Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Tapping the common sense on net neutrality

This article is part of a series that reveals the many policy proposals on which Republican and Democratic voters agree.

Kull is Program Director of the Program for Public Consultation.

Lewitus is a Research Analyst at Voice of the People whose research interests focus on policy, public opinion and democracy reform.


Thomas is Vice President of Voice of the People and Director of Voice of the People Action. Thomas is an organizer and government relations professional with years of experience working in campaigns, advocacy, and policy research.

The Federal government has failed to address many issues facing our nation, largely due to increasing partisan polarization that results in near-constant gridlock. Some speculate this polarization is a reflection of the American public. However, Voice of the People has found that majorities of Republicans and Democrats actually agree on numerous positions–over 200 as of now. These surveys, conducted mostly by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, differ from standard polls in that they provide respondents with background information and pro-con arguments, before they give their recommendations.

Net neutrality is about to once again become a major topic as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeks to reinstate it. The implications are significant, as net neutrality regulations place major restrictions on Internet Service Providers (ISPs), prohibiting them from: creating internet “fast lanes” for users that pay more; providing faster speeds to the ISP’s own applications; or blocking or slowing down specific websites or applications. These rules were instituted by the FCC during the Obama administration, and then repealed by the FCC under the Trump administration. Now that the Biden administration has appointed pro-net neutrality officials to the FCC, they are proposing to reinstate those rules.

The policy debate over net neutrality is quite technical for the average citizen, but it touches on common value debates that every person can weigh in on such as the role of free markets, and the extent of government regulation in ensuring equal treatment. By providing people with the information necessary to understand the issue, as is done in public consultation surveys, the public can effectively apply their values to make a policy recommendation.

In 2022, after net neutrality rules had been repealed, a PPC survey provided respondents with a briefing on the issue and had respondents evaluate arguments for and against reinstating net neutrality regulations. A large, bipartisan majority (73%) supported reinstating them, including 82% of Democrats, 65% of Republicans, and 68% of Independents.

Without the background, standard polling has also found majority support for net neutrality, including a majority or plurality of Republicans, but with large numbers saying they don’t know or have no opinion. A Morning Consult/Politico poll in 2022 found 55% support, with just 16% opposed and a large 29% saying they don’t know or have no opinion. Among Democrats, 57% were in support and 15% opposed; and among Republicans, 49% were in support and 20% opposed. Earlier polls from 2021 ( Ipsos), 2017 ( Morning Consult, Ipsos) and 2018 ( Morning Consult) also found bipartisan majority support.

In the 2022 PPC survey the arguments in favor of net neutrality were found much more convincing than the arguments against it, though the arguments were reviewed by both proponents and opponents.

The first argument in favor of reinstating net neutrality, from the 2022 survey, stated that since net neutrality’s repeal, ISPs have taken advantage of consumers by slowing down internet speeds and requiring higher fees to reinstate them; thus net neutrality rules are needed to rein in such harmful behavior. That argument was found convincing by a bipartisan eight-in-ten (Republicans 74%, Democrats 86%).

The first con argument asserted that net neutrality regulations can stifle innovation, impede the development of internet infrastructure, and result in slower download speeds. Just four-in-ten found this convincing, including 46% of Republicans and 31% of Democrats

The second con argument proclaimed that concerns about the repeal of net neutrality have been overblown, because the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is required to publicly report anti-competitive behaviors of ISPs. Just half found this convincing, although a majority of Republicans did (57%).

The second pro argument countered that disclosure of anti-competitive behavior is not enough, since the FTC has no power to actually police the major ISPs, which dominate the market and provide consumers with little to no choice. A bipartisan two-thirds found this convincing, including 74% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans.

A list of over 200 policy positions with bipartisan public support can be found on Voice of the People’s Common Ground of the American People website.


Read More

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less