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

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Michael ChandraYou want a debate? Build a wall between you and the poisoned well. Make clear you despise it, despise the behaviour. Then get into the other issues you are troubled with, and don't say a single word again about the poisoned well.09/19/2014 - 3:46am
Michael ChandraAnd someone claiming #notyourshield was to be taken serious, when chatlogs show they wanted it going to hide even more harassment behind? Yeah, not buying a word you're saying. You poisoned your own well.09/19/2014 - 3:45am
Michael Chandraallegedly fired over giving a game a mediocre review and the company threatened to pull ads? Sorry but I ain't buying this.09/19/2014 - 3:45am
Michael ChandraBut people arguing this is horrible and just about ethics, even though there's very little support that journalistic integrity was actually violated here, while they never spoke up when a journalist was09/19/2014 - 3:43am
Michael ChandraIf people start with condemning the way GamersGate was used as a misdirection, then use a better hashtag, that would work in convincing me they mean it.09/19/2014 - 3:43am
Andrew EisenOoo, this one came down to the wire! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/749082525/nefarious09/19/2014 - 1:03am
Andrew EisenI don't doubt that many are truly interested in journalistic integrity. The problem I'm often seeing is they seem to have no idea how or where to talk about it.09/18/2014 - 11:46pm
Andrew EisenDidn't word that well. Busy at work. I've seen people claim that GamerGate is solely about ethics and transparency in games journalism and then go on to show that what they're really after is silencing those who talk about gender issues in games.09/18/2014 - 11:45pm
Kronodebate. Becaus apparently people who only post on Reddit are supposed to police twitter before they're allowed to question anything about the people involved.09/18/2014 - 10:40pm
KronoI highly doubt many, if any are using journalistic integrity as a cover for harassment. The people harassing are essentially trolls. They aren't interested in subtle. More often it's othe other way around. People use "but X is being harassed" to shut down09/18/2014 - 10:38pm
Andrew EisenAnd exacerbating everything is the fact that all the cries of ethics violations have been obnoxious and easily proven false.09/18/2014 - 8:59pm
Andrew EisenProblem is, I would imagine, the sheer number of people who are using journalistic integrity as a cover for their harassing actions or only bringing it up on the false pretense of journalistic integrity.09/18/2014 - 8:47pm
Andrew EisenHaving said that, I can certainly see how one would be frustrated if they truly just wanted to talk about journalistic integrity and someone said they were one of the people harassing Sarkeesian, Quinn and others (though I've seen no examples of that).09/18/2014 - 8:44pm
KronoThat's been the common refrain, that talk of journalism ethics is just an excuse to harass people.09/18/2014 - 8:44pm
KronoLines like "like a partial compromise with the howling trolls who’ve latched onto ‘ethics’ as the latest flag in their onslaught against evolution and inclusion." are taring everyone questioning the ethics as a harasser.09/18/2014 - 8:43pm
Andrew EisenKrono - Except, none of the articles were talking about gamers complaining about journalist ethics, let alone called them white male misogynists. They were talking about the gamers who were harassing others.09/18/2014 - 8:36pm
Kronomakes plenty of sense. It's rather hard to dismiss someone as a white guy running a sock puppet when they've posted proof they're a woman, or black, or another minority.09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
Kronothat any critics of journalists were white guys that hated women, and could be dismissed as such. It seems to have helped some. It's kind of difficult to maintain the white guy narrative in the face of a bunch of women and non-white guys. So the tag09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
Kronothat, someone vented on a #gamergate 4chan thread about being dismissed like that. The suggestion they got in return was to organize their own hashtag in response, with #NotYourShield being suggested. Thus the tag came into use to combat the undercurrent09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
Kronomuch more general problem. And while several of the articles were fairly tame, they spured a bunch of people to dismiss any critics of the journalism involved as misogynistic men. Usually with insults aimed at the geek stereotype. After about a week of09/18/2014 - 8:32pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician