The Internet (continued)

It’s easy to understand both sides of this argument. For those who cannot afford access to the Internet, the process of getting online is difficult (sign-ups and waiting times at the local library, etc) and essentially puts them at a disadvantage in this information age. But if Internet providers are not allowed to charge for their services, they lose any incentive to provide it at all, let alone pursue improvements that could make the Internet and their connection to it better for their customers.

And most people responding to this survey seem to understand the need for good quality connections to the Internet – 82% said they employ broadband high speed connections, while 17% employ dial-up services.

Of those with high-speed connections, 49% get access through their local cable company, while 33% get it somewhere else using DSL or other connections.

Asked how they view Internet service, 81% said they see it much the way they see telephone service, where a company gives you access to call anyone you like, but has no ability to restrict whom you call, when, or why. On the other hand, 6% said they think Internet providers are like cable television providers, and that they should be able to pick and choose which websites their customers can visit, much like a cable company chooses which channels to offer its customers.

Further, most respondents (96%) said that they do not think ISPs should be able to charge customers based on the sites they visit – that is, that they should not be able to charge more to those who visit more popular sites, or who visit more than a certain number of sites. The Internet has been called the “Wild West of the Information Age,” and if that is true, most Americans don’t want a sheriff to ride into town anytime soon.

Thinking of government regulation of the Internet, just 19% agreed with the idea that it should be able to impose the same decency restrictions on websites that it places on television and radio broadcasts, while 71% disagreed.

The Internet (continued)

Of course, protection of children is the focus of most censorship, and most telling is that 91% said that it should be parents, not the government or Internet providers, who should be regulating the content that is consumed by their children.

That said, a large majority of respondents said they think sexually explicit websites ought to carry their own suffixs – dot-xxx – to make it easier for visitors to know what to expect from the sites, much the way commercial sites end in a “dot-com,” educational institutions end in a “dot-edu,” and the websites of non-profit groups end in a “dot-org.”

Most of those surveyed – 76% - said they had Internet access at work, while 20% said they did not (4% said they were not sure – you figure that one out), and nearly half (49%) said their employer restricts their access to the Internet. Most felt that was appropriate – 88% said employers should have the right to decide how the Internet is used on the job in order to keep workers concentrating on their duties.

A Taxing Situation

One of the arguments against taxation of Internet purchases has its roots in competitiveness – that those who buy things online have to pay for shipping to actually receive the product, and that such shipping charges are generally about the same as the typical state sales tax, and if sales taxes were tacked onto Internet purchases, it would make many online purchases too expensive, and could kill Internet commerce.

On the other hand, some argue that the added time and expense of driving to the local brick-and-mortar outlet generally offsets shipping charges, and that, because of those largely unseen costs, Internet shoppers have an unfair advantage.

Asked about this situation, 58% said they thought the fact that online buyers have to pay for shipping is a fair offset to the payment of sales taxes, while 27% said such buyers should be required to pay taxes like everyone else.