We were recently subjected to the latest Leftist polling ridiculousness – an online “poll” by Leftist University of Maryland.
Three-in-Four Voters Favor Reinstating Net Neutrality:
“A new public consultation survey has found that a large, bipartisan majority of Americans (73%) support reinstating net neutrality, including 82% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans, and 68% of Independents.
“The online survey of 2,702 registered voters was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland (PPC).
“Respondents were given a short briefing on the 2015 ‘net neutrality’ regulations on internet service providers (ISPs) that were put in place by the Federal Communication Commission, and asked to evaluate arguments for and against reinstating such rules. The survey content was reviewed by experts on different sides of the issue, to ensure that the briefing was accurate and balanced, and that the strongest arguments were presented.
“To introduce the topic, respondents were informed that the net neutrality regulations prohibited ISPs from:
“Creating an internet ‘fast lane’ with faster download speeds for users of websites and applications that pay more.
“Providing faster speeds to the ISP’s own applications.
“Blocking or slowing down specific websites or applications.”
This entire operation is a partisan, lying, nonsense mess.
Let’s begin with the fact that this nonsense poll – is an ONLINE nonsense poll. Online polls are notoriously awful.
How awful are they? Even Leftist Media Matters loathes them – at least when they don’t like the biased, bogus results
Online Polls Are ‘Garbage,’ But Fox News Still Cites Them:
“(O)nline polls involve ‘a self-selecting group of respondents,’ and journalists and polling experts generally view them as unreliable – ‘garbage’ even.”
This is one of those rare moments where I partially agree with Leftist Media Matters. Online polling is garbage – no matter who does it.
Online Polls Are Everywhere: Here’s Why We Should Be Wary Before Trusting Them:
“Lack of representativeness is an obvious flaw for polls that only sample a specific audience….But it isn’t just biased audiences that can skew online polls. Some are susceptible to manipulation by bots. Worse, there exists a black market for buying online votes: a vote can be bought for less than two roubles (£0.03) on Russian online marketplaces. This allows individuals or organizations to easily fudge poll outcomes that can be used to influence citizens’ voting decisions.”
How do we know the online “Republican” respondents – are actually Republican respondents? We do not.
How do we know the entire polling sample isn’t five Russian spammers hired by a single Leftist entity? We do not.
And this fraudulent online poll – is also almost certainly a hyper-partisan push poll. The Net Neutrality “briefing” the university fed its online respondents – is not provided to us. Want to bet the reason they don’t provide it to us – is because it was horribly slanted in favor of Net Neutrality?
And in push polls? It’s not just the ridiculously wrong things you tell them – it’s the important factual things you don’t tell them.
The very concept of Internet “fast lanes” is biased nonsense. As tech advancements render Net Neutrality more and more stupid with each passing day….
Net Neutrality vs Network Slicing: The Left Looks to Murder 5G in the Crib:
“‘(Slicing) would let an operator turn its 5G network into a multi-lane highway, minus the hassle of building lots of separate physical lanes. Ideally, one of these lanes could be conjured up as and when needed, providing superior bandwidth, lower latency or other guarantees denied those cruising along the same road….
“‘Network slicing, however, is not a thing you will be able to witness in Joe Biden’s America. Not, that is, if he succeeds in resurrecting the maggoty corpse of net neutrality….Network slicing…is all about paying an operator for a better service than the masses typically enjoy.'”
There won’t be “fast lanes.” Just spectacular network management that will make everyone’s online experience exponentially better. Unless government’s Net Neutrality murders it.
And what follows are several negative ramifications of Net Neutrality – of which I would bet large coin the university did not inform its polling sample.
Just about everyone – even the government Post Office – allows you to pay more for faster delivery speeds. If properly informed, I bet people wouldn’t want government’s Net Neutrality bizarrely banning it just online.
As but one example: Doctors performing remote surgery require dedicated, faster, more expensive Internet connections. There are literally thousands of other ways paying more for faster online speeds helps humanity – and tens of thousands of which we haven’t even yet thought. If properly informed, I bet people wouldn’t want government’s Net Neutrality banning them.
In the history of the Internet, no one can cite even a single instance of any Internet provider “blocking or slowing down specific websites or applications.” You may as well have government ban unicorns. If properly informed, I bet people wouldn’t want massive additional government regulations – to “address” a non-existent problem.
Which brings us to Net Neutrality’s Big Tech cronyism.
Net Neutrality outlaws Big Tech companies being charged for the MASSIVE Internet bandwidth they use. And they use a LOT of bandwidth:
“Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Netflix…accounted for more than 55 percent of online traffic globally last year.”
And if Big Tech doesn’t pay at all? Average users – like the poll takers – will pay a WHOLE lot more.
We’re About to Pay Billions More Per Year for Big Tech’s Latest Government Cronyism
I am quite certain the university didn’t mention that either.
Oh: And we already know how the Net Neutrality story ends
The European Union Tries Net Neutrality – Discovers It Is Exceedingly Stupid
If the university had informed its victims – oops, I mean poll takers – of this Old World outcome? And all the rest of their omissions – which we just un-omitted?
I bet people wouldn’t want government’s Net Neutrality.