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.

Tapping the common sense on net neutrality
Getty Images

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 These rules were instituted by the FCC during the Obama administration, and then repealed by the FCC under the Trump administration.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

White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

This week's congressional agenda includes anti-fraud legislation, ICE funding, FISA Section 702 renewal debates, and major committee hearings.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Fraud, Funding, and FISA

Fraud

This week in the House is Fraud Week based on the large number of bills likely to receive a vote that in some way are intended to decrease or eliminate many different kinds of fraud. Example bills up for a vote include:

Funding

One bill will likely become law this week if it passes the House:

Keep ReadingShow less
Anti-gerrymandering sign

Florida's new congressional map, the Supreme Court's Callais decision, and challenges to voting rights protections raise urgent questions about redistricting, representation, and democratic accountability.

Bill Clark/Getty Images

Florida’s New Map and the Shrinking Window for Accountability

When the Lines Began Moving Faster Than the Law

On May 4, Governor Ron DeSantis signed Florida’s new congressional map into law. The Legislature had passed it five days earlier, 83 to 28 in the House and 21 to 17 in the Senate. The map redraws four districts in ways that election analysts project would shift them from competitive or Democratic-leaning to safe Republican, potentially expanding a delegation Republicans already control 20 to 8.

The same day the Legislature voted, the Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais. The Court ruled 6 to 3 that Louisiana’s majority-minority district could not survive Equal Protection scrutiny under the standards applied by the majority. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the ruling “renders Section 2 all but a dead letter” in redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
How America Redraws Belonging
woman with US American flag on her shoulders
Photo by Josh Johnson on Unsplash

How America Redraws Belonging

America has always redrawn the boundaries of belonging.

What counts as "us" has never been fixed. The lines have shifted over time, sometimes slowly and sometimes painfully, but they have always shifted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Illustration of Sojourner Truth after a Photograph

Portrait of Sojourner Truth (ca. 1797-1883), leader of the Underground Railroad.

Bettmann / Getty Images

Sojourner’s Truth

As the United States prepares to mark the 250th anniversary of its founding later this summer, there will be extensive celebration and reflection about our democracy and the values it embodies. But the 250th is not the only anniversary that should capture our attention. Indeed, our nation’s story is an evolution of moments built over time.

One of these building blocks occurred 175 years ago, in 1851, during the Women’s Convention in Akron, Ohio. There, on May 29th, Sojourner Truth delivered a legendary speech that called on attendees to reject the racial and gender biases used to limit her place in society and to defy a status quo that devalued her as a Black woman and treated her as invisible and expendable. Her speech is worthy of reflection today because it reveals an important story about how different people experience our democracy — and that story should inform how we build a more inclusive vision for our future.

Keep ReadingShow less