Survey Suggests Eager Starlink Users Don't Understand Service Will Have Limited Reach

from the good-luck-with-that dept

So we've noted more than a few times that while Elon Musk's Starlink will be a good thing if you can actually get and afford the service, it's going to have a decidedly small impact on the broadband industry as a whole. Between 20 and 42 million Americans lack access to broadband entirely, 83 million live under a monopoly, and tens of millions more are stuck under a duopoly (usually your local cable company and a regional, apathetic phone company). In turn, Starlink is going to reach somewhere between 300,000 to 800,000 subscribers in its first few years, a drop in the overall bucket.

Thanks to massive frustration with broadband market failure (and the high prices, dubious quality, and poor customer service that results), users are decidedly excited about something new. But not only are there limited slots due to limited capacity and physics, a lot of those slots are going to get gobbled up by die-hard Elon Musk fans excited to affix Starlink dishes to their boats, RVs, and Cybertrucks. As a result it will be extremely unlikely that most users who truly need the improved option will absolutely be able to get it.

But a new PC Magazine survey continues to make it clear that most consumers don't quite understand they'll never actually have the option (especially if they live in a major metro market):

Starlink is expected to come out of beta next month for a broader commercial launch, and has seen 600,000 orders so far. But many of the customers who have signed up say getting a status update from Starlink customer service is effectively impossible. While major Wall Street analysts like Craig Moffett estimate the service may be able to scale to 6 million users over a period of many years, he also notes that guess is extremely optimistic, and will require a significantly updated fleet of 42,000 satellites to achieve.

This all assumes that Starlink will remain financially viable as it works toward that goal, something that's not really guaranteed in a low-orbit satellite industry that has a history of major failures. And there will be questions about throttling and other restrictions once the network gets fully loaded with hungry users. Again, Starlink will be great for off the grid folks if they can get -- and afford -- it, but I suspect there's going to be some heartache when folks excited about the service realize the limitations of its actual reach. And this scarcity is only going to drive even greater interest in a service you probably won't be able to get anytime soon.

Filed Under: competition, satellite broadband, starlink, survey
Companies: spacex, starlink

EU's Own Survey On Internet Regulations Broken; Please Urge Them Not To Break The Internet Too

from the *sigh* dept

Last week, we wrote about an important survey put online by the EU Commission, asking for feedback on its plans to regulate certain key aspects of the internet. We noted that the survey itself was cumbersome and confusing, and because of that, via the Copia Institute, we set up our own guide to filling out the survey called Don't Wreck The Net. We were a little mocking of the survey, as it does seem a bit silly that the people in charge of potentially putting all sorts of regulations on the internet... have a poorly designed and confusing survey (including the fact that depending on how you answer certain questions, the survey will appear quite different for you than it might for others). However, to some extent, we get it: government bureaucracies have some limitations on what technologies they can make use of.

Thankfully, many of you went to the Don't Wreck the Net website and, from there, did complete the EU Commission's survey. However we started receiving reports that after filling out this long and cumbersome survey, people were submitting it only to get the submission "rejected" with the following error message: Worried about this, I reached out to the European Commission, and got back the following response, admitting that their survey had an absolutely ridiculous bug:

The problem comes from an incorrect address the participants are using. Please make sure that they use the following link:

https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Platforms

It is very important that there is no slash ("/") at the end of the link. Please inform your users and ask them to double check the address before clicking on Submit. As a workaround it is also possible to first click on "Save as draft" and then submit the survey afterwards.

We apologize for the problem. The bug will be fixed in the next version of EUSurvey.

We looked, and indeed, in some of our links, we included that trailing slash. But here's the thing: SO DID THE EU. On its own official page about the survey, the only link on that page went to the URL with the slash on the end that breaks their own survey.

In other words, if you went to the EU's own website and followed the only official link to the survey, and then filled it out and submitted it... you would get the error page.

I alerted the Commission to this and they have since fixed the link on their own website... but still.

First: it's absolutely ridiculous that the survey would not work with the trailing slash. Second, it's ridiculous that even though it would not work, it still displayed the survey and let people fill out the whole thing only to dump the results at the end. Third, it's a complete travesty that they linked to this very same wrong link in their own consultation page, potentially leading many, many people to fill out this long and confusing survey and have the results dumped into the garbage can.

I've spoken to a few people at the EU Commission about this, and I get the feeling that they are (reasonably) embarrassed and apologetic about this, but they have not said anything publicly at all, nor have they publicly explained to people why their survey results may not have been submitted. I have asked if they would consider extending the survey a few more weeks, given this mistake on their own platform, but I have not heard a response yet.

All that is to say: as much as it pains me to tell you this, if you filled out the survey as requested last time, only to get a "forbidden" error at the end, please do so again using the proper links (and make sure you "save" your draft first). Multiple people at the EU Commission that I've spoken to insist that they really need and want to hear from as many voices on this as possible (and no, you don't need to be European). They insist that they really do want to hear all sides, and don't want to end up with policies that will create real problems for the internet. So it's super important that you fill out their survey -- which I hope is actually working now.

So, please, let the EU Commission know that they shouldn't wreck the internet.

Filed Under: broken, competition, don't wreck the net, eu, eu commission, innovation, intermediary liability, privacy, survey

This Survey Sucks, And The Internet Needs You To Fill It Out

from the dont-wreck-the-net dept

Today, we're launching a new initiative from our think-tank, The Copia Institute. The European Commission is holding a public consultation on new regulations for the internet, and the only way to send comments is through a painfully long and oblique online survey. Unfortunately, thanks to those five pages of small print and confusing questions, most people don't seem to have realized just how big a deal this consultation is — and it only runs until December 30th.

The new regulations that are being considered include a long list of things that we've fought hard against here at Techdirt. In general, it all focuses on "intermediary liability" — the dismantling of safe harbors and creation of new regulations that hold online services accountable for the actions of their users. Apart from the obvious common sense objection that this is clearly putting the blame in the wrong place, we know it has all sorts of negative effects: it encourages services to spy on the actions of their users, it turns providers into de facto judges and squeezes out free speech safeguards like fair use, it leads to filtering and takedown systems that inevitably target lots of legitimate content... the list, as our readers know, goes on and on. We discussed the issue in detail last week on our podcast.

This isn't just an issue for Europe. Currently, the EU's rules around intermediary liability are largely in line with the safe harbor approach in the US, and changing this could impact every online service that has European users, everyone who wants to share content internationally or make use of services from the EU, and generally everyone who cares about innovation, privacy, competition and free speech on the global internet. So we're asking everyone to brave the nightmarish online survey and speak up against these new regulations, and to help we've created the Don't Wreck The Net campaign and survey survival guide. There we outline the core issues at stake, and offer some help orienting yourself in the survey and understanding what the bureaucratically-worded questions are getting at.

Again, it's really important that people respond to this public consultation. Not only is the survey a pain, the details strongly indicate that the European Commission really wants to enact some new regulations — often, it only gives you space for additional comment when you are criticizing the existing framework, but not when you are defending it. You can bet that lots of folks from the copyright industries have submitted their responses, no doubt calling for robust new notice-and-staydown rules and proactive monitoring requirements. This can't be the only message the Commission hears.

Open up the campaign page, make use of our resources, and tell EU lawmakers not to wreck the net »

Filed Under: eu, eu commission, intermediary liability, survey

NHTSA's Voluntary Roadside Blood-And-Saliva Survey Heads To Seattle With A Much Greater Emphasis On 'Voluntary'

from the it-can-be-taught dept

Although it's already been burned twice for its intrusive, not-mandatory-but-it-sure-looks-that-way "roadside surveys," the NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) isn't letting a lot of bad press, a lawsuit and a Congressional investigation slow down its blood-and-saliva collections. After two straight debacles (Texas and Pennsylvania), the NHTSA is headed to Seattle in hopes of gauging the effects of newly-legal weed on the driving population. (h/t to Techdirt reader DeComposer)

Government-hired survey teams will soon ask hundreds of Washington state motorists to answer questions and provide samples of breath, saliva and blood — all to give safety and police agencies a clearer sense of how many people drive impaired.

The roadside surveys are voluntary, and participants will be paid up to $60, under the federally funded project this summer.

The only remaining question is how these will be handled. On its two previous attempts, the NHTSA sent an independent contractor to handle the blood draws and saliva collection. And both times, local law enforcement provided officers, vehicles and barricades -- all of which suggested to several motorists that these voluntary collections were far from voluntary. From what's being reported here, it appears that more effort is being made to ensure drivers know these surveys are indeed entirely optional.

Crews will not block or slow traffic, officials say. Drivers at a stoplight would encounter civilians wearing orange vests, with signs saying “Paid Voluntary Survey,” then be asked if they wish to participate.

The article also states that collected data will be destroyed when the report is published and that names and license numbers won't be recorded. The latter sounds ideal, but the reality of the situation is that, unless things have changed, consenting to a blood draw still requires the signature of the volunteer, which means there will be some sort of recording going on. And surveyors will still be collecting non-consensual "samples" using passive alcohol detectors. The defenders of this practice argue that these detectors are actually consensual (due to consent given by volunteering to be surveyed), even though people aren't notified about their existence until after they've already had their breath sampled.

The ACLU is keeping an eye on the NHTSA's newest survey, which, so far at least, seems to be headed towards a more obviously voluntary presentation. That's a huge improvement over its previous efforts and is likely a good indicator of how these will be handled in the future. Law enforcement officers will again be on hand to protect the cash payout and offer options to impaired drivers, but their presence will be far more muted than past instances.

If the NHTSA can learn from its mistakes and move on in a more honest and transparent fashion, it should be able to entice enough volunteers with its cash payments to present credible data at the end of its collection period. If it decides to go back to the old way, however, it will find it increasingly difficult to secure any participation at all.

Filed Under: blood, nhtsa, police, saliva, seattle, survey

New Study Shows Legal Music Services -- Not Fear Of Harsh Copyright Laws -- Reduce Illegal File Sharing

from the how-many-times-do-we-need-to-say-it? dept

The copyright industries seem to have only one tool in their tool box for addressing unauthorized file sharing: a legal hammer. But no matter how harsh the measure, the file sharing goes on, and so the maximalists call for even more disproportionate laws, which will doubtless be ignored in their turn. This is particularly frustrating, because we already know how to stop people downloading stuff: just offer good services at fair prices. When you do so, illegal file sharing drops dramatically, as Techdirt has noted time and again. Here's yet more research confirming that fact, from a group at Lund University in Sweden:

Survey responses from around 4,000 individuals suggest that the number of active file-sharers has dropped in the past two years. Those who share files daily or almost daily has decreased from 32.8 percent in 2012 to 29 percent in 2014.

According to the head of the research group, this is why the numbers are dropping, as reported by TorrentFreak:

"If you listen to what young people themselves are saying, it is new and better legal services that have caused the decrease in file-sharing, rather than respect for the law. There has been a trend where alternative legal solutions such as Spotify and Netflix are changing consumption patterns among young people."

Particularly striking is the following statistic:

Interestingly, in that same four-year period, the percentage of young people who said they believe that people should not share files because it is illegal dropped from 24 percent to 16.9 percent. So, even while young people are sharing files less often, their acceptance of the standards presented by the law appears to be dropping too.

In other words, we need not only more good-quality services, but also copyright reform to bring the law into line with today's views.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: authorized services, file sharing, survey, sweden

Survey: 27% Think A Gigabyte Is a Type Of South American Insect [Update: Or Not]

from the I-see-dumb-people dept

Update: Or not. It appears that this survey may be bogus. Still, the key point, that we've noted for years, is that the average person has no idea how much a gigabyte really is -- and we'd bet that's still true, even if this "survey" appears to be just a marketing stunt.

A new survey from a UK company unsurprisingly found that more than a few people are slightly clueless when it comes to technology terms. The multiple-choice survey, which polled 2,392 U.S. men and women 18 years of age or older, found that one in ten Americans believe that html is some form of sexually-transmitted disease. While most survey respondents knew the definition of more general terms (like "dialect"), the full survey (pdf) found that even basic tech terms confused many people. 42% thought a motherboard was a deck on a cruise ship, 15% thought that software was comfortable clothing, and 77% of respondents didn't know what SEO meant.

Interestingly, while 67% respondents knew that a gigabyte was a unit of measurement of digital information (though the survey didn't ask them how much information is contained in a gigabyte), 27% believed that a gigabyte was a type of South American insect. That's actually a better statistic than I've seen in the past. A 2008 poll suggested that 87% of those polled had no idea what a gigabyte was or how many they use. The New York Times did an entirely unscientific street poll a few years back and found that few, if any, passers by knew what a megabyte is:

"If a sampling of pedestrians on the streets of Brooklyn is any guide, most people have only a vague idea. One said a megabyte was “the amount of something we have to use the Internet,” adding, “We should have three or four." Miranda Popkey, 24, was closer: “It’s a measure of how much information you store. If there are too many of them, I can’t send my e-mail attachment."

The thing is, most people can get away with not knowing what a motherboard is without losing a limb. Thinking that USB is an acronym for a country in Europe may not make you the smartest person in the room, but it's not going to hurt your wallet. Even the 29% of survey respondents who thought a migraine was a type of rice should probably make it through the day without any major repercussions (assuming they don't choke on their own tongue or something). But with both fixed line and wireless carriers increasingly charging by the megabyte and gigabyte, people might want to brush up on the term before they have to take out a second mortgage to fund their Angry Birds habit.

Filed Under: gigabyte, html, survey, uk

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Would Like To Know What You Think Of Them (Sorta)

from the but-mainly-if-you-think-ip-is-awesome dept

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has a pretty long history of basically being the leading supporter of ever stricter and more ridiculous copyright (and patent and trademark laws). To be fair, in recent years, WIPO has actually been somewhat more open to at least hearing from folks actually representing the public, who have pointed out that stronger IP laws often do much more harm than good for wider society. But, on the whole, the group is still very much representing the interests of copyright, patent and trademark holders, rather than the general public. It's why the group gets called out for crazy ideas like making service providers into IP cops and suggesting that things would have been better if the web had been patented.

Either way, it appears that WIPO has hired a company to reach out to get "Stakeholder Perceptions of WIPO." It's pretty rare that WIPO actually hears from the public that its efforts and agreements really impact, so here's a chance to make sure WIPO knows what you think of its efforts to expand IP law over the years... Have at it, and let them know your thoughts.

Unfortunately, many of the questions are kind of ridiculous in the "and when did you stop beating your wife" variety. For example, at one point they ask you to "rank" how important specific WIPO priorities are -- and looking down the list, I though pretty much all of them should not be priorities, because all of them focused on expanding IP, rather than looking at more effective IP, or even exploring where IP might hurt the public. There are a few other questions like that as well, where I wanted to challenge the nature of the question itself, but was forced to choose the "least bad" or "least incorrect" answer instead. Still, there were a few opportunities to make it clear to WIPO that you'd prefer the organization not just be a representative to expand IP at all costs, but one that should pay attention to what actually helps society the most -- even if that means cutting back on some IP rules -- something that seems to be completely foreign to WIPO's world view so far.

It's really unfortunate that WIPO would stack the questions so badly such that the only thing you can really say for most of them is just how awesome IP is and how much better it would be if IP expanded. But hopefully some of you will figure out ways to make it clear to WIPO that perhaps it should be focusing on making sure the public benefits, not just how to expand IP.

Filed Under: intellectual property, survey, wipo

New Study Shows Majority Of Americans Against SOPA; Believe Extreme Copyright Enforcement Is Unreasonable

from the so-why-are-we-pushing-forward-with-it? dept

One of the talking points we've been hearing about SOPA from the lobbyists pushing to get it approved is that the majority of Americans are in favor of the bill, because they want to "protect" intellectual property or jobs. This has never made much sense, since SOPA doesn't protect jobs at all. It destroys them, by hindering one of the few parts of our economy that has been creating jobs -- new and small businesses, particularly in the tech community. Now, the same folks who brought you that incredibly in-depth study on media piracy in emerging markets, have come out with a new report revealing some of their latest research on infringement among Americans. There are a ton of useful data revealed here, but none more timely and key than the following:

56% of people surveyed oppose government involvement in blocking access to infringing material. This number increases to 64% when the term censor is used.

Furthermore, when asked specifically if ISPs, social media sites and search engines should block access to infringing content if it also meant that some legal content would also get blocked (basically the definition of SOPA -- where even the defenders of the bill admit it will block some legal content), only 36% say that's an acceptable form of copyright enforcement.

In other words, a majority Americans are very opposed to the methods and impact of SOPA.

The study also found that, when compelling legal services are around, it can cause a massive decrease in the amount of content obtained through unauthorized means. This isn't a surprise. We've been pointing this out for a while now. And it again shows why SOPA is the exact wrong approach. Instead of actually decreasing infringement, it will increase the burdens and costs for the new businesses who provide those compelling new services. Separately, the report has a whole bunch of other important factoids as well. We've seen a bunch of disputes in the comments about how "common" infringement is. Part of the problem is that it probably depends on how you define it. What this report shows makes a lot of sense: 46% of adults have "bought, copied or downloaded unauthorized music, TV shows or movies." Look at just the 18 to 29 year old demographic, and that number shoots up to 70%. These are the voters of tomorrow, politicians... In most cases, however, it appears to be personal downloading or sharing with friends and family. 75% of people say it's fine to send music files to family members. 70% say that for movies. 56% of people say it's fine to send music to friends. 54% say that about movies. In other words, an awful lot of the "piracy" that's out there is really just friends and family sharing some content. The really "massive" piracy issue is pretty limited. About 2% of adults have huge collections of unauthorized music, and 1% have huge collections of unauthorized films. Furthermore, a much smaller percentage of people think it's okay to upload content to file sharing services or (of course) to sell copies of unauthorized files:
Given all of this, it shouldn't be a surprise that most people think that enforcement should be pretty limited, and not particularly burdensome. From the report:

• Only a slim majority of Americans (52%) support penalties for downloading copyrighted music and movies -- and limit this support to warnings and fines. Other penalties, such as bandwidth throttling and disconnection, receive much lower levels of support.
• Disconnection from the internet, in particular, is very unpopular, with only 16% in favor and 72% of Americans opposed.
• Among those who support fines, 75% support amounts under $100 per song or movie infringed -- hugely undershooting the current statutory penalties.
• For a majority of Americans (54%), due process in such matters requires a court -- not adjudication by private companies.
• Solid majorities of American internet users oppose copyright enforcement when it is perceived to intrude on personal rights and freedoms. 69% oppose monitoring of their internet activity for the purposes of enforcement. 57% oppose blocking or filtering by commercial intermediaries if those measures also block legal content or activity.

So what is there to make from all of this? It appears that our current laws (especially statutory damages) are way out of line with what the majority of Americans think would be appropriate. Furthermore, a ton of people infringe regularly, and especially think nothing's wrong with sharing among family and friends. On top of that, they seem to agree that enforcement is way out of line with the "problem," and certainly don't approve of the types of changes that SOPA is seeking to put in place.

So why are so many in Congress so out of touch with the American public and so focused on passing a law that goes against the wishes of Americans? This is the question Congress should be answering at tomorrow's hearings. The report's author, Joe Karaganis, should be one of the witnesses testifying, rather than a bevy of industry representatives all trotting out unsubstantiated reasons for moving forward with SOPA.

Filed Under: copyright, joe karaganis, piracy, sopa, survey, us

James Bond's Gun Gets A Trademark... Based On An Online Survey

from the can-we-also-vote-against-it? dept

Apparently the maker of the gun preferred by (yes, fictional) James Bond has been able to get a trademark on the design, as "James Bond's weapon of choice." The USPTO initially rejected the trademark request, leading the company, Walther, who makes the PPK handgun, to do an online survey that suggested 54% of gun owners recognized the gun, with some of them mentioning James Bond in explaining how they recognized it. Apparently this online survey was enough to convince the USPTO that it had made a mistake. Who knew that the USPTO could so easily be influenced by online surveys? Can we have 4chan or Reddit folks stuff the ballot on future online surveys that might influence USPTO rulings?

Filed Under: guns, james bond, survey, trademark

Looking For A Little Info On The Community

from the survey-time dept

One of the examples I used in the Trent Reznor case study I did was how he sent out a survey to everyone on his mailing list -- but was quite open and honest about doing it -- and he did so in a way that actually made him sound human. Such surveys are a pain in the ass and they certainly annoy some people -- but, as Reznor pointed out in his email, since he and his team are figuring out everything as they go along, it certainly would help to have some info from his fans. We're in something of the same position. We're always working on ways to improve things for our community, as well -- and have a bunch of projects in the works, all focused on helping to reward you, in the community, further. The Insight Community has been quite successful so far, and in 2008 we were able to pay out five figure commissions to our top contributors. What other community are you a member of that pays you for being smart?

Please take a moment to fill out our reader survey.

Like Reznor, it would help if we knew a bit more about you. And, yes, we know that taking surveys is a pain in the ass. And, for those of you who feel that way, please just skip right on over this post and the survey. Sorry for wasting your time. But, for those of you who do feel like a part of the community and wouldn't mind sharing a bit of information that should help us provide more for you in the future, we'd really appreciate it if you could take just a few minutes of your time and fill out the survey. Thanks!

Filed Under: community, survey