It's very clear that many don't yet fully understand the new rules don't actually do very much. They were crafted with abundant AT&T input -- and mirror a legislative proposal by Google and Verizon. More purchased than political, our new neutrality rules certainly aren't akin to "regulating the Internet like radio and television," because in this case the rules are industry written and largely for show. All they really ask ISPs to do is to be transparent about what network management is being used, and to not directly block legal content -- things most ISPs were already doing voluntarily.

The polling firm proceeds to pretend that voters have a simple choice between "more government regulation" and "more free market competition." That's not really an either/or proposition, as balanced and reasonable government regulation of markets often leads to improved competition and lower prices (see: France, Japan, Finland, etc.). As we've discussed for years -- the U.S. broadband market is not competitive, and bi-partisan regulators have been well lobbied to keep it that way. Rasmussen's question is over-simplified and subtly misleading, suggesting the voter only has the choice between heavy government intervention or a competitive free market -- and couldn't possibly have both.

Rasmussen then brings out the big guns, asking if the FCC is eager to "promote a political agenda." But a desire for an open and vibrant Internet ecosystem really isn't a political issue; politics is simply used as a weapon during discussions to mislead and divide the public (for example, button-pushing rhetoric insisting neutrality is a Hugo Chavez-esque socialist attack on free speech and puppies). Again, Rasmussen's question is overly simplistic and intentionally divisive. Obviously the FCC Democratic majority voted yes, but again -- the rules were largely dictated by AT&T, not real Progressives. Apparently, nobody (including the GOP) noticed that Progressive groups like Free Press don't like the new rules.

Unless AT&T is a secret front organization for Marxists, there's a lot of very, very confused people out there. The reality is that both parties share one "political agenda," and it's doing what the wealthiest campaign contributors tell them to. Layered and divisive political rhetoric is intended to obscure this fact, and get the public fighting amongst itself, instead of seriously and intellectually weighing each issue and instance of government regulation on its merits. With this kind of mud-puddle level discourse dominating the discussion, and Rasmussen's subtly misleading questions, the poll results aren't surprising.

After all, many leading popular American intellectuals will tell you, every effort at imposing new consumer protections is an alien takeover of the Internet. Right?
view:
topics flat nest 
page: 1 · 2 · next

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 recommendation

FFH5

Premium Member

Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me. And as far as people not trusting the FCC to make non-political decisions, I think they are very correct in not trusting the FCC at all. The FCC undoubtedly has an agenda. An agenda pushed by the Chairman named by which ever party holds the White House.
FFH5

FFH5

Premium Member

The Political Class ??? in Rasmussen reports

This category being used by Rasmussen reports intrigued me. I see it as a category in poll results but didn't know what it meant.

In this poll, The Political Class category was at odds with the rest of the poll results:

As you would expect, there is a huge gap between the Political Class and Mainstream Voters on this topic. Most Mainstream voters see free market competition as the best way to protect Internet users, but most in the Political Class prefer more regulation.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) in the Political Class believe the regulations would be handled in an unbiased manner, while 72% of Mainstream voters believe they would be used to promote a political agenda.

So this is how Rasmussen puts some respondents in to the "Political Class" category:

The Political Class Index is based on three questions. All three clearly address populist tendencies and perspectives, all three have strong public support, and, for all three questions, the populist perspective is shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and those not affiliated with either of the major parties. We have asked the questions before, and the results change little whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge of the government.

In many cases, the gap between the Mainstream view and the Political Class is larger than the gap between Mainstream Republicans and Mainstream Democrats.

The questions used to calculate the Index are:

-- Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?

-- Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?

-- Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors?

To create a scale, each response earns a plus 1 for the populist answer, a minus 1 for the political class answer, and a 0 for not sure.

Those who score 2 or higher are considered a populist or part of the Mainstream. Those who score -2 or lower are considered to be aligned with the Political Class. Those who score +1 or -1 are considered leaners in one direction or the other.

From reading the above, it sounds like the "Political Class" are those people who like and trust our politicians and that think politicians aren't a bunch of scum looking out for themselves.

I guess I am NOT part of the "political Class" in these polls.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: The Political Class ??? in Rasmussen reports

There is a major flaw in this question: Do government and big business often work together in ways to hurt consumers and investors?

Consumers and investors in many cases do not coexist for the same purpose and in many cases conflict with each other. This clearly shows a slant because 99.9% of either group that has a strong tendency toward being a Consumer or an Investor can't answer that question "Yes".

If the question was asked twice with it being: Do government and big business often work together in ways to hurt consumers? and then Do government and big business often work together in ways to hurt investors?

The answers would clearly be: Yes and No for strong consumers and No and Yes for strong investors (and shills).

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: The Political Class ??? in Rasmussen reports

said by Skippy25:

There is a major flaw in this question: Do government and big business often work together in ways to hurt consumers and investors?

Consumers and investors in many cases do not coexist for the same purpose and in many cases conflict with each other. This clearly shows a slant because 99.9% of either group that has a strong tendency toward being a Consumer or an Investor can't answer that question "Yes".

If the question was asked twice with it being: Do government and big business often work together in ways to hurt consumers? and then Do government and big business often work together in ways to hurt investors?

The answers would clearly be: Yes and No for strong consumers and No and Yes for strong investors (and shills).

I think the answer would be yes to both questions.
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO

Skippy25

Member

Re: The Political Class ??? in Rasmussen reports

Sorry you are right. Shills should of had a third category. No and No.

And I would disagree with your Yes and Yes simply because businesses are required by law to look out for their investors.

funchords
Hello
MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA

1 recommendation

funchords to FFH5

MVM

to FFH5

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

Yeah, the questions are all too clear and straight forward. They're also misleading and non-illuminating. For a polster, it would be a total failure except that the goal here wasn't polling, it was opinion forming.
said by FFH5:

The FCC undoubtedly has an agenda. An agenda pushed by the Chairman named by which ever party holds the White House.

So what was Kevin Martin's political agenda? After all, he voted to enforce Net Neutrality principles on Comcast.

These are carriers we're talking about, people. Common Carriers need a regulator to act as a watchdog in order to exist, or they cease to exist!

RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY

RARPSL

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by funchords:

Yeah, the questions are all too clear and straight forward. They're also misleading and non-illuminating. For a polster, it would be a total failure except that the goal here wasn't polling, it was opinion forming.

Or it can be that the questions (and choices) are phrased so that the result that was desired before the poll has even occurred can be reported once it is held. If the people who take the "poll" are not given a chance to respond in ways that the poll giver does not want to have reported as the result, there is no way for them to actually give a valid answer. That type of rigged poll was my impression of the meaning of a push-poll (although I apparently was under a misconception since it seems to be a supposed poll whose intent is to alter the views of the people being polled not one which is designed to report out a desired result).
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me. And as far as people not trusting the FCC to make non-political decisions, I think they are very correct in not trusting the FCC at all. The FCC undoubtedly has an agenda. An agenda pushed by the Chairman named by which ever party holds the White House.

Of course they seem clear and straightforward to you - they are speaking directly to you. There is ample evidence by now that most Rasmussen polls have a right-leaning bias and this poll appears to be no exception.

I'm not sure I agree completely about the FCC; they are certainly influenced by the politics of an issue, but by far the greatest influence comes from those that they should be regulating: ATT, Verizon, Comcast, etc.

there were great hopes that because Genapussy is a democrat, appointed by a democratic president, that he would actually make some decisions that were consumer friendly. Alas, the regulatory capture of the FCC by the industry is so strong that all we get is more of the same weak tea we have seen over the last several years.

yes, the FCC has an agenda, one that is scripted by the very industry they are supposed to be regulating; it matters not which party is in power, as they all love those millions and millions in contributions from the telecom industry and wouldn't dare do anything to jeopardize the river of money flowing into their coffers.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to FFH5

Member

to FFH5
said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Let's see what if the qurestion was PROPERLY asked.

Q: "Do you want your ISP to be able to charge you extra to access Google, or Yahoo or Netflix etc"?"

I think nearly 100% would be against that. Thus they would be FOR NN.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

2 recommendations

jcremin

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Let's see what if the qurestion was PROPERLY asked.

Q: "Do you want your ISP to be able to charge you extra to access Google, or Yahoo or Netflix etc"?"

I think nearly 100% would be against that. Thus they would be FOR NN.

Except, as Karl points out, ISP's already aren't doing that, so why should we write laws and throw more taxpayer money and regulation at a problem that doesn't really exist?
msanto
join:2001-08-13
Castro Valley, CA

msanto

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

Is it really so hard to imagine Comcast slowing Netflix, so they can sell XFinity services?

IN fact, they haven't been doing this, but they have been discussing it, if you've done any serious reading at tech sites. Thus, we want to proactively keep them from doing it.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by msanto:

Is it really so hard to imagine Comcast slowing Netflix, so they can sell XFinity services?

It isn't hard to imagine that they would be temped to, but the fact of the matter is they simply wouldn't get away with it. They know that customer backlash and the media attention would hurt their image so much that the chances of it actually happening are quite slim.
said by msanto:

IN fact, they haven't been doing this, but they have been discussing it, if you've done any serious reading at tech sites. Thus, we want to proactively keep them from doing it.

The fact of the matter is that most tech sites are less factual and more opinionated than Karl's posts. The stories about ISP's plotting against their customers are just as rampant as the stories about the government spying on us. Virtually none of them actually have any proof, so it's best to chalk it up as "speculation", even if it is something that is a valid concern.

I don't believe in additional regulation based on speculation. Both you and Karl even point out that virtually no ISP's have done any serious blocking of competing services. I believe regulation should be based on actual violations, rather than fixing problems that don't exist yet, otherwise they don't know where to focus.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to jcremin

Member

to jcremin
said by jcremin:

said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Let's see what if the qurestion was PROPERLY asked.

Q: "Do you want your ISP to be able to charge you extra to access Google, or Yahoo or Netflix etc"?"

I think nearly 100% would be against that. Thus they would be FOR NN.

Except, as Karl points out, ISP's already aren't doing that, so why should we write laws and throw more taxpayer money and regulation at a problem that doesn't really exist?

Ok well I haven't murdered anyone so why should there be a law against me murdering anyone? Let's wait until AFTER I commit murder. No need to waste everyone's time on an unecessary law.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by 88615298:

Ok well I haven't murdered anyone so why should there be a law against me murdering anyone? Let's wait until AFTER I commit murder. No need to waste everyone's time on an unecessary law.

I get what you are saying, but comparing a "life or death" situation against the internet isn't quite apples to apples. Regulating things that aren't a VITAL part of life shouldn't be part of the government's job. Yes, I know internet access is important to the economy, but it isn't life or death.
jp10558
Premium Member
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY

jp10558

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

It sounds like you feel the first amendment is wrong and superfluous then. And maybe the second.

I mean, being able to print books or read publications the govt doesn't like isn't life or death.

And having a gun for most people isn't life or death most of the time.
cmaenginsb1
Premium Member
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA

1 recommendation

cmaenginsb1 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Let's see what if the qurestion was PROPERLY asked.

Q: "Do you want your ISP to be able to charge you extra to access Google, or Yahoo or Netflix etc"?"

I think nearly 100% would be against that. Thus they would be FOR NN.

Except NN policy as discussed by the FCC and Congress typically has extended beyond that simple question, thus making the NN debate far more complicated.
fiberguy2
My views are my own.
Premium Member
join:2005-05-20

fiberguy2 to 88615298

Premium Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Let's see what if the qurestion was PROPERLY asked.

Q: "Do you want your ISP to be able to charge you extra to access Google, or Yahoo or Netflix etc"?"

I think nearly 100% would be against that. Thus they would be FOR NN.

I'm going to use your POST as an example of a major issue. No matter what the case turns out to be, the cards are all stacked against the consumer. People think that government is effective enough to protect the consumer and deliver expected results.

1) Cash for clunkers. It was hailed a success, however, it caused the price of most used cars to rise during this failed program. It also hurt charities as donations fell sharply as people went for the free government money. In the end - 0 impact on the environment, no major impact on the economy, and a major debt burden on society. Oh, there was a positive.. politicians got temporary love from their followers, but that too ended tragic.

2) Health Care reform - just a tragic mess. I dunno about you guys, but my monthly insurance go pay went from $120 a month to $260 per month. Many people got major rate increases, many people have lost health care.. the over all program will wind up not getting funded now.. it's a major tax code change really is what it is.. but the point is that the insurance companies have taken a preemptive strike back showing government that you can try to make them do one thing, but they'll just go a different route and do another - they still win.

3) Try to force network neutrality rules on ISPs, fine.. they can no longer discriminate on traffic. Government will ALWAYS fail to look at ALL angles thus many other avenues will be left open to the ISPs. In this case, sure traffic will be declared "hands off" and the consumer wins, right? Wrong. The ISPs do. They'll simply move to metered billing because there's no law STOPPING them.. so, they set up their new billing plans, and they make even more money with all the streaming video, etc. which will bring over over cap charges. So, ask yourself, do you REALLY think that the big ISPs are going to care if NN really happens? No. Either way, they win.

Either they get overages and billing by the byte, or they get the ability to shape and manipulate user behavior under current free market terms.

Congress is perfectly incapable of thinking or seeing anything through to enact the change they promise to do. There simply is no way they can really ensure the expected outcome because they can't dictate 100% of the practices that business operate under, nor will they ever try.

By the way.. people haven't realized this, but the people lost control of this country decades ago.. and it will never change. You can't get people today to care. The newest generation of kids are too busy being plugged into social media, bit torrents, parties, and other non-important issues TO care.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by fiberguy2:

said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Let's see what if the qurestion was PROPERLY asked.

Q: "Do you want your ISP to be able to charge you extra to access Google, or Yahoo or Netflix etc"?"

I think nearly 100% would be against that. Thus they would be FOR NN.

I'm going to use your POST as an example of a major issue. No matter what the case turns out to be, the cards are all stacked against the consumer. People think that government is effective enough to protect the consumer and deliver expected results.

1) Cash for clunkers.

2) Health Care reform

3) Try to force network neutrality rules on ISPs,

1) Cash for Clunkers worked and sorry, but charities lost money when they changed tax laws on donating cars not from cash for clunkers. It also had a huge impact on the auto industry as it got people buying a lot of new cars. It worked better than any tax cut.
The bush era tax cuts have done nothing but raise the debt.

2) The healthcare reform was kind of successful. My insurance through Cigna actually went down $25 a month since it passage. Nothing in the bill should have made your rates go up.
Now the failure parts of the bill are from the heavy compromise with anticonservative republicans. The healthcare bill is truely a bipartisan bill, but if the dems passed the original bill with the conservative public option we would all be much better off and price would have been regulated with competition.

3)Metered billing will not work in the US. They had it in the 90s and competition forced them to get rid of it. If they go back to it then we will see more municiple broadband networks and wifi alternatives.
Current ISPs are hugely profitable without metered billings. The only reason for them to try and bilk more money from consumers is just greed. Also look at Canada. Its only a matter of time before their government puts a stop to the metered billing.

Also about your comment of young voters. I would say young voters are much more aware of laws and politics over any fox news watching 50+ voter.

Thespis
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.
Premium Member
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX

1 recommendation

Thespis

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by r81984:

The bush era tax cuts have done nothing but raise the debt.

Tax cuts decrease revenue. Excessive spending increases debt.
They are not the same thing.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

1 recommendation

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by Thespis:

said by r81984:

The bush era tax cuts have done nothing but raise the debt.

Tax cuts decrease revenue. Excessive spending increases debt.
They are not the same thing.

When you cut taxes knowing you will never cut spending then you are increasing debt.

DaDawgs
Premium Member
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA

DaDawgs

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by r81984:

said by Thespis:

said by r81984:

The bush era tax cuts have done nothing but raise the debt.

Tax cuts decrease revenue. Excessive spending increases debt.
They are not the same thing.

When you cut taxes knowing you will never cut spending then you are increasing debt.

Lets try this then, "LETZ CUTZ SPENDINZ STUPID."
msanto
join:2001-08-13
Castro Valley, CA

msanto to Thespis

Member

to Thespis
Tax cuts without spending decreases raise the debt, excessive spending or not.

DaDawgs
Premium Member
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA

DaDawgs to Thespis

Premium Member

to Thespis
said by Thespis:

said by r81984:

The bush era tax cuts have done nothing but raise the debt.

Tax cuts decrease revenue. Excessive spending increases debt.
They are not the same thing.

You Gawd damn right. We cut taxes and revenue decreases, and the government has to tighten its belt.

The government tries to spend more and they increase the debit and they have to make the hard choices.

Which part of that is complicated or difficult for you? You want bigger government? Are you really that stupid? You want higher taxes? Are you really that stupid?

What part of smaller, more conservative government are you having trouble with???

I'm just asking?
nOv1c3
join:2006-11-08
Whitney, TX

1 recommendation

nOv1c3

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

Sorry but history has shown that when you cut taxes the revenue increases

Problem with this country is , I haven't seen a liberal that didn't want to Control regulate or tax everything to death that they can see ,

Its time to start cutting folks off from the Government Tit and getting the government out of interfering in our everyday lives
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by nOv1c3:

Its time to start cutting folks off from the Government Tit and getting the government out of interfering in our everyday lives

Well said!
jcremin

jcremin to r81984

Member

to r81984
said by r81984:

1) Cash for Clunkers worked ..... It also had a huge impact on the auto industry as it got people buying a lot of new cars.

And how is it the government's responsibility for people to take on debt they can't afford because they are already foreclosing on their houses? If the auto industry screwed up, then it should be forced to shut down, and start fresh, rather than sticking billions of dollars into it. The only single benefit was to keep some jobs around, but where does that money come from? The rest of us taxpayers. If I am running a business and can't keep enough sales, does that mean I am entitled to a federally funded bailout to help make sure that I can continue making money? No, I go out of business and work for someone else.
said by r81984:

3)Metered billing will not work in the US. They had it in the 90s and competition forced them to get rid of it. If they go back to it then we will see more municiple broadband networks and wifi alternatives.

Why not? Bandwidth consumption is the basis for metered billing. 10% of the customers use 90% of the bandwidth. Delivering internet access is no different from delivering electricity. Why is it not fair for someone who uses more to pay more? I have a very small house and my electric bill is about $75/mo. Compare that with most of the other houses with big families (and maybe electric heat) that use $200/mo. If the flat rate "all you can eat" model were applied to electric, my bill would probably go up to $150, while those who run a space heater all night and leave the window open will pay less than before....

Also, if metered billing is perceived as bad, and new ISP's start up to fill in the gaps, then we have competition. Everyone agrees that the real problem with ISP's is when the big ones are anti-competitive and use monopolies, so you should be praying for metered billing because it will bring competition!

One more comment: if everyone wants a 10 meg connection for next to nothing so they can stream netflix, how are these new networks going to support that bandwidth and be profitable?
said by r81984:

Current ISPs are hugely profitable without metered billings. The only reason for them to try and bilk more money from consumers is just greed.

Some of the largest mega-huge ISP's are hugely profitable, but a lot of that has to do with video and phone services they provide. As bandwidth consumption skyrockets, the profit margins will quickly decrease. That leaves a few options.... 1) ISP's try to keep people from using some of the more bandwidth intensive applications, 2) they raise rates across the board to make up for the difference, 3) caps, 4) metered billing.

Of those 4 options, NN regulations would immediately eliminate #1. And all 3 of the others are side effects that effectively raise rates one way or another. Competition is heavily focused on the base price, so I don't see #2 happening. Metered billing quickly becomes the most fair of the options, and I would guess it is only a matter of time before it happens. Caps are sort of an in-between of #3 and 4, and we may see them too since it is a little easier to know what the exact bill will be. Either way, 3 and 4 are both metered billing in one sense or another since those who use more bandwidth will pay more.

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by jcremin:

said by r81984:

1) Cash for Clunkers worked ..... It also had a huge impact on the auto industry as it got people buying a lot of new cars.

And how is it the government's responsibility for people to take on debt they can't afford because they are already foreclosing on their houses? If the auto industry screwed up, then it should be forced to shut down, and start fresh, rather than sticking billions of dollars into it. The only single benefit was to keep some jobs around, but where does that money come from? The rest of us taxpayers. If I am running a business and can't keep enough sales, does that mean I am entitled to a federally funded bailout to help make sure that I can continue making money? No, I go out of business and work for someone else.

Your joking right???
We wasted trillions in Iraq on nothing and you care about a few million dollars that helped save a lot of jobs.
said by jcremin:

said by r81984:

3)Metered billing will not work in the US. They had it in the 90s and competition forced them to get rid of it. If they go back to it then we will see more municiple broadband networks and wifi alternatives.

Why not? Bandwidth consumption is the basis for metered billing. 10% of the customers use 90% of the bandwidth. Delivering internet access is no different from delivering electricity. Why is it not fair for someone who uses more to pay more? I have a very small house and my electric bill is about $75/mo. Compare that with most of the other houses with big families (and maybe electric heat) that use $200/mo. If the flat rate "all you can eat" model were applied to electric, my bill would probably go up to $150, while those who run a space heater all night and leave the window open will pay less than before....

Also, if metered billing is perceived as bad, and new ISP's start up to fill in the gaps, then we have competition. Everyone agrees that the real problem with ISP's is when the big ones are anti-competitive and use monopolies, so you should be praying for metered billing because it will bring competition!

One more comment: if everyone wants a 10 meg connection for next to nothing so they can stream netflix, how are these new networks going to support that bandwidth and be profitable?

Metered billing has nothing to do with bandwidth consumption. It is purely for extra profits and has nothing to do with capacity.
Everyone wants everything for nothing, but the monopolies/duopolies charge multiples more than what the services actually cost.
said by jcremin:

said by r81984:

Current ISPs are hugely profitable without metered billings. The only reason for them to try and bilk more money from consumers is just greed.

Some of the largest mega-huge ISP's are hugely profitable, but a lot of that has to do with video and phone services they provide. As bandwidth consumption skyrockets, the profit margins will quickly decrease. That leaves a few options.... 1) ISP's try to keep people from using some of the more bandwidth intensive applications, 2) they raise rates across the board to make up for the difference, 3) caps, 4) metered billing.

Of those 4 options, NN regulations would immediately eliminate #1. And all 3 of the others are side effects that effectively raise rates one way or another. Competition is heavily focused on the base price, so I don't see #2 happening. Metered billing quickly becomes the most fair of the options, and I would guess it is only a matter of time before it happens. Caps are sort of an in-between of #3 and 4, and we may see them too since it is a little easier to know what the exact bill will be. Either way, 3 and 4 are both metered billing in one sense or another since those who use more bandwidth will pay more.

1)you can't stop people from using the internet or they will just stop paying for it.
2)raising rates makes no sense when you already pay 100% for your connection regardless if you use it 1 hour a day or 24 hours a day.
3)caps do nothing to prevent congestion on the network
4) metered billing does nothing to prevent congestion on the network, it is purely to take more money from people that use their 100% paid for connection.

Metered billing is the most unfair of all. It means those that use their connection more will subsidize those that use their connection less.
The connection to your house for internet costs the same regardless if you use it or not.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

2 edits

jcremin

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by r81984:

Your joking right???
We wasted trillions in Iraq on nothing and you care about a few million dollars that helped save a lot of jobs.

I agree, all of that money in Iraq was wasted. Had we not already wasted so much money, maybe the government might have been in the position to bailout these companies. But regarding the cash for clunkers thing, all it really did was encourage people to take on debt, and many of them really SHOULDN'T have.

Not only does our country think it is okay to be trillions of dollars in debt, they think it is okay for all of us to be in debt so we can have a new stupid car. Maybe they should have put that money into making sure people had a place to live and helping with their house mortgages. Once they had their finances straight, they could have afforded a new car on their own.
said by r81984:

Metered billing has nothing to do with bandwidth consumption. It is purely for extra profits and has nothing to do with capacity.
Everyone wants everything for nothing, but the monopolies/duopolies charge multiples more than what the services actually cost.

All I'm going to say is that you are 100% wrong and uninformed. It costs a lot of money to build the capacity, more than consumers are willing to pay for an "unlimited" connection. Run an ISP, you'll learn to get your head on straight.
said by r81984:

1)you can't stop people from using the internet or they will just stop paying for it.

I've never said anything about stopping them from using it. I said making sure they pay their fair share. That's fine, if they don't want to pay for it, they can go without it. It's not necessary for them to stay alive.
said by r81984:

2)raising rates makes no sense when you already pay 100% for your connection regardless if you use it 1 hour a day or 24 hours a day.

100% wrong again. The more you use your connection, the more it costs the ISP. The ISP is really only making money when you aren't using your connection. The less you use it, the more they make. The problem is, people are using their connections more and more.
said by r81984:

3)caps do nothing to prevent congestion on the network
4) metered billing does nothing to prevent congestion on the network, it is purely to take more money from people that use their 100% paid for connection.

Yes, it does help prevent congestion, in the same way that someone not wanting a $500 electric bill will control their usage and not run their A/C so much in the summer.

Again, you obviously have no idea how much it costs to provide service to people. All you are thinking about is the bandwidth along the last mile to the house. The more people use their connection, the more infrastructure they need, the more fiber they need connecting cities, the more employees they need, the more vehicles they need.
said by r81984:

Metered billing is the most unfair of all. It means those that use their connection more will subsidize those that use their connection less.

You're kidding right? The current "all you can eat" model is the one that is unfair and subsidizes the greedy. If you pay $50/mo and just check facebook once a day, and your neighbor pays $50/mo and watches netflix movies every night, you are paying for his connection. Why shouldn't the light user pay $30 and the heavy user pay $70? how is that not fair?
said by r81984:

The connection to your house for internet costs the same regardless if you use it or not.

That's the dumbest thing I have ever heard. You are one of those uninformed customers who thinks the ISP is out to get him and nothing costs them money. Get a clue.

I can't even begin to understand how you think that someone paying for a connection and then not using it costs the ISP the same as someone paying for a connection and having it maxed out all the time. If you really understood what you are talking about, you wouldn't be saying something stupid like that.
jp10558
Premium Member
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY

jp10558

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

I'm not an ISP, so I don't know for sure, but really, network traffic isn't like electricity. I'm not sure how the internet is different than a large LAN, so feel free to correct me.

If I have a generator - the longer it's running, the more gas I use to run it. I have to go out and buy more gas to keep it going. The harder it works to provide more wattage, the more gas it uses. Each watt costs some fuel to create.

Network traffic though isn't like that. I have the capital cost of the switch, cabling and configuration. Once that's done, it only costs money to the owner of the network for changes and overhead (and this ought to be somewhat stable for a given set of capital. A switch and router don't suddenly need another person to maintain that same switch suddenly down the road - shouldn't need more than the people needed for the initial setup).

Once I have my switch set up and cables connecting my computers, I'm done. Or to be more clear, I pay the same overhead to employees if the switch is running 2 percent throughput or 90 percent throughput. I don't need to buy more fuel to push more throughput in the switch.

Now if I need more overall throughput because I've added customers, or I want to introduce faster plans or whatever, yes that costs money and more overhead. But that's still a capital investment - I'm adding new boxes. We already have speed tier pricing in effect that would seem to deal with this - you want more of the slice of throughput of the switch, you pay more. And that's where it also costs the ISP more.

Just like at home, if I've got 100Mbps I can run ~ 90Mbps all day long or not, and I never pay extra to the switch company depending on if I was pushing 5 MB that day or 10GB. If I need to move a LARGE amount of data, I can wait longer. If I decide that I just have to move data faster, I can buy an new 1Gbps switch and that's again when I pay more money. But I don't pay linksys more if I pass 1GB or 2TB over the switch, and I don't pay more if I send it at 100Mbps or 1Gbps. I just buy the switch.

Businesses like to have funny billing plans to spread out the capital costs plus their overhead payments, but I don't see how the actual cost is changing much. Hardware prices to provide a specific speed is dropping all the time. Overhead ought to vary with the capital plant and other factors that are entirely independent of the amount of data passed over the wires.
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

said by jp10558:

I'm not an ISP, so I don't know for sure, but really, network traffic isn't like electricity. I'm not sure how the internet is different than a large LAN, so feel free to correct me.

Yes, there are differences, and it isn't exactly like electricity, but it is somewhat similar. The biggest difference (as you point out) isn't that each gigabyte individually adds to the cost, as it does with kilowatt hours for electricity.

For an ISP, it is more about capacity (peak capacity in particular) than actual consumption. If a specific system is capable of delivering up to 100 megs between the customers, it does follow your description of not really costing much more to deliver 90 megs as it does if people are only consuming 10.

The first big trick would be to offload as much traffic to non-peak times so bandwidth usage is more constant. A couple solutions I can think of would be: 1) setting caps that are only effective during peak hours, or 2) using metered billing but have a higher peak rate and a lower off-peak rate (like electricity does). There are other solutions such as bursting during the day then throttling it down and offering the full un-throttled speed at night, or simply allowing faster speeds at night, but those don't necessarily give the user the best experience.

Even moving some traffic to off-peak times, average consumption per customer is still skyrocketing (for instance, compared to a year ago, I have 10% more customers, but my bandwidth consumption is up about 50%) so additional capacity constantly needs to be added without the additional revenue to back it up. That's where some sort of metering comes in handy. Because those who use the most, are also adding the most to the costs to increase capacity.

The big question is do you only meter during peak times, effectively rewarding moving the traffic to off-peak times, or do you meter everything? There's a balance between complexity of understanding how much it is costing the customer to use their connection, and implementing the system that is most fair.
jp10558
Premium Member
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY

jp10558

Premium Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

Well, I'm still not sure why it makes any sense at all to meter the amount of data moved. The ISPs issue actually seems to be that too many people at once are trying to use their slice of throughput at a given time.

So if you are going to need to buy more capacity to handle more people using the net *at the same time*, it seems like time based charges make more sense (as we're worried about throughput for everyone at a peak time, not how much you download in a given time - i.e. someone who moves 30 GB over an entire month at 256Kbps is actually worse for your peak capacity needs than someone who moves 50GB over the month at 5Mbps, but only downloads that off peak).

But we already know ISP customers roundly rejected the time based billing in the 90s for Dial-Up ISPs and I doubt they'd take it back for broadband.

Also, the 50% increase in bandwith use for 10% new customers, well - that's not great but remember that each year technology moves forward as well and so far prices come down for a given amount of bandwidth. It ought to cost less than 50% more to provide the extra bandwidth. And it can't come as a suprise that you'll have to add capacity as you add customers, or that users bandwidth use is increasing - did you not budget any capacity increases from existing gross income?

Finally, I see ISPs saying that it's all the fault of the 2% highest users, and then I see them saying "but but - it's also everyone else using more all the time" - so why wouldn't an across the board flat price increase be fair if everyone is using more.

If the problem is that a small minority is suddenly breaking the internet or your ISP, then why not just let them know they're using way more than anyone else as currently done, and offer them a business plan or suggest they use less or change ISPs? If the problem is that *everyone* is using more, why is a flate rate adjustment up not the solution?
jcremin
join:2009-12-22
Siren, WI

jcremin

Member

Re: Questions seem pretty straight forward to me

You've got a lot of good points.. let me see how I do clarifying
said by jp10558:

The ISPs issue actually seems to be that too many people at once are trying to use their slice of throughput at a given time.

That is the biggest issue. Sustained throughput throughout the day is a concern, but especially during peak times.
said by jp10558:

someone who moves 30 GB over an entire month at 256Kbps is actually worse for your peak capacity needs than someone who moves 50GB over the month at 5Mbps, but only downloads that off peak.

I'd say that is a pretty fair statement. I'll go into more detail below....
said by jp10558:

It ought to cost less than 50% more to provide the extra bandwidth. And it can't come as a suprise that you'll have to add capacity as you add customers, or that users bandwidth use is increasing - did you not budget any capacity increases from existing gross income?

Wholesale Internet is slowly getting cheaper, but you'd probably be surprised at how slowly it is declining compared to the increased consumption. Yes, bandwidth is very cheap in a datacenter, but the biggest cost are transporting that bandwidth to where it is needed and delivering to the customers. Especially in rural areas. Some small ISP's pay a few hundred dollars per meg to get that bandwidth, and that doesn't include the rest of the costs of doing business. If you pay $100 per meg in a rural area but have to sell 1 meg for $40/mo to be competitive, you have to oversell at least 3 times just to break even on the bandwidth. Add in the rest of the cost of deploying networks, payroll, office space, etc, and you can easily get up to needing to oversell it 20 times just to break even.

The whole model of internet access is based upon overselling the systems capacity, but because consumption is increasing faster than ISP costs are declining, margins are getting smaller. In addition to simply purchasing additional bandwidth, many systems are technically incapable of delivering the bandwidth required on the "last mile" systems. Cable networks and modems need to be upgraded and replaced, DSLAMS and DSL modems, wireless AP's and CEP's. All of that is a huge cost that many people don't realize. Like if you need more power for a room in your house, you might need to rewire your whole house, including getting a new transformer and electric service from the power company, for example.

This problem is obviously much less of an issue for the really big ISPs. They have higher population densities and easier access to moving bandwidth around, so the cost per user is much lower. But even they will be hurting to some extent, it just isn't nearly as drastic as it is with ISP's in rural areas.
said by jp10558:

Finally, I see ISPs saying that it's all the fault of the 2% highest users, and then I see them saying "but but - it's also everyone else using more all the time" - so why wouldn't an across the board flat price increase be fair if everyone is using more.

Yeah, both of those are problems. The ISP is almost certainly losing money on the person who has their connection maxed out 24x7. Some ISP's do warn their highest bandwidth hogs to control their consumption or face having their service disconnected.

But it is also getting harder to make money when the average consumption goes from 5 gigs a month to 20 gigs a month (those numbers are just an example). The problem with simply raising rates is that not EVERYONE is using more bandwidth. Yes, we have the small percentage of non-stop data hogs (we'll just say 5%), then we've got the 25% of customers who's consumption went up 10 times because they got Netflix. That still leaves 70% who's bandwidth consumption may not have changed at all (or may have even gone down) so I don't think it is fair to increase prices for them.

That is where metered billing or caps enter the picture. They could (and should) serve two purposes. 1) encourage people to move their bandwidth to off-peak hours, and 2) require those who consume more to pay more. Rather than charging a flat $40 to everyone maybe there is a $30 service fee to have the connection and includes a gig of transfer, then $10 for every additional 20 gigs consumed during peak hours (again, simply for the sake of example, not necessarily saying that is an appropriate price).

The people who barely use their connection at all (and there are still plenty who only check email a few times a week or look at facebook occasionally) would actually save money. Lets say the average person uses between 5 and 15 gigs. Those people would be paying the same rate as before ($30 plus $10 for usage). But someone who uses 100 gigs would now pay $80 ($30 plus $50 for usage). At some point, the ISP can't

Again, that is just one of a few methods to try to get people to either use less, move their traffic to off-peak hours, or pay more for using more. Obviously the numbers will vary widely based on the cost of providing service to an area, but it keeps the low consumption users from being forced into simply canceling service because the rates went up.

One of the biggest culprits is becoming Netflix, simply because it has become so popular and easy to use, and most people are watching full length movies instead of shorter video clips. ISP's would rejoice if Netflix could convince the content providers to allow customers to download a movie during off-peak times. Obviously some people will refuse to plan their movies in advance, and they will simply be choosing to have their traffic counted against their peak limits, or rates.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to fiberguy2

Member

to fiberguy2
said by fiberguy2:

I'm going to use your POST as an example of a major issue. No matter what the case turns out to be, the cards are all stacked against the consumer. People think that government is effective enough to protect the consumer and deliver expected results.

1) Cash for clunkers. It was hailed a success, however, it caused the price of most used cars to rise during this failed program. It also hurt charities as donations fell sharply as people went for the free government money. In the end - 0 impact on the environment, no major impact on the economy, and a major debt burden on society. Oh, there was a positive.. politicians got temporary love from their followers, but that too ended tragic.

Except US car manufactrures are seeing profts they haven't seen in years. Those that borrowed money are paying it back and are re-hiring workers.

2) Health Care reform - just a tragic mess. I dunno about you guys, but my monthly insurance go pay went from $120 a month to $260 per month. Many people got major rate increases, many people have lost health care..

You do realize those the vast majority of the reforms don't take place until 2014 and your increase in coverage has NOTHING to do with "Obamacare"

JakCrow
join:2001-12-06
Palo Alto, CA

JakCrow to 88615298

Member

to 88615298
said by 88615298:

said by FFH5:

These questions all seem pretty clear and straight forward to me.

Let's see what if the qurestion was PROPERLY asked.

Q: "Do you want your ISP to be able to charge you extra to access Google, or Yahoo or Netflix etc"?"

I think nearly 100% would be against that. Thus they would be FOR NN.

The real way to ask that question would be:

"Do you think your ISP should be able to double dip even though you and the content providers already pay for internet access and bandwidth?"

And the most important question isn't being asked:

"Why are the big ISPs threatening to charge you and the content providers extra instead of upgrading OVERSOLD, and overloaded networks?"

••••
TimCo
join:2005-01-14
Ronkonkoma, NY

1 recommendation

TimCo

Member

Progressive agenda!

To make this clear, The People do not trust Big Government.

IMHO all this is a way to collect tax on the INTERNET. and control content.

Obama is a Socialist.

•••••
AlfredNewman6
join:2010-03-25
Columbus, OH

AlfredNewman6

Member

Karl is right

The questions are clear but they convey the wrong message on what is actually on the table of what Net Neutrality really is, as Karl states. IMHO

Bill Neilson
Premium Member
join:2009-07-08
Alexandria, VA

Bill Neilson

Premium Member

You see it on numerous message boards

People just do NOT want the government to be HIGHLY involved in every-day decisions with the internet. Point taken. I agree with them

But these same people seem to not understand that the government issuing several rules is NOT them taking over the internet

I mean, christ....the government protecting consumers from companies screwing people and certain people go NUTS

•••••••••••••••••••••
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22

1 recommendation

amigo_boy

Member

DSLR doesn't speak to the average person

This proves my long-standing contention that the blogs and readers on this site represent the views of a tiny minority. Most people are happy.

It may be possible to sway those people, but the topics here should be geared toward speaking to the 4/5ths instead of esoteric topics about how "everyone's being ripped off by caps" that 98% never reach.

•••••••••••••••••••••••••
banner
Premium Member
join:2003-11-07
Long Beach, CA

banner

Premium Member

Square peg round hole

The user-experience implications of net neutrality [or the lack thereof] cannot be described using the political terms. Unfortunately, pundits will cite this poll as evidence of consumer support for discriminatory traffic management policies.

If Rasmussen asked, "Do you want to be able to view any website you want?" they might have found more support for net neutrality principles...
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD

nasadude

Member

Re: Square peg round hole

even better if they had asked "would you like to a) pay more to access your favorite content (facebook, youtube, etc.) at fast download speeds; b) pay less for slower service to these sites; c) keep things the way they are now? "

follow that up with: "would you approve or disapprove of the government regulating ISPs to keep your internet experience the way it is now, as opposed to paying higher prices or getting slower service?"

r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium Member
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX

r81984

Premium Member

Re: Square peg round hole

said by nasadude:

even better if they had asked "would you like to a) pay more to access your favorite content (facebook, youtube, etc.) at fast download speeds; b) pay less for slower service to these sites; c) keep things the way they are now? "

follow that up with: "would you approve or disapprove of the government regulating ISPs to keep your internet experience the way it is now, as opposed to paying higher prices or getting slower service?"

Both of your questions are flawed. Having net neutrality does not mean slower internet, but not having net neutrality does mean higher prices.
ISPs are hugely profitable right now and have no problem keeping their networks upgraded for their customer demands.

You can pay $60 a month for cable TV where the cable company has to pay money to content providers or you can pay $60 a month for internet over the same cable where 100% of the money stays in the cable company.
Please tell me how internet is not hugely profitable with current unlimited usages??

Michael C
join:2009-06-26
Cedar Park, TX

Michael C

Member

Here's another good blog post response...

"The core problem is that the second question is a red herring having nothing to do with the first. Neither the FCC nor Congress is suggesting that the FCC “regulate the Internet like it does radio and television” in relation to the net neutrality debate."

»interactionlaw.com/wordp ··· rmation/

bryanl
@charter.com

bryanl

Anon

ignoring a few things

It is tempting to label the other side stupid or ignorant of whatever - that in itself is telling - as is the choice of a bogeyman (AT&T).

The story here ignores the role of FreePress.org and its support, it ignores the partisan split in the vote at the FCC, and it ignores the fact that the FCC was acting in direct contravention of court decision.

It also slides over the general nature of rules that will have little impact and ignores the fact that there was no pressing broad issue (like lead in toys) that would be expected as a stimulus to a regulatory effort.

The issue is not as trivial as is seems to be painted by advocates of governmental control from what I can tell.

Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02

Karl Bode

News Guy

Re: ignoring a few things

It is tempting to label the other side stupid or ignorant of whatever - that in itself is telling - as is the choice of a bogeyman (AT&T).

AT&T has spent more on campaign contributions than any U.S. company since 1990, and met with the FCC during the crafting of these rules more than a half dozen times -- more than any other group or company. The end rules reflect this.

The story here ignores the role of FreePress.org and its support, it ignores the partisan split in the vote at the FCC, and it ignores the fact that the FCC was acting in direct contravention of court decision.

The partisan vote is mentioned and discussed. The story also clearly mentions that Free Press does not like the new rules. Of course they had input, and that input was largely ignored because the group is not financially powerful.

The issue is not as trivial as is seems to be painted by advocates of governmental control from what I can tell.

The issue isn't "governmental control," so much as it is industry control of government and total disregard of public welfare, with the end result being either meaningless or harmful regulations. I don't think anybody is pushing for "government control" of the Internet. They were looking for government protection from anti-competitive giants, which is -- in a functional and sane society -- one of the responsibilities of regulatory bodies.
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA

rdmiller

Member

Incredible!

It's amazing how Scott Rasmussen can turn out surveys like this at the drop of a hat! It almost as if he makes up the results off the top of his head!

Somnambul33t
L33t.
Premium Member
join:2002-12-05
00000

1 recommendation

Somnambul33t

Premium Member

Really getting tired of the statist agenda here...

i cant load up the front page without seeing a new pessimistic, pro-regulation, whiny bitch news article.

••••••••••••••••
tman852
join:2010-07-06
Columbus, OH

tman852

Member

I think

They need to regulate the implementation of the internet and last mile services rather than regulate the content of the internet. Get the "4down 1up" service to everyone in America, there's plenty of people still living in the dial up stone age, mobile broadband, and low speed DSL because they have no other options.
zed2608
Premium Member
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN

zed2608

Premium Member

its simple

until ppl start to get affected on a large enough scale and in sufficent ways for it to be noticble (like bit torrent thoatling comcast did few years back) will anything legaly be done on laws

personaly i continue to write my congressmen and vote out of office the ones who i know dont support net netruilty

the only bright side is governer said in email they are open to amending the cable act of tennesee to add net netruilty that may be best route for ppl to take get state goverments to make the change

bryanl
@charter.com

bryanl

Anon

ignoring things, cont.

quote:
The issue isn't "governmental control," so much as it is industry control of government and total disregard of public welfare, with the end result being either meaningless or harmful regulations.
This is the fundamental ideology at play and why the term 'socialism' often surfaces. If you think government is the solution, then you want regulation. If you think that economic competition is a better solution, then you'll prefer minimal government regulation.

As long as folks take the a priori view that industry is evil (as in the quote), go hyperbolic about lack of competition, completely dismiss the power of the consumer, or distort the picture, the discussion has poor in profitability as it is not in the real world.

It is rather contradictory to take the stand that government regulation is not government control. It begs the point raised to note that freepress wasn't happy with the outcome when the point was about it's lobbying role and its support as a referent to the allegations about AT&T. And the allegations about AT&T or the industry in regards to abusive monopolistic practices stand hollow when there isn't the abuse by those entities to support the allegations.

So far, all the events that have been used to try to rationalize governmental controls for 'net neutrality' have been resolved by the industry - that is, all except the unlimited speed anywhere with no restrictions I'net access at no cost that some seem the insist is their right (and, yes, that's an exaggeration to test if you get the point or want to rationalize).

Do think about the Slate essay on 'if the FCC had regulated the I'net early' and do look at how it was attacked. Look at the history of the FCC when there really was a monopoly and what that did and how the problem was effectively only solved when the monopoly was bypassed by other entrepreneurs.

••••••••
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

axus

Member

Who are those 21%

I don't think anyone wants government decency standards, or auctioned broadcasting licenses for the internet.

What most people DO want, is to prohibit the intermediate network from discriminating messages based on message source and destination.
bt
join:2009-02-26
canada

bt

Member

A sample reaction from the general public

Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?

"I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't look at on the internet. Content rules for radio and TV just don't fit for the Internet."

In other words, the question is so vague that I suspect most people would immediately think of content restrictions put in place by the FCC, and not consumer protection measures.

CableConvert
Premium Member
join:2003-12-05
Atlanta, GA

CableConvert

Premium Member

Ask These Questions..

I'd like to see the answers of those same 1000 people to the following:

Do you think its ok for an ISP like AT&T or Comcast to make their content faster even if thats not what your surfing for?

Should ISP's be allowed decide what content is on their network?

Should ISPs be allowed to block legal content you request.

I think the answers would be vastly different
PittsPgh
Premium Member
join:2003-08-21
Pittsburgh, PA

PittsPgh

Premium Member

Surprised

Surprised noone mentioned "Forged Packets" here.

DaDawgs
Premium Member
join:2010-08-02
Deltaville, VA

DaDawgs

Premium Member

:) Gawd Damn Karl you are getting smarter every day!!!

And I mean that.

I also believe that your argumentative writing skills are improving, they were already fine but lately you have been making some powerful and balanced arguments that simply can not be refuted by any thinking person...

I bet you never thought you would hear that from me.
-m-

peopleRdumb
@cox.net

peopleRdumb

Anon

In other forums I see people clearly don't understand...

...what NN is. They even go as far as comparing it to the Fairness Doctrine.

But when you ask them a question like should the MSOs be able to interfere with your Netflix or Skype service the answer is a resounding no.
nOv1c3
join:2006-11-08
Whitney, TX

nOv1c3

Member

poll

Only 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet and you can bet those people are liberal pinheads

Cant believe some of you are arguing over this even with those Numbers , Its like the health care bill The Majority of Americans
didn't want it but they shoved that down are throats too

The American people are not stupid , They understand this poll perfectly , They damn well know once the government gets there grubby little hands in something they well end up just fooking it up

I see some of you raging on Rasmussen because you dont like the outcome , I,m sorry but Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country , and there track record shows that , I would trust there polling before anyone else in this country
msanto
join:2001-08-13
Castro Valley, CA

msanto

Member

Re: poll

nothing wrong with the results of the poll. It just shows people don't understand the issue. Is it so hard to see Comcast slowing Netflix traffic so they can pimp Xfinity services. Of course not. As a corporation they are supposed to maximize profits.

If we don't enforce Net Neutrality this is exactly what they will do, and they have already been discussing it.
nOv1c3
join:2006-11-08
Whitney, TX

nOv1c3

Member

Re: poll

I think we should wait and see if there is going to be a problem , Instead of trying to fix something that is not a problem at the moment
page: 1 · 2 · next