0
According to a <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/december_2010/just_21_want_fcc_to_regulate_internet_most_fear_regulation_would_promote_political_agenda">new survey of 1,000 likely voters</a> by Rasmussen Reports, just 21% of those surveyed "want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television." Given this is a very complicated issue and the high level of political disinformation and noise surrounding it, it's not too hard to think that most Americans don't really have a solid grasp on what network neutrality even is. Judging from the <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/pt_survey_questions/december_2010/questions_net_neutrality_december_23_2010">specific questions asked by Rasmussen</a>, it's not particularly clear that Rasmussen does either. The four questions asked are ridiculously simplistic, and in several instances very misleading:
Quote
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?
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?
It's very clear that many don't yet fully understand the new rules don't actually do very much. They were crafted in large part by AT&T -- and mirror a legislative proposal by Google and Verizon. More purchased than political, our new neutrality rules certainly aren't akin to "regulating the Internet like radio and television," because in this case the rules are industry written and largely for show. All they really ask ISPs to do is to be transparent about what network management is being used, and to not directly block legal content -- things most ISPs were already doing voluntarily.
The polling firm proceeds to pretend that voters have a simple choice between "more government regulation" and "more free market competition." That's not really an either/or proposition, as balanced and reasonable government regulation of markets can lead to improved competition (see: France, Japan). As we've discussed for years -- the U.S. broadband market is not truly competitive, and bi-partisan lawmakers have been well lobbied to keep it that way. Rasmussen's question is over-simplified and subtly misleading.
Rasmussen then brings out the big guns, asking if the FCC is eager to "promote a political agenda." But a desire for an open and vibrant Internet ecosystem really isn't a political issue; politics is simply used as a weapon during discussions to mislead and divide the public (for example, button-pushing rhetoric insisting neutrality is a <a href="http://stopnetregulation.org/stop/al-sharpton-helping-fcc-design-rush-limbaugh-free-speech-show-trials/">Hugo Chavez-esque socialist attack on free speech and puppies</a>). Again, Rasmussen's question is overly simplistic and intentionally divisive. Obviously the FCC Democratic majority voted yes, but again -- the rules were largely dictated by AT&T, not real Progressives.
Unless AT&T is a secret front organization for Marxists, there's a lot of very, very confused people out there. <u>The reality is that both parties share one "political agenda," and it's doing what the wealthiest campaign contributors tell them to</u>. Layered and divisive political rhetoric is intended to obscure this fact, and get the public fighting amongst itself, instead of seriously and intellectually weighing each issue and instance of government regulation on its merits. With <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,590506,00.html">this kind</a> of mud-puddle level discourse dominating the discussion, is there any real wonder most Americans are terrified of network neutrality? After all, most intellectuals will tell you it's clearly an alien, socialist and/or Venezuelan takeover of the Internet, right?
Source: DSLReports.com
