3 ms·

Americans Don't Want the FCC to Regulate the Internet

12 points by kingsidharth 16y ago

robterrell 16y ago
So what? The american public doesn't know much about it. The american public doesn't know enough to comment meaningfully about radio spectrum regulation, either, but clearly that's important and shouldn't be subject to the whims of the politically-motivated Rasmussen polls. When the american public is automatically redirected from FaceBook to FIOSBook because their last-mile provider is Verizon, they'll care. The FCC should be ahead of the public, do the right thing, and take their lumps from stupid politically-motivated polls like this.
- locopati 16y ago
  Doubly so when you consider the sources of most Americans' information and that it is not in the best interests of those media giants to fight for a level playing field on an open internet.
- mayank 16y ago
  The problem is also that so much discourse these days is driven by buzzwords, with little thought given to what they actually mean in context. For example, the knee-jerk Republican reaction to the word "regulation" is negative. Pair that with the mention of a government agency, and you have an instant outpouring of ignorant passion. Some democrats might similarly support new government regulations unconditionally, but you'll rarely see people trying to understand the issues that they're so passionate about. This little technique has routinely been used to skew polling and survey results everywhere.
nazgulnarsil 16y ago
I'm surprised and gladdened to see common sense winning out so far. yeah, I sure would love tv and radio style regulation, seeing as tv and radio are such bastions of free thought. ISP's aren't magical, take away the protections that prevent them from getting eaten by competitors.
bensummers 16y ago
I'm curious about the process and questions asked to get those answers. Watch this for a concise explanation about why you should never trust an opinion poll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4
lukeschlather 16y ago
Someone should retitle this... the end of that sentence is "like radio and television." In context, I interpret that as "[broadcast] radio and television." So this doesn't make the trolling statement made in the headline. Rather, it could just as well be a ringing endorsement of the FCC's actions - the Internet is not broadcast TV, the Internet is not broadcast radio. The Internet is a communication medium like a telephone, and should be regulated like telephones.
jonhendry 16y ago
1. Rasmussen tends to the wingnutty. 2. The question relies on the ignorance of those polled. They ask, Do you want the Internet regulated like TV and Radio? But is that even on the table? No, it isn't. So why is Rasmussen asking this? This is a question intended to bolster wingnut opposition to net neutrality, which the wingnuts are portraying as something entirely different from what it actually is. It definitely isn't anything like the regulation of broadcast TV and Radio. There will be no need to bleep or censor profanities. There will be no limit on the number of websites a single company can own in a market. There will be no regulation limiting the "strength of signal", whatever that would mean. The wingnuts are implying that "net neutrality" is the rebirth of the Fairness Doctrine, heavy-handed political censorhip of websites to create 'balance', rather than simply making carriers give equal access to all sites and services. (The rebirth of the "Fairness Doctrine" for radio and TV is another paranoiac chimera of the wingnuts that they've used to scare voters into opposing the Democrats over the last few years. Nevermind that there's no support for it.) Naturally, this GOP disinformation serves the interests of the big telecom firms, not consumers or voters. (Incidentally, if that poll had asked respondents if they supported internet censorship blocking access to obscene materials, wikileaks, atheist sites, and evolution science, Republicans would probably have been heavily in favor of government regulation of the Internet.)

12 points by kingsidharth 16y ago

So what? The american public doesn't know much about it. The american public doesn't know enough to comment meaningfully about radio spectrum regulation, either, but clearly that's important and shouldn't be subject to the whims of the politically-motivated Rasmussen polls. When the american public is automatically redirected from FaceBook to FIOSBook because their last-mile provider is Verizon, they'll care. The FCC should be ahead of the public, do the right thing, and take their lumps from stupid politically-motivated polls like this.

locopati 16y ago
Doubly so when you consider the sources of most Americans' information and that it is not in the best interests of those media giants to fight for a level playing field on an open internet.
mayank 16y ago
The problem is also that so much discourse these days is driven by buzzwords, with little thought given to what they actually mean in context. For example, the knee-jerk Republican reaction to the word "regulation" is negative. Pair that with the mention of a government agency, and you have an instant outpouring of ignorant passion. Some democrats might similarly support new government regulations unconditionally, but you'll rarely see people trying to understand the issues that they're so passionate about. This little technique has routinely been used to skew polling and survey results everywhere.

nazgulnarsil 16y ago

I'm surprised and gladdened to see common sense winning out so far. yeah, I sure would love tv and radio style regulation, seeing as tv and radio are such bastions of free thought. ISP's aren't magical, take away the protections that prevent them from getting eaten by competitors.

bensummers 16y ago

I'm curious about the process and questions asked to get those answers. Watch this for a concise explanation about why you should never trust an opinion poll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4

lukeschlather 16y ago

Someone should retitle this... the end of that sentence is "like radio and television." In context, I interpret that as "[broadcast] radio and television." So this doesn't make the trolling statement made in the headline. Rather, it could just as well be a ringing endorsement of the FCC's actions - the Internet is not broadcast TV, the Internet is not broadcast radio. The Internet is a communication medium like a telephone, and should be regulated like telephones.

jonhendry 16y ago

1. Rasmussen tends to the wingnutty. 2. The question relies on the ignorance of those polled. They ask, Do you want the Internet regulated like TV and Radio? But is that even on the table? No, it isn't. So why is Rasmussen asking this? This is a question intended to bolster wingnut opposition to net neutrality, which the wingnuts are portraying as something entirely different from what it actually is. It definitely isn't anything like the regulation of broadcast TV and Radio. There will be no need to bleep or censor profanities. There will be no limit on the number of websites a single company can own in a market. There will be no regulation limiting the "strength of signal", whatever that would mean. The wingnuts are implying that "net neutrality" is the rebirth of the Fairness Doctrine, heavy-handed political censorhip of websites to create 'balance', rather than simply making carriers give equal access to all sites and services. (The rebirth of the "Fairness Doctrine" for radio and TV is another paranoiac chimera of the wingnuts that they've used to scare voters into opposing the Democrats over the last few years. Nevermind that there's no support for it.) Naturally, this GOP disinformation serves the interests of the big telecom firms, not consumers or voters. (Incidentally, if that poll had asked respondents if they supported internet censorship blocking access to obscene materials, wikileaks, atheist sites, and evolution science, Republicans would probably have been heavily in favor of government regulation of the Internet.)