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.
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
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician