Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality Rules

December 29, 2010 -

According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey 54 percent of the American public oppose the new net neutrality rules approved by the FCC last week. The national telephone survey also found that only 21 percent of likely U.S. voters want the FCC to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television, while 25 percent are not sure.

According to Rasmussen, the survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose net neutrality regulations on the Internet. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly opposed the FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats were more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet the most were most opposed to FCC regulations.

Fifty-six percent of voters believe that the FCC will use its regulatory powers to promote a political agenda. Half of that number (28 percent) disagreed.

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters nationwide was conducted on December 23, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence. Fieldwork was conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. S

Source: Rasmussen Reports


Comments

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

It all depends on how the question is asked, worded.  And how little the people actually know about the issue.  "Hey, do you want the government to interfere with internet business and freedoms, like a goddamned communist?  Or do you still believe in small government and liberty?  On that note, how do you feel about the FFC trying to push Net Neutrality rules down your throat?"

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

You've got that right. Frankly speaking, Americans aren't the brightest bulbs in the pack typically. If you tell them their "liberties" are being infringed they'll speak out against anything, regardless of whether it might actually be good for them or not.

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

That depends, Spiral. After all, if you look at some of the response to TSA's "enhanced" pat downs and such, I've actually seen people say "go ahead, bug my phone if it keeps me safe" from terrorists.

Which, of course, it wouldn't. But when it comes to that magical boogeyman that is terrorism, too many Americans are more than willing to give away any and all of their rights and liberties as long as they have the illusion of safety.

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

 I'd wager that the folks who are against Net Neutrality would be the first ones to bitch and moan when/if ISPs start charging them extra for access to sites, etc.  These guys are the least informed of the bunch when it comes to this issue.

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

I think you're right. The fact is, it's not surprising that most people are against net neutrality - after all, every ISP and phone company has been spamming 'net neutrality is the devil' commercials anywhere they can get airtime.

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

I find it amazing how willingly americans buy into the TV commercials (which at the end then state they were paid for by *INSERT LOBBY GROUP HERE*).

Not that Canada can really one-up that. During our last federal election, the Liberals ran commercials warning the people that the Conservatives would buy an aircraft carrier. Now, I don't know if you're familiar with Canada's GDP, but take my word for it, an aircraft carrier is out of our reach. Some idiots believed it though...

Oh wait, actually, we had a similar ad campaign here in Canada. We have three main wireless providers, who either own everything or host other services on their networks: Bell, Rogers, and Telus. When a foreign group expressed interest in buying into the wireless spectrum, the Big Three tried everything, but my favourite was a "DON'T LET CANADA BE OWNED BY FOREIGN INTERESTS" type campaign. Nevermind the fact that most "Canadian" businesses are already owned by Americans or have headquarters on certain tax free islands in the carribean...

Anyway, Americans, don't worry, we'll be getting our fight soon too. We've seen cable and satellite providers battling it out with broadcasters, and then "Canadian" wireless fighting with (what I believe are) Egyptian investors (who have caused cell phone prices across Canada to drop with their influx of competition... finally)... Net Neutrality is going to become the next big battle I imagine. Shame the CRTC has no balls, we're probably going to lose that fight.

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

Or more likely they would be the first to complain when they sign up for netflix streaming and discover horrible preformance.

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

They also might be thrilled to find that their service was disconnected for exceeding  their usage quota in as little of a week.

They cap monthly usage, limit high speeds to expensive tiers, and offer pathetically low upstream service because it makes it much, much harder to give your cable or satellite provider the boot. The majority of ISPs have other services they want you to buy and if the internet can to it better, they want to make certain that you can't utilize it. ISPs should not be able to modify service to their customers in any way that prevents them from using competing services, devices, or web sites. I pay for internet service, not world wide web service.

-Greevar

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

The phrase "Net Neutrality Regulation" is an oxymoron.

Re: Poll: Over Half of Likely Voters Dislike Net Neutrality ...

Of course, the White House will, as always, spin the fact that they're being criticized from both sides as evidence that this is a good compromise -- a logical fallacy that really, really needs to die.

As Dan Gillmor put it at Salon, "Sometimes, when everyone hates what you've done, you've done the wrong thing."

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician