5 ms·

> Biased poll with leading questions. Ask them if they think the FCC should outlaw unlimited video streaming on T-Mobile Binge On. The 80% evaporates immediatel

> Biased poll with leading questions. Ask them if they think the FCC should outlaw unlimited video streaming on T-Mobile Binge On. The 80% evaporates immediately. Your potentially good point got lost in how awfully you put it. This wasn't a vote on T-Mobile or Binge-on, so it would have made no sense to ask if they should have been outlawed. But if you do have examples of questions you consider biased and legitimate corrections to them that you believe would lower the bias, I would be happy to be convinced it was biased and would love to hear your genuine improvements.

millstone 9y ago
Here's some issues with the poll: 1. Status quo bias. Ask whether any complicated policy should be changed and most people will say it should not. What percentage of respondents would have supported reclassifying ISPs under Title II in 2015, giving the government the power to dictate prices? 2. The wording of the introduction is phrased in terms of ISPs providing more access (yayyy!) and being forbidden from charging "extra fees" (booo!). Here is a different phrasing: "Currently ISPs are forbidden from offering customers discounts if they do not use certain sites or services. ISPs are also prohibited from optimizing latency or bandwidth according to the nature of the content. Removing these restrictions could allow for cheaper Internet plans and faster speeds for some content. Should this regulation be removed?" One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen.
- throwaway613834 9y ago
  > 1. Status quo bias. Ask whether any complicated policy should be changed and most people will say it should not. Leaving aside the question of whether net neutrality was a "complicated" thing for people to understand for a moment, I don't even understand how this is an issue with the polling. The subject or policy under question is whatever it is. You can't call the poll biased just because the subject it is polling about is complicated. (And you would need a citation for this too. I would expect the split to be closer to 50/50, perhaps with a slight bias in the direction you claim, but nothing like 80/20.) 2. The wording of the introduction is phrased in terms of ISPs providing more access (yayyy!) and being forbidden from charging "extra fees" (booo!). Here is a different phrasing: "Currently ISPs are forbidden from offering customers discounts if they do not use certain sites or services. ISPs are also prohibited from optimizing latency or bandwidth according to the nature of the content. Removing these restrictions could allow for cheaper Internet plans and faster speeds for some content. Should this regulation be removed?" Uhm... you talk about the FCC prohibiting discounts and speed boosts the entire time, and not once do you mention that this regulation also prevents ISPs from charging extra fees and throttling speeds for whatever sites they like. You really think your version of this is less biased? Seriously? > One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen. IIRC other countries have already tried this and observed its effects. So we have some real-world evidence that would seem to suggest some outcomes are not merely hypothetical. But in any case, you don't get to accuse someone/something of being biased and then bias them farther in the reverse direction. That's just dishonest.
  - millstone 9y ago
    > You can't call the poll biased just because the subject it is polling about is complicated. My point is the poll may reveal a preference for the status quo, not for the substance of the policy. Risk aversion is natural of course. But when the status quo gets changed, what you thought was public support for your position may vanish. > You really think your version of this is less biased? Of course not. I attempted to make it equally biased for the anti-NN position. > IIRC other countries have already tried this and observed its effects Yeah... US Rep Ro Khanna (from my district!) had probably the most viral message on this topic: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/ https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/ But this particular case is terrible for the pro-NN proponents. It turns out people actually LIKE zero-rated services, and the "it crowds out startups" argument doesn't land at all.
- sundaeofshock 9y ago
  > One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen. Large, near-monopolistic corporations, with a shocking disregard for customer service are being given new and exciting opportunities to increase revenue. I guess we will need to wait and see what will happen.
  - millstone 9y ago
    That's a great description of the mobile market around 2011, with Verizon and AT&T splitting the lion's share. But since then they have hemorrhaged subscribers to T-Mobile, in part thanks to T-Mobile's zero-rated streaming services (which other carriers have now copied). These services make the EFF's skin crawl, but it turns out customers actually like them. So entrenched incumbent ISPs in fact can be rapidly unseated, and in a competitive market ISPs may violate NN by offering free services rather than raising prices. I don't know if it's possible, but this seems like a better outcome than giving up and declaring home internet to be a natural monopoly like utilities.
    - sundaeofshock 9y ago
      >That's a great description of the mobile market around 2011, with Verizon and AT&T splitting the lion's share. But since then they have hemorrhaged subscribers to T-Mobile< Where are you getting you numbers? In Q1 2011, AT&T and Verizon controlled 65%, with T-Mobile at 11%. In Q1 2017, T-Mobile lept to 17.4% with AT&T/Verizon at 67.2%. I have to say, you have a very strange definition of “hemorrhage.” Your overt bias and half-truths in this thread have done a great job of reinforcing my support in NN. I also had not thought about treating home internet as a natural monopoly until now. Kudos to you! https://www.statista.com/statistics/199359/market-share-of-wireless-carriers-in-the-us-by-subscriptions/#0 https://www.statista.com/statistics/199359/market-share-of-w...

millstone 9y ago

Here's some issues with the poll: 1. Status quo bias. Ask whether any complicated policy should be changed and most people will say it should not. What percentage of respondents would have supported reclassifying ISPs under Title II in 2015, giving the government the power to dictate prices? 2. The wording of the introduction is phrased in terms of ISPs providing more access (yayyy!) and being forbidden from charging "extra fees" (booo!). Here is a different phrasing: "Currently ISPs are forbidden from offering customers discounts if they do not use certain sites or services. ISPs are also prohibited from optimizing latency or bandwidth according to the nature of the content. Removing these restrictions could allow for cheaper Internet plans and faster speeds for some content. Should this regulation be removed?" One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen.

throwaway613834 9y ago
> 1. Status quo bias. Ask whether any complicated policy should be changed and most people will say it should not. Leaving aside the question of whether net neutrality was a "complicated" thing for people to understand for a moment, I don't even understand how this is an issue with the polling. The subject or policy under question is whatever it is. You can't call the poll biased just because the subject it is polling about is complicated. (And you would need a citation for this too. I would expect the split to be closer to 50/50, perhaps with a slight bias in the direction you claim, but nothing like 80/20.) 2. The wording of the introduction is phrased in terms of ISPs providing more access (yayyy!) and being forbidden from charging "extra fees" (booo!). Here is a different phrasing: "Currently ISPs are forbidden from offering customers discounts if they do not use certain sites or services. ISPs are also prohibited from optimizing latency or bandwidth according to the nature of the content. Removing these restrictions could allow for cheaper Internet plans and faster speeds for some content. Should this regulation be removed?" Uhm... you talk about the FCC prohibiting discounts and speed boosts the entire time, and not once do you mention that this regulation also prevents ISPs from charging extra fees and throttling speeds for whatever sites they like. You really think your version of this is less biased? Seriously? > One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen. IIRC other countries have already tried this and observed its effects. So we have some real-world evidence that would seem to suggest some outcomes are not merely hypothetical. But in any case, you don't get to accuse someone/something of being biased and then bias them farther in the reverse direction. That's just dishonest.
- millstone 9y ago
  > You can't call the poll biased just because the subject it is polling about is complicated. My point is the poll may reveal a preference for the status quo, not for the substance of the policy. Risk aversion is natural of course. But when the status quo gets changed, what you thought was public support for your position may vanish. > You really think your version of this is less biased? Of course not. I attempted to make it equally biased for the anti-NN position. > IIRC other countries have already tried this and observed its effects Yeah... US Rep Ro Khanna (from my district!) had probably the most viral message on this topic: https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/ https://twitter.com/RoKhanna/status/923701871092441088/ But this particular case is terrible for the pro-NN proponents. It turns out people actually LIKE zero-rated services, and the "it crowds out startups" argument doesn't land at all.
sundaeofshock 9y ago
> One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen. Large, near-monopolistic corporations, with a shocking disregard for customer service are being given new and exciting opportunities to increase revenue. I guess we will need to wait and see what will happen.
- millstone 9y ago
  That's a great description of the mobile market around 2011, with Verizon and AT&T splitting the lion's share. But since then they have hemorrhaged subscribers to T-Mobile, in part thanks to T-Mobile's zero-rated streaming services (which other carriers have now copied). These services make the EFF's skin crawl, but it turns out customers actually like them. So entrenched incumbent ISPs in fact can be rapidly unseated, and in a competitive market ISPs may violate NN by offering free services rather than raising prices. I don't know if it's possible, but this seems like a better outcome than giving up and declaring home internet to be a natural monopoly like utilities.
  - sundaeofshock 9y ago
    >That's a great description of the mobile market around 2011, with Verizon and AT&T splitting the lion's share. But since then they have hemorrhaged subscribers to T-Mobile< Where are you getting you numbers? In Q1 2011, AT&T and Verizon controlled 65%, with T-Mobile at 11%. In Q1 2017, T-Mobile lept to 17.4% with AT&T/Verizon at 67.2%. I have to say, you have a very strange definition of “hemorrhage.” Your overt bias and half-truths in this thread have done a great job of reinforcing my support in NN. I also had not thought about treating home internet as a natural monopoly until now. Kudos to you! https://www.statista.com/statistics/199359/market-share-of-wireless-carriers-in-the-us-by-subscriptions/#0 https://www.statista.com/statistics/199359/market-share-of-w...