Net Neutrality - Uni - General

Hi. I have a net neutrality survey I'm doing for uni and wanted FP's feedback as you guys seem knowledgeable in the area. Yeah uh not sure how seriously it will be taken but it's worth a shot. Link: [url]https://docs.google.com/forms/d/137OBHxNHZ7zPc88fiRfnPeExpKAfLzQ79esfH93fIcc/viewform[/url] It shouldn't take more than a minute to complete.

The government shouldn't be involved with the internet. I like the way it is now.

I'm sure some idiots out there think not having net neutrality will stop terrorism "some how" , but on this forum only trolls would vote that it's 'bad'.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;47373899]The government shouldn't be involved with the internet. I like the way it is now.[/QUOTE] you do realize that the government not being involved means that ISPs like comcast can arbitrarily charge certain customers or companies more to not have crippled speeds, aka, no government = no net neutrality right? [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] perhaps instead of just asking "are you educated on the topic" you might have also included some basic questions that would suggest if they're actually educated or not

[img]http://puu.sh/gL3ri/347479e87b.png[/img] I see we have an overwhelming majority.

Ah balls I accidentally clicked bad, now I feel dumb.

I really hope the people who rated bad are either confused or joking.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;47373899]The government shouldn't be involved with the internet. I like the way it is now.[/QUOTE] then you should be for net neutrality....because its the government regulating to keep it exactly how it is now.............................................................................................................................................................................please read about issues before you spout against big gubment

[QUOTE=Sableye;47374955]then you should be for net neutrality....because its the government regulating to keep it exactly how it is now.............................................................................................................................................................................please read about issues before you spout against big gubment[/QUOTE] It means the government should regulate it so that all traffic is treated the same. Theoretically an un-regulated internet would not be neutral. [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] It just so happens that the regulation hasn't been necessary in the past, it's a bit of a legal gray area. People are now looking to their governments for the required legislation because ISPs have recently been pushing for a non-neutral internet.

Not 100% on the actual survey, some questions just didn't have enough answers: the only options were increase or decrease for the effects on innovation and prices.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;47375095]Not 100% on the actual survey, some questions just didn't have enough answers: the only options were increase or decrease for the effects on innovation and prices.[/QUOTE] Yeah I wanted the answers to be fairly comparable. If I did something like texted based responses it would take longer on addition I wouldn't be able to directly compare the results quantitatively. I'll post the graphs here once I make them.

[QUOTE=zzaacckk;47375711]Yeah I wanted the answers to be fairly comparable. If I did something like texted based responses it would take longer on addition I wouldn't be able to directly compare the results quantitatively. I'll post the graphs here once I make them.[/QUOTE] Cool. My suggestion wasn't really for a text box or anything though. A simple 'no significant effect' option would have worked fine.

Just curious, why are you asking here? The userbase of Facepunch isn't exactly indicative of the general population.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;47373899]The government shouldn't be involved with the internet. I like the way it is now.[/QUOTE] So you like being shafted with super high prices and a slow and unreliable connection? Right now, as a Time Warner customer (god help me), we're paying at least $70/mo for a 1 MB/s (maybe 2 on a good day) download and a piss poor 75-150 KB/s upload and a connection that keeps going dead every five minutes for a couple of weeks at any fuckin time it damn well pleases that they refuse to come out and fix because "we can't see a problem from here". And don't even get me started on the immense throttling that they mask by faking normal results in Speedtest when you know for DAMN sure it's a lie. If Net Neutrality stops all of that horse shit I'm all for it. Also I'm pretty sure Net Neutrality only pertains to the [I]quality & price[/I] of your service by ISPs, not the content they provide, so there's not going to be any gubberment censoring like some people may believe.

[QUOTE=Procrastinate;47373899]The government shouldn't be involved with the internet. I like the way it is now.[/QUOTE] The question relating to this was a bit iffy for me. I wasn't just for or against, I was sort of between. I don't think the government should be involved in regulating content of internet unless it is directly harmful, but I also think the government should prevent groups such as ISPs from regulating the content of the internet.

[QUOTE=matt000024;47376419]I also think the government should prevent groups such as ISPs from regulating the content of the internet.[/QUOTE] Being for government regulation is still being for government regulation.

"I'm against governmentally regulated food quality." Government regulations are not a bad thing unless they do something to become bad. Blanket statements like 'regulation = bad' are completely stupid. [editline]22nd March 2015[/editline] it's the difference between regulating food, and banning okra for religious reasons.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;47376448]Being for government regulation is still being for government regulation.[/QUOTE] You missed the first half of my post where I said I don't want the government regulating most content. It isn't a black and white issue.