
Americans Don't Want the FCC to Regulate the Internet  - kingsidharth
http://mashable.com/2010/12/29/rasmussen-net-neutrality/
======
robterrell
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.

~~~
mayank
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.

------
jonhendry
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.)

------
nazgulnarsil
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
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>

------
lukeschlather
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.

