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

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?"

And, even though most Americans do not favor FCC regulation of the web, 55 percent do continue to support the FCC's regulation of radio and TV.

Comments

[Nogero]

12:44 AM on 02/10/2011

So it looks like everyone agrees Rasmussen is a crappy pollster and did a trick question to get the answer they wanted. The problem is the story and especially the headline appear to have been suckered by it all, as will readers who don't know better.

[Twinz48]

12:56 PM on 01/05/2011

The other 79% will have a clearer understanding of net neutrality when they start paying more for content, speed and access they now take for granted.

[Azterix]

12:34 AM on 01/05/2011

Net neutrality had been long gone with the "frequency." Both the government and the corporations are competing for dominance of the Internet. Think of the government's Patriot Act--privacy and law enforcements. Think of the corporations' market share--monopoly in whatever; consumers' info data, as in the email registrations, or social websites like Facebook; pay per usage, as in downloading/uploading files; etc.

As for the "21 percent," it's absolute BS!

[Rational Voice]

10:10 PM on 01/03/2011

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

Read as: Only 21 Percent Of U.S. Voters UNDERSTAND "Net Neutrality"

[PenguinLinux]

11:55 AM on 01/03/2011

I find it amusing how people DEMAND Net Neutrality and FREEDOM of the Internet, but not on their own computer. They STILL use closed-source proprietary and restrictive operating systems like Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X.

Freedom begins at home on your computer. If you want more freedom and not less, I suggest using Linux.

[JohnMayer]

03:50 AM on 01/03/2011

To Whom it May Concern: Yes, the GOVERNMENT created the internet (among defense offices, universities, and, yes, with private input). It was already a fait accompli before scheming capitalists decided there was money to be made and began scheming to gain control of it: “The origins of the Internet reach back to the 1960s with both private and United States military research into robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the _National Science Foundation_, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks. The commercialization of what was by then an international network in the mid 1990s resulted in its popularization and incorporation into virtually every aspect of modern human life.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet

[Harrier]

01:12 AM on 01/03/2011

Net neutrality is essential to promote immolation and improve content. Netflicks would be destroyed if telephones where unable to upload their content and companies like AT&T would be allowed to control the level of service and price for inferior service as is currently being proposed. The article is wrong. Most people know AT&T has gotten the FCC chairman by the ..... We need to replace him because he is tainted.

[skantea]

11:38 PM on 01/02/2011

If you think about it, the end of net neutrality would have a massive effect on search engines like google. The fact that they've thrown their weight behind it shows that they see it as inevitable and don't want to get cut out of the power share.

[Robert Macrae]

11:02 PM on 01/02/2011

Rasmussen is horsecrap

[graphikjunkie]

10:49 PM on 01/02/2011

I think it's rather telling that so far I'm yet to come across more than a handful of right-wing/republican comments on this post - either they're afraid to expose their complete lack of knowledge on this issue or that same lack of knowledge prevents them from even clicking to read this article in the first place.

[greewha]

01:27 PM on 01/03/2011

I believe you mean "have yet to come across," not "am yet to come across." Speaking of lack of knowledge being telling ...

[graphikjunkie]

10:37 PM on 01/02/2011

Here's another statistic: 90% of Rasmussen reports show a strong bias towards results that lean favorably in the direction of Republican policies. Yes I pulled that out of thin air - the same thin air favored by Rasmussen poll organizers.

[donbsea]

02:14 PM on 01/03/2011

Who paid Rasmussen for this poll?

You get what you pay for with Rasmussen, and several others as well.

The news article headline making the rounds is "54 Percent of Voters Oppose FCC Net Neutrality Rules". I was a little surprised the public had formed such a strong opinion on regulations that haven't been issued. It smelled.

Well, it turns out the poll is from Rasmussen. Here are the questions Rasmussen asked.

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?

The questions are clearly designed to elicit specific results. And it turns out only 20% of the respondents indicate they follow the story closely.

Suppose the question asked had been, "Do you support or oppose Comcast and Time Warner limiting your ability to view NetFlix via the internet?" The headlines for the results to that hypothetical poll would be equally misleading, something like "Ninety percent of Voters Favor FCC Net Neutrality Rules."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/31/932607/-Rasmussen-Net-Neutrality-Poll-is-a-Fraud

[MIKEinNYC]

08:47 PM on 01/02/2011

The phone company doesn't tell us who we may call on our phones. The car companies don't tell us where we can drive in our cars. The electricit­­­­­­­y companies don't tell us what we may power with the electricit­­­­­­­y that they generate.

And the internet providers should have no say whatsoever on how we use the internet nor should they in any way interfere with content.

Period!

The only regulations That I'd like to see are regulations that say "hands off"; that regulate the technical quality of service; and that foster competition among internet provider companies and modes of delivery of service, (ie wire, satellite, wireless).

[Victoria-nola]

09:26 PM on 01/02/2011

Right. And the new regulations specifically give the corporations the ability to discriminate about content. It specifically gives the internet providers a SAY in how we use the Internet because it allows them to discriminate against websites that don't pay their premium prices for access.

The only reason people don't "favor" net neutrality is because it's been assassinated by a disinformation campaign by the corporations and their lackeys, the Republicans, and whatever Democrats don't have a brain.

Net neutrality is what we CURRENTLY have. We're just trying to protect the Internet as it currently exists. It's not NEW regulation, it's to protect what we already have.

[Vincent Gormley]

03:21 PM on 01/02/2011

People in general are poorly informed by corporate media and have no understanding of what the lack of net neutrality actually means. Top that off with the fact that Rasmussen is a right wing biased polling service.

[Darts]

06:38 PM on 01/02/2011

Yep.

[R Z]

05:33 PM on 01/03/2011

Faved. Democracynow.org for all you guys who jones for news like me;)

[Vincent Gormley]

07:58 PM on 01/03/2011

#3 Good advice. It's in my inbox 5x a week. Without this laptop and my blacberry I can't find out what's really going down. A former NY'er and WBAI subscriber living in the upper Midwest.

[nkurland]

01:52 PM on 01/02/2011

This polling data is a product of a) failing to define net neutrality and b) the use of the word regulation, which has become a dirty word. Now if the poll were to ask "should internet providers be allowed to restrict bandwith or block and censor competing or unwanted content" we might get different results.

[Victoria-nola]

09:26 PM on 01/02/2011

yup. But instead this poll plays right into the disinformation campaign.

[curiousasheck]

12:11 PM on 01/02/2011

When are people going to realize that 1000 people do not speak for the entire country?

Besides these people they poll always tell the pollsters what the pollsters want to hear because one they have no social skills, and two they don't want to embarrass themselves by showing any individuality and originality.

[nkurland]

01:48 PM on 01/02/2011

Sounds like a bit of a pot shot when any credible pollster takes a poll of a cross section of the population. Now if you were to argue that the question both failed to define net neutrality and used the term regulation, which has become a dirty word, that would be different. The views of the American public are all over the map and its largely a product of spin and phrasing.

[MathIsTruth]

02:36 PM on 01/02/2011

When are people going to take a course in probability and statistics before they try to claim that, when chosen by profession pollsters, 1000 people do NOT accurately represent the whole country?

I'm sorry curiousasheck.  I know that your intuition tells you that polling a mere 1000 people could not possibly be useful.  Most people have that intuition.  But in all cases, that intuition is wrong.

Seriously.  Find out if you can sign up for a course in probability at your local community college.  I promise you that the course material will about as dull and boring as you could imagine!  But at least you will be able to speak from a position of knowledge next time.

[maxben]

09:17 PM on 01/02/2011

Brilliant! The problem is that some people are uninformed about the content of polls yet answer anyway, while others are uninformed about polling itself and whine.

[DanBest]

05:11 PM on 01/03/2011

Um I actually worked for a polling company for a couple of years. You do what so many intelligent people do. Lecture about the tree with no regards to the forest. Let me explain:
Most polls aren't really conducted to find out what people think. They push the person towards a given response by asking a collection of leading questions. By the time you get to the final question, they have to answer accordingly or go back on every question that lead up to the final one. I had great fun listening to some people try to wiggle out of the trap. Most would voice frustration and answer accordingly. Math may very well be truth to you, but people are not rational beings and all attempts by science to create this prototypical human who acts in a given way has failed. Statistics, like all other human based sciences (economics, communications, etc...) aren't really science. People will lie, will allows themselves to be lead to a conclusion, will misrepresent their own opinions because of ignorance. Statistics can't account for human behavior any more than any other science that relies on humans as their subject.