Only 21 Percent Of U.S. Voters Support Net Neutrality

[onehandle]

Source: Huffington Post

Though the cable companies, advocacy groups and politicians have been battling fiercely over net neutrality, a new poll shows that most voters do not support regulation. Only one in five "likely voters" in America are for net neutrality, according to a new poll by Rasmussen. Fifty-four percent of respondents are outright opposed to regulation and 25 percent are not certain.

The numbers become starker when split down political lines. While Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly believe that free market competition is better than regulation in protecting Internet users, 46 percent of Democrats support regulation. In addition, most Republicans and unaffiliated voters think that the FCC would use their authority to promote a political agenda, while a plurality of Democrats believe they would be unbiased.

Despite these results, it's still not clear that most voters understand what net neutrality actually is. Asked how closely they have been following stories about net neutrality, only 20 percent said they are following news of the net neutrality regulations "very closely," with 35 percent saying they're following it "somewhat closely." What's more, the wording of the polling question querying these "likely voters" defines net neutrality in a very restricted way.

The respondents were asked, "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?" With a topic as broad, and as complicated, as net neutrality, such a question addresses only one small part of the whole picture. For example, Rasmussen could just as legitimately have asked, "Should all internet users have the same access to the same Internet, regardless of how much they pay?" Or it might have asked, "Should broadband carriers have the ability to block or remove content based on their discretion alone?"

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/us-voters-net-neutrality_n_802456.html

---

Stupid Rasmussen push poll. Americans need to be educated on exactly what is at stake. Sadly, Fox News and Comcast will be the ones to 'educate' them.



.

[Ruperto31]

1. I don't know what 'net neutrality' means anymore.

Especially since the FCC redefined it.

[JackRiddler]

45. Neither does Rasmussen - the questions in this poll have nothing to do with net neutrality.

You have to click a couple of times to get to the actual survey. It's disgraceful.

Here is the question that generates the headline:

"What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet—more government regulation or more free market competition?"

What if they asked: "What is the best way to protect Internet users - limits on corporations or greater corporate power?" As with the question asked, most people wouldn't get what one meant in terms of the policy proposals, but the different spin on the language would create opposite results.

Here are the four questions from Rasmussen's laughably biased survey:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/december_2010/questions_net_neutrality_december_23_2010

National Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
Conducted December 26, 2010
By Rasmussen Reports


1* How closely have you followed stories about Internet neutrality issues?


2* Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?


3* What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet—more government regulation or more free market competition?


4* If the Federal Communications Commission is given the authority to regulate the Internet, will they use that power in an unbiased manner or will they use it to promote a political agenda?

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

(The "Note" is the voodoo assertion they add at the end of every poll to pretend there's anything scientific about it. More interesting would be a note on the percentage who hung up when the pollster called -- which is consistently 60 to 70 percent.)


Fuck Rasmussen.

.

[alp227]

2. wow a lot of people must've bought the "government takeover" line outright n/t

[enough]

3. Sure if you ask them whether they prefer a regulated or "free" internet, they will

pick the latter.

[savalez]

5. Exactly. People need to know that in this case FREE means

that providers are FREE to screw you.

[Recursion]

18. And there's no worry about what the next GOP-controlled FCC...

...will do if given regulatory powers? "Free" does cut a lot of ways, but while I'm for net neutrality, I don't think it's insane to worry about expanding the government's regulatory control over the Internet. It's had a history of being organized more or less by consensus between academia, business, and the government, and even being pro-NN I'm worried about what will happen when that gets upset.

[janet118]

41. Why is the left so dumb about picking frames?

Net Neutrality? I had such a hard time explaining the term to people who don't get their news from Internet sites or magazines that I usually gave up. Now the FCC has used the amorphous term to confuse people about what they have approved.

I like the suggestion "free" Internet or maybe "Open Net." Frame their side as "regulated" or "limited access." The Republicans know that words matter. When will the progressives start using terms that make concepts easily understandable to the majority of Americans.

[savalez]

49. I think Republicans come up with great names

because they need to - to mislead the people. But yeah, I agree, these names should put through "republican spin machine" diagnostics before they are chosen.

[janet118]

53. Agreed . . . but progressives don't need to lie . . .

they just need to make the words they attach to their issues cleaner and more to the point - harvesting the best of America's mythology and history for words like freedom, liberty, justice, equality, fairness. Luntz and the Republicans do it to lie. Progressives should do it to appeal to our better angels.

[snot]

56. +1

[JackRiddler]

43. Absurd. More double-talk at work.

[louis-t]

4. While only 21% support it, even fewer

actually understand what it means.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Only 21% of Americans

know their ass from a hole in the ground.

[OhioChick]

7. +1000 n/t

[abelenkpe]

23. +1 nt

[bowens43]

8. You can never overestimate the stupidity of the American people.

We are a country of morons and lemmings........

[Uncle Joe]

9. Government guarantee of equal flow of information is freedom.

Otherwise the mega-corporations can and will screw you.

Thanks for the thread, onehandle.

[Lasher]

10. Push polling.

The fourth paragraph tells it all.

[marmar]

38. Yep.

nt

[mascarax]

11. WHY are we still calling it "Net Neutrality"?!

People don't know what it means or what the regulation would do (and, yes, I know what the above poster means as it's 'defined' by the FCC - true).

Why can't we make it simple and explain it clearly? (Yes, there's always the 30% or so that would oppose ANYthing, but...sheesh.)

Yes, people will be "educated" by Fox and Comcast...they'll probably call it The Healthy Internet Initiative.

[lanlady]

12. talk about a skewed question

Complete dishonest phrasing of the question. Rasmussen should be ashamed.

[boppers]

13. Well, TV and radio are uncensored, by the FCC, right?

The FCC hasn't done themselves any favors with their prior heavy-handed regulation.

While we're writing push-polling questions:
"Do you support regulations that would prevent your ISP from blocking pop-up ads and SPAM?"
"Do you support your neighbors getting 90% of the bandwidth in your area, leaving you with 10%, when you pay the exact same fees?"
"Do you support a 1000% increase in fees, in order to guarantee that everybody has equal speed to the same websites?"
"Do you support laws that would require school ISPs to have the same porno websites available as you can get at home?"

Most Americans can't configure a router, or get a real broadband connection (they use shared broadband, for the most part), let alone sort out the complexities of the issue. I'm in the maybe 1% who have both followed it closely, and have set up high-speed connections, so my answers and perspective is a bit different.

[Recursion]

16. It's not even clear that BGP as currently implemented makes net neutrality possible

Peering is a complex issue as it is.

[boppers]

17. Oh sure, every ISP would just have to peer with... uhm.... every other ISP. And peering point.

That should do wonders for managing routing.

:evilgrin:

[Recursion]

20. Heh. But my point is, when we set up BGP rules we're making non-neutral decisions

I get sick of transporting Switch & Data's spam? I source quench at the network layer and they find a more willing network to route through. If the FCC says that isn't kosher anymore, we're going to see a lot of problems at the midlevel datacenters as the spammers can now simply flood through the nearest hop.

[boppers]

32. Nonono... you'd have to peer with everybody, and give them all equal weight.

So would everybody else.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

66. I don't think BGP would be used for QoS

BGP might be used to mark/color (using communities) the packets based on source or destination ASN, which could then be prioritized, but the job of BGP is to make routing decisions and forward the packets to the correct next hop accordingly. I don't think BGP criteria are granular enough for the kind of class of service parsing that would need to happen to implement. I would think that QoS type activity would be offloaded to a device behind edge routers. I would agree that there would be lots of challenges in implementing something like this, but I believe it can be done.

[Recursion]

14. Well, do you trust the next GOP administration with the power to regulate the Internet?

It's a fair question.

[Lorien]

15. They don't understand the issue. It's crap messaging, again

"Net neutrality' means nothing to most people. When you say "regulate the internet", they think you mean "change the internet from what it is now" by dictating what can and can't be seen. It's another colossal failure on the part of the Left to communicate a simple idea. If the repugs were for it they would brand it as the "keep the internet free act", and everyone would be behind it.

[Recursion]

21. Very few people understand how peering works

Which is why knowing BGP has made me more money than having a Masters degree has.

I'm not particularly convinced Congress could write regulations that make sense, because of that; the only thing that could work would be a financial-regulation-style broad grant of imperium and auctoritas (sorry; listening to an audiobook about ancient Rome) to the FCC, which makes me nervous about what the next Republican administration would do.

Also, frankly, there's misinformation on our side. This isn't about blocking websites; that can and does already happen and will always continue to happen (sorry; as a sysadmin I can guarantee you if it's on my network it will go by my rules, and that counts at routing datacenters too). It's about whether second-tier routers will be able to recoup costs from content providers, and whether content providers that do their own routing can favor their own traffic.

[felix_numinous]

19. I think the netroots nation

has a long history of having the polar opposite viewpoint.

Just like electronic voting, how are we to believe electronic polling anyway?

[silver10]

22. What burns my ass is that after a rigorous battle against the ignorant

Every consumer will get to benefit from it.

For example, it burns my ass that the right-wing nut job that sits next to me at work and spews forth her endless rhetoric of the evil government taking over, and the poor corporations haven't been able to do anything they have wanted to do for years, she gets to take advantage of FMLA to get her knee replaced and take her 3 months to recuperate while her job is safe (which I agree with). Ironic - yes, since Bush senior vetoed it twice and it was the first piece of legislation Clinton signed into law after becoming president.

Her friend, who came over to talk to her for endless periods of time until I chased her off, complained about the libs and environmentalists, etc., BUT takes advantage of government-subsidized student loans for secondary education for herself, son and daughter. I can't recall when student loans were of major concern on the repuke agenda.

Now, when the huge cable and telecom companies don't want their services regulated so they can have total control over the broadband pipe that customers and competitors use, they are crying foul - that they should be completely trusted.

Visions of Enron and energy deregulation come to mind - deregulation is only good for the bottom line of the company - states where the energy industry became deregulated have experienced double and triple heating and energy bills (e.g. Maryland, PA, etc.).

I am suspicious of anything supported by the big corps, who have the money and means to meld the public opinion through slanting the truth repeatedly at us.

[boppers]

27. Every spammer, and corporation with deep pockets, would benefit too.

A lot of folks missed out on the bad-old-days when filtering content was frowned upon... you know who didn't benefit? ISP end users. Because every deep-pocket scammer and con-artist and corporation was setting up hundreds of "consumer" accounts, and complain (and sue) they were being "filtered" or "censored" when ISP's had to stem their unrelenting tides of crap. ISP's fought back, on the grounds that they *weren't* obliged to deliver all that crap over the networks they had built and were paying for, and spam/pop-ups/malware/attack sites were greatly reduced.

However, If you want to get FCC content regulation levels on your internet link, you *can*, right *now*.

It starts at about $1,000 to set up, and about $1,000 per month (or $4-6,000 a month if you want cable modem speeds), and it's already *all* covered by common carrier law... because you're buying it over telephone lines. If you want that level of guarantee, and regulation, you *can* pay for it.

[silver10]

29. Ummm, OK, sure

[boppers]

31. Remember 56K days?

They're still available. You can bond together 24 modems and get pretty zippy speeds.

[silver10]

33. Huh? What's that got to do with...anything?

[boppers]

34. That's how to get FCC regulated internet links.

They are required, by law, to actually sell you what you are paying for, instead of selling some product as "broadband" when it isn't capable of handling that much data, and doesn't offer a full internet connection.

If you want Net Neutrality (or the closest to it that you can currently buy), there's already a pricing tier for that. Always has been.

Most people decided to pay for cheaper links, that come with a bunch more rules attached.

[silver10]

37. Lookit,

I'm not going to get into some kind of technical esoteric battle about p-to-p or whatever, but what comes down to it is that with all the deregulation that is occurring and big companies getting bigger - for example when Comcast purchases NBC Universal - I don't relish the type of control the content carriers have or will have over content providers. We are Americans, we love freedom and capitalism, etc., etc. no one enjoys being regulated, but thank God for regulations - for labor, clean air and water, food safety, etc. I can actually see in my mind's eye farmers arguing that FDA inspections and oversight of meat would drive up the cost of a burger to $100 each! That's good stuff.

So if it costs money to regulate monopolies, let's just throw out the Sherman Antitrust Act, because competition is too expensive for any of us. Of course in reality, when eventually 1% of companies own 99% of business (I am exaggerating of course) products and services will be much cheaper than if we enforced healthy, reasonable competition.

[boppers]

42. Sherman Antitrust Act, BTW, already covers a good 95% of what NN proponents want.

It's also the reason the feared abuses *haven't* happened on the internet.... too much of a chance of being brought up on anti-trust charges.

[silver10]

46. Yes, I do agree with you. But trust and self-governance can only go so far in Corporate America.

If the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act covers so much, why have we had to create so much more legislation since than? Obviously it may not be enough.

This is where I get my insight (these were taken from a Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality.)

"Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute and Americans for Tax Reform. Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries.Five of the biggest telecom corporations in the country—Verizon, Time Warner, AT&T, Comcast, and Qwest collectively lobbied $218 million to Representatives and gave $23.7 million in campaign contributions from 2006–2008." - This really tells me something.

This is interesting too: "Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online.
—Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users"

And President Barack Obama is a proponent too in addition to various content providers such as Google (kicked out of China for information freedom issues) and Yahoo!

[boppers]

52. Google came out against the original FCC plan, actually.

The current plan is actually what Verizon and Google worked out, and has Obama's backing, but the "equal treatment of all packets, discrimination against none" crowd isn't very happy with it. That's why there was such a kerfluffle over it... dueling press releases saying that Obama had moved forward on Net Neutrality, and had abandoned it, came out at the same time.

[silver10]

57. ok

[silver10]

69. But they like it now

[boppers]

70. That's because they totally re-wrote it.

They rejected the FCC proposal, and worked with others on something they could accept.

There are obvious advantages, and possible problems, with an industry self-regulating, of course.

[silver10]

71. Yes, Google, totally on their own of their own accord

Will completely formulate government and agency policy regarding Internet service providers. Sure.

Industry self-regulation is an oxymoron (but I guess that depends on your definition of regulation).

[forty6]

24. "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and TV?" NO!

But then again, this proves this was not a scientific poll, but a publicity stunt!

As such, any reputable journalist will not touch, nor report upon this poll.

Who reported? What are their names? We will never know.

[AndyTiedye]

25. Network Neutrality in Broadcasting is the Fairness Doctrine

OF Course the we don't want the Internet regulated the way TV and radio are regulated!
The closest thing we ever had to network neutrality in broadcasting was the Fairness Doctrine,
and Reagan killed that.

[boppers]

28. Fairness Doctrine was about two sides being pushed to you.

Should you have to see a Fox News webpage every time you clicked a MSNBC link?

Fairness Doctrine doesn't work in a model where you're selecting the content, and where the content is much more than news.

[AndyTiedye]

36. What we have today in broadcasting is the very opposite of network neutrality

The "Fairness Doctrine" wasn't exactly the same as network neutrality, but it was as close as we ever got.
The regulation of radio and TV currently gives us wall-to-wall Republicans because they own the networks.
What we have today in broadcasting is the very opposite of network neutrality.

What happened to the broadcasting networks after the demise of the Fairness Doctrine underscores the
importance of network neutrality on the Internet.

To take a poll on whether people want the net regulated "like TV and radio" and write up the results
to say that the people oppose network neutrality is extremely bogus.

[boppers]

40. So, are you saying the Internet is dominated by right-wing corporations?

Since we don't have these proposed additional regulations, DU must not exist?

Hint: You can't buy the internet.

[silver10]

47. good point - without some sort of NN, if they have their way, the repukes will own the Internet

[boppers]

51. So why hasn't that happened in the last 30 years? It's not like the internet is new.

Earthlink? AOL? MSN? Compuserve? Sun? BBN? Netscape?

What became of these companies?

There's a weird circular argument going on, that we need authoritarian control over the internet, but the lack of that control is where freedom is to be found, rather than in places like Saudi Arabia or Cuba or China, where you have to register with the government to blog.

[silver10]

58. nothing can happen then if it hasn't happened already?

[boppers]

59. It's been tried, and repeatedly failed, because the Internet doesn't allow it.

It usually fails for one of three reasons:
1. Not technically possible. This is why "the Great Firewall of China" has so many holes.
2. Not legally allowed. This is why Microsoft's attempt to make everything MSN centric got shut down.
3. Not acceptable to consumers. Without a company having a complete and total monopoly, consumers simply find another option. This is what killed AOL, IE lock-in, etc.

Short of a totalitarian system of rules applied to all use of the internet, surmounting all three barriers (at the same time, over the long run) has proven nearly impossible.

[silver10]

68. well,

#1) I guess it's great to live in China if you love freedom of speech and freedom of the Internet :sarcasm:
#2) Yes, Microsoft hasn't really cornered the market (even though the great majority of the world corporations AND private consumers use Window ops systems for PCs and Macs and Microsoft Office - I think most companies also use IE) and there' a lot opportunity for competition, that's for sure (wink, wink);
#3) Please refer to #2.

Business needs no regulations nor anti-trust laws, just look at your #3! Why didn't we all think of it.

[orbitalman]

26. Looks to me like MOST VOTERS need to be regulated. n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

63. and who decides who most voters are?

[tomm2thumbs]

30. the question was slighted on purpose - polls are manipulated bullsh*t

Poll: Do you really love or hate children?

really hate children? what's wrong with you? you are a monster
really love children? what's wrong with you? you are a monster

[Downwinder]

35. How many of them have ever heard of IANA or ICANN??

Obviously valuable opinions.

[Odin2005]

39. Corporatist Propaganda works.

[TheWebHead]

44. the vast majority of voters are idiots who just don't understand argument...

Is a political loser. It's elitist, it's vapid, it's predictable.

[pa28]

48. They got just the manufactured outcome they wanted.

I'm sure fox will be busy spinning the "results" very shortly.

:eyes:

[0rganism]

50. as far as I can tell, this poll measures exactly one thing...

... the rightwing's incredible success in demonizing all forms of government regulation. It doesn't even matter anymore how much people distrust a particular corporation or set of corporations anymore, they trust the government even less.

[boppers]

61. Interestingly enough, they named very specific regulators in their question..

They didn't say "government regulation", the specifically asked about the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC, in particular, which already:
1. Censors content on the airwaves, and punishes those who do not meet content standards
2. Divides the airwaves, and sells chunks of usable spectrum to very rich organizations
3. Punishes those who violate rules on how much of the airwaves are used, or how many people can have access
4. Requires licensing to use even very small amounts of the airwaves
5. Grants huge monopoly power to regional land-line phone companies

Now, think about the stated goals of Network Neutrality...... and ask yourself if it should be managed by (using a simple word swap) an agency that (could be expected to, based on their past history):
1. Censors content on the internet, and punishes those who do not meet content standards
2. Divides the internet, and sells chunks of usable bandwidth to very rich organizations
3. Punishes those who violate rules on how much of the internet is used, or how many people can have access
4. Requires licensing to use even very small amounts of the internet
5. Grants huge monopoly power to regional land-line internet companies

If anything, I'd say those 5 possibilities are the inverse to the goals of Network Neutrality.

[freshwest]

54. Wow, that brainwashing soap is good! Leaves those minds completely void of rational thought!

[ProfessionalLeftist]

55. lousy poll, ignorant pollsters, ignorant public

They can't claim to support or oppose something they know nothing about and pollsters ought not to formulate polls on subjects they know nothing about (or ones skewered by corprat interest).

Bye bye net neutrality. Murdered by greed and ignorance.

[Enthusiast]

60. Propaganda is effective.

That is all.

[tomp]

62. america 79% stupid? sounds about right. nt

[Puzzledtraveller]

64. so that gives you a 3 in 4 chance of being one of the stupid, I suspect so.

[tomp]

65. whatever that means. nt

[blackspade]

67. That's because the other 79% are idiots.

Who don't understand what net neutrality actually is.