Rasmussen: Just 21% of likely U.S. voters want FCC to regulate Internet

ZaggMateThe latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure.

“The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations,” Rasmussen reports.

“By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach,” Rasmussen reports. “Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner. The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.”

“The issue has attracted little public notice. Just 20% are following news of the net neutrality regulations Very Closely. Another 35% say they’re following it Somewhat Closely,” Rasmussen reports. “Most Americans (55%) continue to favor FCC regulation of radio and TV.

Rasmussen reports, “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% level of confidence.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]


  1. One more liberty Liberal-Marxist-Democrats want to take away and tax to steal more private property from the US productive population. I read an article yesterday in the Washington Examiner how union stage hands at Lincoln Center in NYC make an average of $297,000.00 per year??????? No wonder there is practically zero manufacturing going on in the US. Unions and liberals have destroyed the work force. Unions and liberals want a no growth policy for the US. Let all manufacturing happen over seas. Cut off our oil production. Take down the US. This FCC thing will turn into internet censorship which liberal-Marxists are all for. Silence the opposition. Things are getting very out of control in the US and needs to be stopped in 2012 and by the newly elected officials.

    Apple is one of the few US companies doing most everything right. Stop liberalism. Read The Law by Frederick Bastiat. Buy more Apple products. Vote Conservative! Pay attention. Don’t listen to the “main stream”, old guard, media!

  2. Most people don’t understand net neutrality, so really their opinion means nothing. If explained the implications of carriers/ISPs controlling net access, then suddenly FCC regulation (if nothing else exists) isn’t so bad…

  3. No wonder responses are so lopsided! Here is the exact wording of the questions:

    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?

    When you tell someone “regulate” they immediately think “censor content”.

    If the question actually somehow explained what “net neutrality” really meant, I wouldn’t be surprised if the results had been different.

    When ISPs in the US have a practical monopoly, and can completely control pricing and services, leaving them to the “market forces” will simply allow them to charge twice (or more) for the same service: user pays $50+ for their broadband; Google pays $$$ to avoid “traffic shaping” (euphemism for blocking, or slowing down) their YouTube and other services, and little guy (http://www.crochetpatterncentral.com) gets to the end of the queue. What was an even playing field for anyone (you pay your hosting service, they provide space and connectivity) now becomes the exclusive playground for those who can pay heavy bucks for priority traffic, and the rest of us, hoping to offer some services/products online, can simply hope for the best, or take a second mortgage to finance ISP “fees” for “traffic shaping”, so that our customers (who are already paying for bandwidth) can reach our home page (for which we’re already paying hosting and connectivity).

    I have no doubt, this poll will likely be quoted millions of times in an effort to stifle ANY possible restriction. Of course, consumers are NEVER a political force with money. So, for all those in doubt whether any regulation is a good or a bad idea, just follow the money. Those who stand to lose massive amounts of it (or the opportunity to make massive amounts of it) will likely pour gobs of it into Washington. And whenever it is some major industry (energy, pharma, agro, telecomm, etc), you can bet your life it is NOT good for the ordinary consumer.

  4. Cowboy

    Exactly! At least 21% don’t.

    They fall for crap like this “If explained the implications of carriers/ISPs controlling net access” without any substantive data to back up that claim.

    Fear mongering.

  5. @ New England, Jeremy
    I don’t need to respond to you as “proof” succinctly characterized your essence.

    @ Jenny
    I’m sure you won’t mind then paying an extra $10 per month for internet access to MDN. Since your ISP takes support from M$, they get to slow down all the Mac sites or redirect your urls to ones supporting Windows. But you can just get another ISP, right? Except nearly half of of all internet users have at most 2 choices.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.