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 :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWait, is that for the upgrade or the clean install only? cause I was gonna do the upgrade07/29/2015 - 8:32am
james_fudgehttps://www.microsoft.com/en-us/software-download/windows1007/29/2015 - 8:30am
PHX Corp@Wilson, I'm still waiting for My upgrade notice aswell07/29/2015 - 7:57am
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician