49% of Americans Want FCC to Regulate Internet

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
According to a survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports, 49% of Americans believe that the FCC should regulate the Internet the same way it does radio and television. You can see what questions they asked here. What do you think?

There are other equally interesting survey findings in the article too: 73% believe internet harassment should be a crime, 26% have a social network account, and 25% rarely or never use the internet.
 
Uhm.. the internet does not belong to America.
It may house much of the backbone of what is primarily considered the "Internet" but we could get along quite happily without it too, which I think is what would happen should that sillyness come to pass...
 
Those are pretty broad questions. Are we talking about harassment, libel, and kiddie porn? Or are we talking about "anything the government deems necessary for the good of the people?"
 
funny to base it on a american system. like their voting system <20% minority some how is seem as 99.99% majority vote.
 
As an American, this is an obscene concept... the Internet A) isn't owned by America, B) is a medium comprised of many privately-owned servers, backbones, etc., and C) makes no sense to regulate, as it's just an outlet for things that are created by people, albeit more accessible due to the lower cost to publish.
 
That's a bad deal. I hope I never see it come.... that'd be a big loss on the 1st Amendment.
 
What does that tell you about the mentality of 49% of the Americans that participated in the poll.

Well, at lease there's a precedent. I mean, Americans can monitor the internet like China...wouldn't that be great.
 
Japan is probably the most advanced of any country in the telecommunications industry. Why? Tight government regulation. The capitalist in all of us cringes at the sound of that, but in this case, I really do think its the best option. Every single public facing ISP has experiances "I'm the big kid on the block" syndrome. I don't really have a solution as I'm not a router cowboy, but I'm sure some of you guys do (as some of you guys are lol), but somethings gotta change.
 
Lets just make sure we understand this. Al Gore invented the internet so by default it belongs to America.......:D:p


In all seriousness though, this is only going to end very very very badly.
 
if only they knew what it would mean for the internet to be "censored" because if censored is accepted its just another step to a tiered internet subscription -_-
 
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
 
dochmbi said:
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

amen.


serveys like this make me lose faith in humanity..


fuck, the 49% that voted to regulate the internet should not be able to vote...
 
Like others have said: isn't just an American thing.
We could restrict content on servers in America, and block all the foreign websites that don't fit within the guidelines, but that would piss alot of people off.
 
GoldenTiger said:
As an American, this is an obscene concept... the Internet A) isn't owned by America, B) is a medium comprised of many privately-owned servers, backbones, etc., and C) makes no sense to regulate, as it's just an outlet for things that are created by people, albeit more accessible due to the lower cost to publish.
Click to expand...


Here Here..Regulate this,regulate that.It is just another freedom we are losing.Soon we will have no freedom to lose.
 
This question is obviously framed to illicit a desired response for question 3 which is sandwiched to avoid attention. I wonder what the response would of been if the questions were a little different.
1. How closely have you followed cable companies attempt to raise rates by offering tiered internet services?
2. Do you believe in enabling authorities the right to censor your information?
3. Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the internet like it does radio and television?
..etc

Just wondering
 
remember everyone, it's for your protection....

let me share a little story...

i met my fiance online, like fully online...in WoW

we got to talking, when her parents found out, it was right in the middle of the good old media propaganda crusade on internet predators.

Now predators of any kind aren't the best, but statistically the internet is no different than going to a bar or a party or whatever. But just because it's the internet its suddenly TEH GREAT EVAL...you know like Iraq....

Now here we are almost 3 years later doing just fine.

anyway the point to that was, the 49% that voted in this are the average american...The only thing they know about the internet other email, ebay, and google is

OMG identity theft when you go online
OMG Predator when you go online
OMG child porn when you go online
OMG social network stalking when you go online

why? Because that is what the media wants to crusade agains, media is paid directly or indirectly by agencies with lots of money including the government. Things like the govt and music companies, some corps etc dont want an unregulated internet, so they set up a media crusade to demonize it...and voila you see the results.

the reality is that with the exception of social networks, all that shit has been around way before the internet...and at least the first two stats were the same either way...

sorry the whole regulation thing really sets me off..I don't like following outright laws let alone regulation on something that has no need for regulation in the first place.
 
Given the results with TV and Radio.... the last thing we need is Govt regulation or involvement in the intrawebnet.

If the internet morph's from the one true democratic place of expression worldwide, especially at the US's hands, then the world is in big trouble.

For example: Mogaby :eek::rolleyes::p
 
GoldenTiger said:
As an American, this is an obscene concept... the Internet A) isn't owned by America, B) is a medium comprised of many privately-owned servers, backbones, etc., and C) makes no sense to regulate, as it's just an outlet for things that are created by people, albeit more accessible due to the lower cost to publish.
Click to expand...

Of course the USA doesn't "own the internet." Neither does China but have fun surfing there. The FCC could only regulate the net as it exists and is exposed to American users. Not in the USA? No problem.

Think of it as the "Great Firewall....OF FREEDOM!" The would call the initiative something like "Operation Protectecing the Children from Teh Pr0nz and Stuff OF FREEDOM!!!!!!!"

LOL, yeah. Stupid idea.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Japan is probably the most advanced of any country in the telecommunications industry. Why? Tight government regulation. The capitalist in all of us cringes at the sound of that, but in this case, I really do think its the best option. Every single public facing ISP has experiances "I'm the big kid on the block" syndrome. I don't really have a solution as I'm not a router cowboy, but I'm sure some of you guys do (as some of you guys are lol), but somethings gotta change.
Click to expand...

Japan also has the advantage of housing about half the US population roughly in a land mass the size of California, which also happens to be very mountainous, so the population is further condensed into certain livable areas. Not a bad situation for telecommunications. So I don't think it's really just due to tight government regulations that Japan is so high tech. Those same aspects of the US (spread population) also make it hard for mass transportation to work as well as it does in Japan and Europe.

With that said, I do think there are advantages to regulation. I just don't think I'd like how the Internet would be regulated if it were more so than it is. The first thing they'd do is add an Internet sales tax... or aren't they already doing that?
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Japan is probably the most advanced of any country in the telecommunications industry. Why? Tight government regulation. The capitalist in all of us cringes at the sound of that, but in this case, I really do think its the best option. Every single public facing ISP has experiances "I'm the big kid on the block" syndrome. I don't really have a solution as I'm not a router cowboy, but I'm sure some of you guys do (as some of you guys are lol), but somethings gotta change.
Click to expand...

The Japanese are one of the most culturally homogeneous societies in the world, what works for their culture would be considered a dictator's paradise in the West. Such tight centralized control would run counter to everything America has historically stood for and would be stifling on American society as a whole. Of course a few special interests would love to get a tight rein on the Internet in order to "sell" back what is the right of most citizens, namely the power to express yourself (which is seen as something to be profited off of for these interests.). Many corporate and private interests would love regulation as long as it's their message and propaganda which doesn't get censored but that of their opponents or the competition.

If regulation ever came along you would see the same homogeneous, bland content you do on TV and on radio, it would be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and render the Internet all but useless as source of knowledge and as a forum for ideas. You would also see so many "pay per access" websites and databases that much of the network would resemble one giant toll highway!

if anyone expressed a contrary view to that of the owner of the a portion of that network, odds are you would never see that opinion published on the Internet. This has happened in the TV world a few years back when one of the major networks broadcast a silent salute to the fallen US soldiers in Iraq but one flag waving, Bush supporting TV station in the midwest refused to broadcast it as it went against the "patriotic" stand the owner of the station and his feeling of what people should be thinking and doing(eg he doesn't like the message, so you don't get to see what he doesn't like).

I guess I have some libertarian leanings when it comes to the freedoms enjoyed in the West. If you want to see the future of the Internet under gov't regulation look no farther then China.
Try to operate a website which has any controversy at all under regulation and see what happens (you don't see many TV or radio stations taking a controversial stand on much of anything these days) BTW, you will see a vast increase in the amount of marketing and advertisements targeted at users(like TV and radio) because that's how things will be paid for and what corporations will want, also the 2 way nature of the Internet will turn into a one-way toll highway.
In essence, gov't regulation eventually turns into corporate sponsored regulation, which benefits corporations, not individuals.

Also I can see the worldwide aspect of the Internet collapsing as many countries will firewall their domains in order to keep their cultures from being bombarded by American corporate interests trying to stake their claims in cyberspace and in their territories(like the 18th-19th century Western business interests did in the world at large).

A form of local gov't or state regulation enforcing real world laws like anti child exploitation laws I can see to be a beneficial thing as long as there were sufficient citizen oversight(not gov't... citizen supervised)

I hope Americans don't simply hand over what they've spent so much money and talent to build over to the special interests without a fight.
 
God,can't we have at least one avenue of escape from government and corporate control? I'd say that 100% of those 49% are mindless sheep who let their opinions be shaped by propaganda from those two entities,though the dividing line between government and the big corporations is becoming thinner every day.
 
Regulating the internet would be an impossible task regardless, plus as said, the US does not own the internet or its content. What makes the net great is the total freedom, which is a double edge sword.

In the end though, what the shit does anyone think they know about the Internet exactly? I doubt 49% of all Americans are even educated enough to make that judgment. Granted, this is in reality 49% of those polled, which is probably only 1000 people or so, from who knows where.
 
gryoung:

You're talking about the restriction of content, I'm talking about the restriction of acess (actually, what I brought up wasn't really related to the girl commiting suicide). One example is the gov allowing the big ISPs to set their own rates, meaning the little ISPs with only one or two link-ups get screwed over because the two companies their linked up to are conspiring to put the little isp out of business.
 
I believe regulation should be there at the most basic level. The regulations should be that
1) ISP are carriers, nothing more, nothing less. They are not responsible for content, nor are they allowed to regulate it. That means ISP should not be able to be sued for content provided, but on the same token they cannot ban any content, no matter who it offends. All that stuff should be left to the content providers and their lawyers to deal with.
2) Any ISP with any sort of "backbone" connection (such as AT&T's fiber backbone) must share their resources for a reasonable price. I don't know what "reasonable" is, but it should be price well enough as to not drive smaller ISPs out of business. We really need better ISP choice than just a handful of Cable/DSL providers.
3) This is a big one, and one that sadly will no longer be possible thanks to the telco immunity law just passed. I think in order for ISPs to maintain their carrier status, they may not relinquish data about usage and content to anyone and any government organization without an authorized warrant or subpoena.

As with any system, there needs to be ground rules in place, or else the system does just become survival of the ruthless rather than survival of the fittest and the "best". The main thing is that any regulation should not impede the most basic idea that all information must be made available equally (sound familar?) , no matter how legal/illegal/immoral it may be. Legality and morality is for others to decide on.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
gryoung:

You're talking about the restriction of content, I'm talking about the restriction of acess (actually, what I brought up wasn't really related to the girl commiting suicide). One example is the gov allowing the big ISPs to set their own rates, meaning the little ISPs with only one or two link-ups get screwed over because the two companies their linked up to are conspiring to put the little isp out of business.
Click to expand...

You're right what I'm talking about is content based, access is another important area and to me falls into a form of infrastructure regulation/protection. Protecting free access to the Internet for everyone is of course the ideal, whether or not it's possible or practical is another matter.

This of course assumes that the overseeing authority is truly independent and neutral and you're assuming the gov't is there to protect the little guy, which isn't the casy any longer, the reason why I'm somewhat skeptical of gov't oversight is that too many times deep pockets corporate interests and special interest groups can gain undue influence with such organizations in order to advance their agendas.
Equal access on a level playing field for all vendors would be difficult to enforce because I strongly believe the gov't system is setup in such a way that the large infrastructure companies have a disproportionate say in the regulations which are drafted. And basically they've set it up so that the little guy is shut out of the game, look at the cellphone business and how frequencies are allocated etc. You won't find many small companies which are allowed independent access, nor find the FCC enforcing fair competition clauses(not that I think that's their job or at least how they see themselves).
 
i dont think 49% of the people in the US use the internet for any more than e-mail and e-bay.

Hell i don't think 49% of /all/ people in the US even use the internet yet.
 
That has got to be the most ignorant set of questions I've ever seen. Looks like they set this up as a direct result of what happened with the person who got harassed. Do they not realize that incidents such as that are minuscule compared to all the other interactions on the net? Seems to me they love focusing on all the bad and twisted shit that goes on but want to turn a blind eye to all the events that have a happy ending. I could be wrong...I have been before.
 
I think we all know how these guys get their numbers...

62% of mentally deficient seniors polled also said that they were afraid giant gay robots from space were going to infect their T.V.'s with a Trojan virus. The Intraweb scares me!! Someone change me!! Bush in '08!!

Pollsters know how to target the people they question to get the answers they want rather than the answers that may reflect the truth.

They ask loaded questions like: "Do you think that the FCC should do more to stop pedophiles on the internet?"

If you say no to this question, then you're on the side of peder-asses. If you say yes, then you want the FCC to regulate the internet.
 
That article and website disgust me. Notice that nowhere in the article do they detail the polling method or specific numbers. They extrapolated that "nearly half of Americans (49%) believe that the federal government should regulate the Internet the same way it does radio and television" based on a poll of 1,500 people that was centered around internet harassment, not net neutrality. The survey implies that the issue is whether the FCC should do something about harassment.

Statistical manipulation at its worst.

They could've posed the question "Should 2girls1cup be removed from the internet?" to 20 people from around the globe and concluded the entire world wants internet regulation.
 
You know the sad thing is that I bet if they asked those same people if they believe that the government should track their every move for "security" reasons, the same pathetic 50% would raise their hand. George Washington would be rolling in his grave to see what kind of anti-freedom loving wussies we've become.
 
Given that it says "the same as TV and radio", I don't think this would be much of a problem because government regulation of TV and radio is IMO pretty light.

Besides, the FCC isn't going to start regulating the Internet because 49% (which isn't even a majority BTW) of these people asked them to. I don't think we have much to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top