72% of Consumers Don’t Know What Net Neutrality Is

[Megalith]

Streaming services fan site Exstreamist conducted a survey of 768 US citizens to get a general sense of the public’s awareness about the recent Net Neutrality decision and found that 72% of respondents have no idea what Net Neutrality even is. Additionally, 81% did not know that the FCC voted to roll back Net Neutrality.

Maybe it’s a busy political news cycle, perhaps fatigue, or even worse, it might just be a lack of understanding, but the FCC voted this year to roll back Net Neutrality to much less resistance seen in previous efforts. Despite a fervent tech community voicing concern, very few people seemed able to muster up enough concern to protest this decision. And of course, there is also always the possibility that no matter how many people fought back, once enough Net Neutrality opponents were in power, they would have too much control over the decision, and were going to eventually vote for the rollbacks no matter how much resistance they encountered, even with recent congressional concern being voiced earlier this week.

 

[Rahh]

The sheeple are weak.

 

[Saist]

... Does not seem like you know what net Neutrality is either... And that it was not rolled back because it was never implemented. What the Tom wheeler FCC and Obama administration put into place was not net Neutrality, nor did it even resemble net Neutrality in any way.

From 2010: http://zerias.blogspot.com/2010/08/net-neutrality-what-does-it-actually.html?m=1

 

[Dead Parrot]

The real problem is I think a lot of Congress critters don't understand what Net Neutrality is. They just see Title II = excessive regulation = bad = must revoke. They don't want to interrupt their fund raising to research what they are being asked to vote on. A lot of media stories on Title II revocation efforts fail to mention what net neutrality is so the average person doesn't know what is at stake. Only when their Netflix traffic starts getting slowed and they are offered a 'fix' by their ISP for an extra $10/month will they care.

 

[Semantics]

72% of people don't know what PoE is and why multiple access points in a house is the shit

 

[Ultima99]

There's a lot more than this that people don't know....

 

[DeathFromBelow]

Conservatives have been running a lot of FUD and misinformation about net neutrality. My dad thought it was 'another Obamaphone' from what he heard on conservative talk radio.

 

[SmokeRngs]

Conservatives have been running a lot of FUD and misunformation about net neutrality. My dad thought it was 'another Obamaphone' from what he heard on conservative talk radio.

Liberals have been running a lot of FUD and misinformation about net neutrality. They think the FCC rules were net neutrality and told people they were.

Net neutrality is very simple. All bits are treated equally.

 

[Wrecked Em]

It gets so little mainstream news coverage, it doesn't surprise me.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with most news outlets being owned by the cable companies.

 

[Lenard]

Liberals have been running a lot of FUD and misinformation about net neutrality. They think the FCC rules were net neutrality and told people they were.

Net neutrality is very simple. All bits are treated equally.

Net Neutrality is a buzz term that will mean whatever the regulators say it means. It should mean that all bits are passed on without regard to content, but it will not.

 

[Exavior]

Given many post here over the past few months I don't think 10% of the people here know what it means let alone 10% of the public. More like 72% never heard the term period. 98% have no idea what it is.

 

[dethklokworkorange]

Since the link on this post is incorrect, I'd also guess a large percentage of [H]ers comment without reading the article.
<hardocp.com/news/2017/08/17/72_consumers_dont_know_what_net_neutrality> instead of
<hardocp.com/news/2017/08/17/72_consumers_donrsquot_know_what_net_neutrality>

 

[lostin3d]

It falls under the same rhetoric that's used over and over now. They say too much regulation hurts industry, jobs, profits. Less regulation will be better for the customer and in turn more profits and jobs. Yet to see where this is true other than more low paying jobs and companies that give even less back to the infrastructures their customers have to pay for.

 

[Jim Kim]

Since the link on this post is incorrect, I'd also guess a large percentage of [H]ers comment without reading the article.
<hardocp.com/news/2017/08/17/72_consumers_dont_know_what_net_neutrality> instead of
<hardocp.com/news/2017/08/17/72_consumers_donrsquot_know_what_net_neutrality>

72% point out the obvious while failing to link to the important. http://exstreamist.com/72-of-consumers-dont-know-what-net-neutrality-is/

 

[jardows]

99% of posters to tech forums can't agree on the best way to implement Net Neutrality. 65% of posters to tech forums can't even agree on what Net Neutrality actually is. 100% of tech posters who think the previous FCC's "Net Neutrality" was anything about true Net Neutrality were wrong.

 

[dethklokworkorange]

72% point out the obvious while failing to link to the important. http://exstreamist.com/72-of-consumers-dont-know-what-net-neutrality-is/

I thought it was worth pointing out that in the 16 hours the error went seemingly without notice we managed to politicize this issue without even reading the article. I think that's a good example of "what's wrong with the world today," and not unique to [H]. It seems checking the facts before spouting one's preconceived opinion is now the standard, because any information potentially conflicting with one's beliefs is seen only as a threat to one's position, as opposed to an opportunity to reexamine that position.
And FWIW, the correct link to the [H] news page was in my post. I'm not entirely sure why they send you to the hardocp.com news page before they give you the actual link, but I assume it has something to do with ad revenue, and therefore left it the way they (seem to) like it.

 

[PaulP]

I thought it was worth pointing out that in the 16 hours the error went seemingly without notice we managed to politicize this issue without even reading the article. I think that's a good example of "what's wrong with the world today," and not unique to [H]. It seems checking the facts before spouting one's preconceived opinion is now the standard, because any information potentially conflicting with one's beliefs is seen only as a threat to one's position, as opposed to an opportunity to reexamine that position.
And FWIW, the correct link to the [H] news page was in my post. I'm not entirely sure why they send you to the hardocp.com news page before they give you the actual link, but I assume it has something to do with ad revenue, and therefore left it the way they (seem to) like it.

This issue is not new, and the article does not present any new information either. So it is absolutely possible for people to enter into this discussion having an informed viewpoint without reading the article. The truth is, what we had with the new rules that were just rolled back was not true Net Neutrality. It did give the big carriers more wiggle room to lie to us and screw us over, though. With those rules rolled back, the Internet is not going to implode either. What we really need to do is to negate all the regional agreements that the big carriers have made amoungst each other (with the federal government's permission) to basically limit competition. There is no reason to treat broadband like electrical or water service; monopolies are not necessary. Real competition will do a much better job of assuring that people won't get screwed than government regulations.

 

[Malcador]

So I followed the link suggested in that article that purportedly explains clearly and easily what NN is.

https://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

And while it started off good, they pretty much lost me towards the end, making it all about anti-Trump and how people of colour will get affected. By presenting it this way, this preservation of NN sounds like another liberal scheme to propagate their victimhood narrative and how Trump is the worst guy ever. Why should skin colour matter in the context of free information flow? How is removing NN stifling minority voices when the left is doing the same thing with their recent censorship and nonsense. This article actually makes me NOT want to support NN if that's what it's all about. If the explanation is INCORRECT then I'm willing to read/watch something less biased.

 

[nysmo]

This article actually makes me NOT want to support NN

This is also part of the problem. Staunch conservatives are willing to vote against their own best interests just as a "fuck you" to the opposition. So we're really battling the uninformed and the willfully ignorant. Something tells me we will not win.

 

[Master_shake_]

when i read a tweet by a senator that says "Net Neutrality is like Obamacare for the internet" i know that politicians don't know what it is either.

 

[Lenard]

It falls under the same rhetoric that's used over and over now. They say too much regulation hurts industry, jobs, profits. Less regulation will be better for the customer and in turn more profits and jobs. Yet to see where this is true other than more low paying jobs and companies that give even less back to the infrastructures their customers have to pay for.

What is needed is 'Correct Regulation' that maximizes freedom, and limits government interference with commerce and speech. The goal should be a wide open system of interconnectivity that is stable and as fast as it can be. Regulation should have no other purpose.

 

[Lenard]

What is needed is 'Correct Regulation' that maximizes freedom, and limits government interference with commerce and speech. The goal should be a wide open system of interconnectivity that is stable and as fast as it can be. Regulation should have no other purpose.

Just for clarification: I have no confidence that this will happen. Regulation will be put in place that protects big media and content providers. It's purpose will be to make sure Big Media have a perpetual oligopoly. That will be it's entire purpose.

 

[Jagger100]

Conservatives have been running a lot of FUD and misinformation about net neutrality. My dad thought it was 'another Obamaphone' from what he heard on conservative talk radio.

This conservative believes it was more corporate friendly socialism that entrenched the status sqo, ie monopolies.

Monopolies are a far deeper problem. 'NN' regulation was done to encourage acceptance of the FCC as the governing body so they could turn around and do exactly what they are doing now. The Congress should have addressed it where the congressmen would be on the hot seats themselves. Now congressmen can simply point fingers "blah blah Obama" "blah blah GOP"....

Just think about that for a second. Governance was given to the FCC an organization who fundamental purpose has been about restricting access and content on new mediums. Reagan had to write an Executive Order to make cell phones happen because of that organization. FFS people can't think.