Net Neutrality Links
I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.
Commerce Poll on Telecom Bill Reeks of Desperation
The Senate Commerce Committee released yesterday, and posted on its web site today, a Verizon-funded push-poll that not surprisingly finds 1. Most Americans want competition in cable and 2. Most Americans are opposed to ââ¬Åonerousââ¬Â (thatââ¬â¢s the word used by the supposedly independent ââ¬Åbi-partisanââ¬Â write-up of the poll results) net neutrality regulations.
[ . . .].
Check out the pollââ¬â¢s loaded question on net neutrality:
Which of the following two items do you think is the most important to you:
Delivering the benefits of new TV and video choice so consumers will see increased competition and lower prices for cable TV
OR
Enhancing Internet neutrality by barring high speed internet providers from offering specialized services like faster speed and increased security for a fee
Faced with this choice, is it any surprise that 66% of the 800 registered voters surveyed (91% of whom were clueless about net neutrality) opted for the delightful delivery of benefits of new video choices over the insidious barring of cool new services such as faster broadband and better security?
The survey, conducted by not one but two bought-and-paid-for political polling firms, Public Opinion Strategies and The Glover Park Group, is just routine message manipulation by the pollsters . . . But the fact that once again, the United States Senate is disseminating corporate propaganda on one of its most powerful committeeââ¬â¢s web sites, funded by stiffs like you and me, should get everybody hopping mad.
. . . The Senate Commerce Committee has given up even a thin veneer of working for the public. Itââ¬â¢s working for Verizon now.
–ME “Liz” Strauss
Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE
(arrrrgggg!) (cough)
I mean, good morning Liz! After a couple of weeks of relatively upbeat messages, this one feels like we’re back at the beginning again.
What happened to the Senators learning a lesson when they went home last month?
It’s embarrassing that they don’t think we can see through a loaded poll. I just wonder how a reasonable person is supposed to respond when faced with it. Is it better to attempt answering it? Does participation validate it? Do they have to report how many people responded, “this question sucks and so do you”?
I really wish we could find out how many people they had to contact to get however many responses they got. I bet it was a high drop-out rate.
I think I’m babbling to cover my rage that this was published by, well, us.
Hi Katie!
Good morning!
These kinds of polls happen every day and statistics get turned to favor whatever argument is the one of the hour. We know that. It’s like trying to change the course of a river. It’s silly and even dangerous to attempt it. Better to ignore it . . .
Hi Liz,
Have you seen an easy to understand (I’m talking really simple) one-page description explaining both sides of network neutrality in layman’s terms?
When I was in Washington last week, I was amazed by the lack of lack of awareness about this issue. Unfortunately, when lobbyists and Congresspersons hear QoS, packets, and last mile jargon, they glaze over and stop listening.
I have access to several travel industry lobbyists who, given a good script, would take this message to the Hill and explain how Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and others want to add a surcharges to selected streaming audio, video, and VoIP.
I need an educational, unemotional, and very simple sheet of talking points.
Any ideas? Thanks, Scott
Hi Scott!
Tim Berners-Lee describes it like this
http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144
Everything you want to know is spelled out nicely here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
and the legal version here
http://swvalaw.blogspot.com/2006/08/net-neutrality-part-one.html
Hi Liz,
The question of net neutrality aside, I found some of the wording of those poll questions interesting.
The first ends with “lower price for cable TV” and the second with “for a fee”.
Yep, they’re loaded alright.
Carolyn
Yeah, writers are particularly sensitive to such things. In one editorial department where I worked the company had an appraisal form that offered four choices for performance
poor fair adequate outstanding.
Whoa didn the editors not like adequate. 🙂