Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
from the who-are-they-representing dept
Within hours of President Obama's surprise call for true net neutrality rules under Title II, Republicans in Congress were in a full-fledged freakout. Beyond the nutty comparisons to Obamacare or suggesting that this will lead to greater oppression in Russia, China and Iran (no, really, that claim was made), a bunch of elected Republicans in Congress sent a letter to the FCC strongly opposing Title II, insisting that it would be "beyond the scope of the FCC's authority."For years now, we've pointed out how ridiculous it is that net neutrality became a "partisan" issue. In the early days, when it was neither, there were interesting discussions about the pros and cons of it. Once it became a "blue team v. red team" issue, most reasoned debate went out the window, and we were left with ridiculous exaggerations about "regulating the internet" or "the death of the internet." That's not helpful.
But here's the thing: actual Republicans outside of Congress support net neutrality too (though, it helps not to call it "net neutrality.") Two separate studies have come out this week making this point. First up, there was a poll from the University of Delaware's Center for Political Communication, checking in with 900 adult US residents. When not using the term net neutrality, but asking if they "favor" or "oppose" allowing broadband access providers to charge websites or streaming video services extra for faster speeds -- across the board, only 17% favored or strongly favored that idea, while 81% were opposed (37%) or strongly opposed (44%) the idea. Digging down to just the Republicans, it turns out that even more Republicans were against this than democrats. Only 13% favored (11%) or strongly favored (2%) letting broadband players set up such tollbooths, while 85% were opposed (44%) or strongly opposed (41%).
Some 83% of voters who self-identified as “very conservative” were concerned about the possibility of ISPs having the power to “influence content” online. Only 17% reported being unconcerned. Similarly, 83% of self-identified conservatives thought that Congress should take action to ensure that cable companies do not “monopolize the Internet” or “reduce the inherent equality of the Internet” by charging some content companies for speedier access.A few months ago, we wrote about a great argument made by a "self-identified conservative" arguing why Republicans should support reclassification, mainly to block out the harmful monopolistic tendencies of broadband providers. And it appears that conservatives and Republicans (and, of course, those aren't always the same thing, but there is a lot of overlap) intuitively agree with this position.
So why don't their elected representatives? The explanation that still seems to make the most sense is that the money is too good in opposing net neutrality.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: broadband, democrats, net neutrality, open internet, politicians, public, republicans, voters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Republicans?
Should be a no-brainer for both parties...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republicans?
This is yet another way that political parties are harmful to the nation, and especially when there's effectively only two parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republicans?
The reality is even worse - usually what happens is that both parties take a stance that appears to align with the voters - but then when in power do the exact opposite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Republicans?
I know "independents" there tend to be flip-floppers (may vote for either Dems or GOP depending on their mood), but that's a lot of people not wedded to either of the biggies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Republicans?
I may vote for candidates who are affiliated with the Democrats or Republicans (or Greens, or Libertarians, etc.), depending on the candidate, but I am never voting for the party itself. I'm voting for the person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's typical of "moderates"
Moderates and centrists aren't wishy-washy either. They just have opinions, usually vehement ones, that don't precisely align with the Dems or 'Pubs (or contemporary US Liberals or US Conservatives, for that matter).
We're a nation of extremists. Just some are extremist in unique combinations.
e.g. I'm pro-social equality so I tend to vote according to contemporary liberals (Gay rights, welfare state, reproductive rights, secular government et. al.), but I'm also consistently anti-gun control. This is more closely aligned with classical liberalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is partisan because these politicians act like children, they're against what the other is for - no matter what.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmph...
/George Washington was right - Political parties are evil and divisive.
//Zombie George Washington for Prez?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmph...
The more you can avoid talking about politics as a politician, the better you are at your job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmph...
Sadly, this is a real tactic in use for some time.
One can not go around claiming what a great democracy one has when the above tactic is an accepted practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmph...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmph...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmph...
\which is it? News or Opinion?
\\Let me TELL you a Question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hmph...
How exactly is pointing out that Republican officials' actions are at odds with the position of a large majority of their constituents "taking sides"? Are you claiming Mike wouldn't point out the exact same thing if Democrats were doing it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hmph...
Did anyone say otherwise?
How about taking 'sides' out of the commentary
WE almost always do. We never name parties, and we avoid nearly all such partisan talk. But in this case it is a partisan issue, and we're just pointing out that's stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hmph...
I am all for classifying ISP's and utility, but we still see the FCC playing monopoly maker with traditional telco too...
Obamas proposal sounds good, but things from congress these days NEVER come even close to what it sounded like when advertised.
And of course if nothing happens then the punk companies will just get greedy and rape us for every last penny.
We are literally caught between a rock and a hard place because someone is waiting in the shadows to screw us no matter which path we take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Within hours of President Obama's surprise call for true net neutrality rules under Title II"
Obama supports it. Yes. Children. But we just let almost all of them stay there. Don't even try to blame them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voters don't determine elections. Campaign money determines elections.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Campaign money doesn't determine elections!
It determines what those elected will defend: not the voters, but the contributors!
And since the real good contributors contribute to both sides, their business interests will always be covered. Whereas your interests as a voter and consumer... well, not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And you only get 1 vote every 4 years... Whereas the lobbyists / contributors / bribers can visit them over and over again.
So yes, your vote got them into office, but then the contributors took over and now they decide which proposed laws are supported or opposed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
It started even before he was elected and it has continued to this, uninterrupted. The merits of his positions don't matter. The costs don't matter. The political implications don't matter. All that matters is that he is not white.
We will see this again if Ms. Clinton is elected: all that will matter is that she is not male.
Until the inferior members of the species -- the ones whose bigotry, prejudice, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, and misogyny cripple their thinking -- are rendered extinct by the slow and painful process of evolution, so will it be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Are you sure you're not parody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Let me know how you get on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WWhy Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
Fortunately the constant false cry of racism has pretty well rendered the word powerless. That is a shame for when it is actually real, but that is the Dems fault.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans have to be against Democrats at all costs and Democrats against Republicans. Screw what you believe in, it's all about opposing the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think it was right up until the Democrats decided to implement it. And, as it turns out, it is a poorly implemented bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh yeah, partisan politics, always oppose anything from the "other" side, and the revolving door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no longer a major issue
During the many years when the major bandwidth consumers were P2P users, ISPs blocked and throttled them without restraint, yet no one in the government ever had a problem with that.
The cold hard reality is that things were much worse a decade ago. Neutrality should have been mandated then, not now, since ISPs have now largely abandoned their war against P2P users that they once fought so ruthlessly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Democrats and Republicans must never agree
So in order to avoid running the U.S. into the ground, Democrats and Republicans will make sure to disagree, keeping the influx of industry money into congress dependable.
It's like having two football teams on the field with both free to choose their goal side. If they pick the same frequently, ticket sales will go way down, and sponsors will not see the point in buying expensive players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Democrats and Republicans must never agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Democrats and Republicans must never agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because politicians the world over are in support of what the public wants until they get into a position to do something about it. Then they suddenly change their minds when it comes to issues under their control. It's called democracy right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blue team versus red team
And that's the real reason why politicians can't get along: too many of them want their side to "win", even if it's in the best interest of the country to compromise and agree. Instead, we get politicians blocking bills because the other side came up with the idea. Then the other ones block their bills to get even.
And then when they do give in a little, many politicians try to claim "victory" for their side. Because claiming victory when agreeing to pass a law to help the American people is so adult.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple
But the ones inside Congress are bought and paid for. Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Simple
I'm reminded of some supposed supporters of "freedom" in the days of slavery redefining "true freedom" as being "the freedom to own slaves."
Yeah, I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fairness Doctrine / Campaign Finance
We saw a related form of this with the more recent, and also failed, attempts to plant FCC (or was it FEC?) staff in newsrooms. The regulatory interest there was tangential at best, but someone thought they could get away with it, so they tried it. The public outcry forced that one down. The Fairness Doctrine and the FCC/FEC stunt were mostly Democrat constructs, so the Republicans are the ones suspicious of another attempt. Campaign Finance reform was more about squashing outsiders than about promoting D or R. I don't doubt that if the establishment Republicans figured out a good way to do speech suppression, we'd hear plenty of screaming from the Democrats, and with good cause.
In the meantime, the inaccurate but inevitable suspicion that net neutrality equals speech regulation will continue to hurt the cause. That may also explain the graph, where presenting the question purely in terms of cost structure diverts the respondent from thinking about the speech suppression angle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to have two sides to vacuum in all the money. Having only one side leaves a lot of wallets with cash out there.
This has been the complaint of many that fuel the money wagon. It's congress' idea that if you make a crisis you can force the money to come in. One of those 'give me money' or else things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doing what the many want is much more difficult than doing what the few want and hiding it from the many...usually
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
With Obama declaring support for net neutrality, I've finally come to the conclusion that the battle has been lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the beginning was the Word [was Re: ]
Why? Why on God's green earth would Mr Obama's "declaration" have more influence upon your beliefs —your conclusions— than the President's actions? Why?
Last November, a year ago, Mr Obama nominated Mr Wheeler for chairman of the FCC. Mr Wheeler's background as a telecom lobbyist was known to everyone. Mr Obama's act in submitting that nomination was a Presidential action.
And here you are a year later, intimating that it's the Presidential words that lead you towards—your conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: In the beginning was the Word [was Re: ]
I believe Obama knows this and that's why he declared his support for net neutrality. It's a gift to his telecom backers. You're right that if Obama really wanted to balance the needs of the public against those of the telecom industry, he would never have appointed Wheeler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forcing Freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing Freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
No, Kent is right, out of almost everyone else here.
I start with the premise that the FCC is an illegitimate blight on the freedom of the citizenry from its beginning. Debating the ins and outs of sundry FCC endeavors is like debating whether the slaves should be fed potatoes or corn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
Except that's not at all what net neutrality is about, no matter how much you guys try to twist it around to be so.
"No, Kent is right, out of almost everyone else here."
Hey, You Go Kent was just agreeing with you guys!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
No matter what, though, designating them utilities will only solidify the alleged oligopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
Nice job misrepresenting what net neutrality is all about!
It has nothing to do with paying for the bandwidth you use. Literally everybody is OK with that notion, and that is, in fact, how things have always worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
Of course it does. The crunch may take place UP one or two levels from my use but it's the same argument.
Why the hell would I want the FCC to attempt to sort it out?
They know less what I want than Comcast does.
At least I can choose Comcast or not. In today's world I can't choose FCC or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
Net neutrality is about ensuring that bandwidth and access is allocated and charged for without regard to who exactly it is that's using it, not according to how much.
Internet usage at every level has always been charged according to the amount of usage. Nobody disagrees with that notion, and net neutrality doesn't affect it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
You're very lucky, then. I have no option except for Comcast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing Freedom?
What competitor?
>80% of Americans are limited to at best, 2 broadband options, both of which act in nearly identical ways.
There. Is. No. Choice.
That unpopular ISP then goes out of business
When the unpopular ISP is a monopoly, and ISP service is a necessity, it won't go out of business.
If ISPs don't want to be regulated, then they need to promote competition in actions (not press releases) and stop doing everything in their power to stop it. No more laws stopping cities from building their own options. No more wink wink nods at non-competing over customers. On the other hand, if ISPs want to be monopolies - just like the utility providers they are - then they damn well are going to be regulated. No having their cake and eating it, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
Exactly
The market forces bullshit only works in a competitive market where there are - what for it ... forces! In a monopoly there is one force, and that is the one with their hands in your pockets. And don't claim there are several ISPs to choose from because that is simply not true. Many places there is only one choice and those with more see little to no competition, there are just several wolves drooling over what is for dinner.
I suspect that Kent is delusional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
Then can you explain that you can't trade your way to one so it can't correct itself?
Then can you explain what it would take to actually free it up?
Thanks in advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enforcing accountability
You can if those same businesses have been taking massive government subsidies to install and upgrade their networks(theoretically), and then doing everything they possibly can to not have to hold up their end of the bargain.
But hey, tell you what, if the various telecom companies are willing to repay the billions of taxpayer dollars that they've been given over the years, as well as repaying a fair price(determined by an independent third party) for all the extra 'perks' they've been given for their networks, then I'll agree that the government has no business dictating what they are allowed to do. Sound fair?
Until then, those billions were supposed to have strings attached, it's about time they were used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enforcing accountability
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forcing Freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
You know Rand had a name for these captains of industry who were always clamoring for favorable laws to be passed and subsidies from taxpayers? She called them "moochers", and she was no fan of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forcing Freedom?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No.
And everyone here is thinking it will be all unicorns and candy? Give me a break!
Which ISP do you lobby for again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have seen a lot of good-reasoned opposition to using Title II for Net Neutrality, but even the telcos that don't want Net Neutrality rules are mostly arguing that they "would never do that" rather than "it's ok for us to throttle specific services when they will not pay us as much".
Oh, and name calling does not help your argument as much as you think it does here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.fcc.gov/
This organization has essentially ensured Telco Monopolies... while I think it is generally a good idea for ISP to be Title II, why do you think this will fix it?
The responsibility for convincing should always remain on the shoulders of those who want/ask and never those against! Not saying this is fair, but more fair than the other way around sadly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.fcc.gov/
blah blah blah..."
That's about what I expected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That cake is not going to eat itself now is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem
That is all I support.
I don't understand how anyone could support placing the regulation of the entire internet in the hands of the corrupt FCC. It will be done ostensibly only to support this one small issue, that BTW doesn't even exist as a real problem yet.
It is not worth it. What we will get will be a strangling collection of regulations that destroy the internet. At best the bloated bureaucracy will just produce tons of thoughtless regulations because that's what they are good at. At worst they will use the opportunity to purposefully screw us.
The best solution is to leave the internet unregulated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The real problem
Apparently you have not kept up with the news for some time then.
- Netflix gave in to the Verizon extortion demands - ring a bell?
"strangling collection of regulations that destroy the internet"
Any examples? How about a study that supports the claim. Or is just an opinion?
"The best solution is to leave the internet unregulated."
So that ISPs can foist upon the public their version of the internet. Worked out well for AOL now didn't it? Oh, you want access to Google? - that will be 9.99 per month extra. We have an upgrade package that includes Bing also! Act now and we will include access to your favorite main stream media website at no additional cost for a period not to exceed one year if you renew your two year contract. Offer subject to limitations, while supplies last.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans And Democrats Alike Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality; Why Don't GOP Officials In Congress Recognize This?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Many of us do not want the government involved. Period!
Dems want Net Neutrality mostly to start Internet regulation (read: new taxes), and Republicans want whoever paid them the most for their reelection campaigns. Independents tend to not want big government but also several want the neutrality of the past which is fantasy if they also want the carriers to expand the capacity.
I see the issue very difficult to come to a good solution without severe unintended consequences. I would prefer little to no government regulation but I'm not sure we can come to terms for a way for carriers to get profits they need to expand without targeting data volume. That is not acceptable to most so something different is needed; a new model is needed that doesn't force us into the old model of the telcos and avoids the bureaucratic model of the Federal government.
Technology may be the solution. If we could eliminate the weaknesses of traditional IP-based networks and develop something that has QOS by default, there may be a solution, but it will not be the free Internet of the past. That is just not possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Many of us do not want the government involved. Period!
That will only improve matters if that include no government involvement over who can run cable and fiber to people. So long as the ability to run cables and fiber is restricted, the ISP.s should also be regulated to prevent them selecting what data level services, and at what speed, customers can access. Leave the final mile ISPs free to provide services as they see fit and they will use various tactics to shore up or replace their cable TV income.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Another Government Operation
Until we have a Bill of Internet Rights it doesn't matter because whatever the moneyed want they will get while the user will have no choice but to bend over if they don't want to be labeled Criminal Terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name change
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rigging polls with stilted wording
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the irish times
independent
telegraph
the guardian uk
the guardian film
new statesman
spectator
the journal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]