A new survey from Rasmussen Reports reveals that just one in five American voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet, placing their faith instead in free market competition to protect the Internet’s U.S. users.
Rasmussen asked 1,000 likely U.S. voters, “Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?” Only 21% of those polled responded affirmatively, while a whopping 54% stated that they opposed FCC regulation of the Internet. One in four said they were not sure.
According to Rasmussen, the Republicans and independent voters surveyed, “overwhelmingly opposed FCC regulation of the Internet,” while Democrats were more evenly divided on the issue.
When asked whether government regulation or free market competition was a better mechanism to protect Internet users, 52% chose free market competition, while only 27% said government regulation was the best option. Again, Republicans and independents chose free market competition by a wide margin, but a plurality of Democrats said regulation was the answer (46%). Part of the reason for their choice was because the majority of likely U.S. voters polled (56%) say the FCC would use its authority to promote a political agenda, while only 28% disagree with that assertion.
We Need to Find the Net Neutrality Balance
We’re not surprised by the results of the Rasmussen poll, but here’s one reason why we believe they’re opposed to FCC regulation:
“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.”
Net neutrality is a complicated subject filled with many factions and lots of nuances that can only be found in the detailed government paperwork the FCC and the courts have been generating for the last few years. Last year, the FCC stepped in to mandate net neutrality for the web. Internet activists cheered the move, but U.S. courts ruled that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to make such mandates.
The FCC skirted around the issue by making Internet lines subject to the same rules as telephone networks, but work on net neutrality slowed down. Then Google and Verizon made its controversial open Internet document, which proposes that different rules should apply to wireless networks.
The FCC wasn’t happy with Google and Verizon for essentially going over its head, but eventually the FCCapproved an Open Internet Order that included many of Google and Verizon’s proposed rules. Now the FCC’s authority to regulate the web is being questioned by Congress and the issue could easily make its way back to court.
No wonder the vast majority of the American public aren’t paying attention; how can anybody be expected to follow all of these developments when they have a work and family life to manage? It’s a classic case of rational choice theory.
As we’ve written before, without net neutrality regulations, Internet service providers (ISPs) could have free reign to discriminate against the transmission of certain types of data, like video. Here are some of the potential worse case scenarios just to get started.
Excessive government regulation can stifle innovation, but a lack of intervention could turn the Internet into a wild west where Comcast, Verizon and other ISPs create fast tracks for some content while making it impossible for Internet users to access other websites. We need to find the right balance of net neutrality regulation that keeps the web open but doesn’t restrict the impressive innovations that have contributed to the rise of Facebook, Google and thousands of web startups.
No comments:
Post a Comment