Survey: Consumers Who Understand Net Neutrality More Likely to Support It

A new survey from global research firm GfK has shed some light on one of the hot topics at last week’s CES — net neutrality — as controversy continued to swirl over the FCC’s recent decision to give Internet service providers greater control over the Internet “pipe,” setting up a marketplace that many fear could come to resemble that of traditional pay-TV services.

Just over half (55 percent) of U.S. consumers say they understand the issue of net neutrality and, among that group, 72 percent favor it. Among those who feel they do not understand the issue, 64 percent report favoring net neutrality.

Men are more likely than women — 61 percent vs. 48 percent — to report that they understand net neutrality and twice as likely (34 percent vs. 17 percent) to be following net neutrality developments in the news and elsewhere. But among those who say they understand neutrality, more women favor it than men (77 percent vs. 68 percent).

From a political perspective, eight in ten (82 percent) Democrats who understand net neutrality are in favor of it, as well as 70 percent of Independents and those in other parties. A majority (56 percent) of Republican “understanders” also expressed support for maintaining net neutrality.

Respondents in the western U.S. showed lower levels of support for net neutrality, according to the survey. Two-thirds (67 percent) of those living in Western states who say they understand neutrality are in favor of it, compared with 76 percent for those living in the Northeast and Midwest.

Among different age groups, two-thirds (66 percent) of 15 to 24 year olds — a group GfK has dubbed the Now Generation — report understanding net neutrality, revealing that they have a better grasp on the principle than those over 65 (46 percent) and Millennials in the 25 to 34 age group (57 percent).

“Our study shows that a clearer understanding of what is at stake tends to make consumers value neutrality more,” said Gfk’s Tom Neri. “This suggests that education about even the basics of the issue may be the best weapon for those who would seek to reverse the FCC action. We also see the 15-to-24 age group setting itself apart once again, recording the highest level of neutrality understanding of any generation measured. Clearly, younger consumers know that a lot is at stake for them in this debate.”

In December 2017, GfK interviewed 504 U.S. consumers on its KnowledgePanel — described as the largest probability-based online panel that is representative of the adult US population. The margin of error is ±5 percent for analyses of the full respondent group.

COMMENTS
TowerTone's picture

I'm sure a lot of them don't understand what "understands" means.

Since it breaks down pretty largely into political affiliations this usually means one side is fed a load of BS and their passion overtakes their intellect.
So do we decide law based on popularity of someones interpretation or reality?

Again, just because a law is CALLED something doesn't mean it is that!
Affordable Care Act anyone...?

Jonasandezekiel's picture

I understand your point, and I agree with your conclusions, but personally, I STILL don't understand the law, just because most news outlets don't want me to. It's become way too political, and we both know where the major news outlets' opinions fall on the subject.

Billy's picture

This is about money (always) but it is even more about control. The defacto rulers of this country want to monopolize the net with their way of thinking just like they have the news media and esp talk radio. Ownership means that only what they want to hear gets through and what they don't, gets bogged down. Popular movements in other parts of the world have been built around social media and the net, the powers that be have not let this go unnoticed. This is a subtle but effective way to continue the status quo. Don't want to get too political here, but let me just say, votes count. Allowing people into power with a vote that you haven't thought out fully enough, can be detrimental to the extreme.

David Vaughn's picture
If Google and Facebook are for it, then frankly, that's enough for me to be against it. These are evil companies that don't protect or privacy. Frankly, if the Federal Government did what they are doing to its users, there would be a revolution. They both came to power WITHOUT Net Neutrality, but now that they are Kings of their respective mountains, they are putting their full power behind there being Net Neutrality...why would they do that?
deckeda's picture

You totally missed the mark as to what net neutrality is about. Privacy concerns about FB and Google are real, just not germane to this issue.

It's about encouraging and promoting competition healthy enough to afford some choice among Internet providers and content, without artificial nor arbitrary constraints to either.

It applies chiefly to ISPs and the content they deliver (or don't). Google's not enough of a player in the ISP market to make a dent in all those checks being written to each month to Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/Time Warner etc. And Facebook doesn't offer Internet service at all.

Ars Technica has been a good source for reporting about this for years. The latest, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/01/fcc-admits-mobile-cant-repla...

Let me leave you with something to consider. Do consider that the largest bloc supporting net neutrality is end users: the public. The "revolution" for what's been allowed to happen will have to wait a while longer, as the FCC is a political entity that serves at the pleasure of both the President and Congress.

Billy's picture

So if the President and Congress proclaimed that all red haired children could only sleep in dog houses, would we have to accept that too? Some things are too important to be at the whims of the political system, free speech and open exchange of ideas being the most important. Not sure where you stand on the idea, but are you against it? I do not see how allowing ISPs to sell bandwidth to the highest bidder is going to make for better service or expand coverage. What we need for that is to break up the local monopolies and allow some healthy competition into the market place. Rich people will say that internet is a want not a need, so they should charge as much as they want for it in any way they decide to do it. I tend to agree with that for TV, we can live without the Kardashians, but the net has grown to be much more then entertainment. Yes, much of it is still for that purpose, but it has grown to be inherently needed for business, learning, and communication, not to mention security of individuals and groups. It is time to regulate them like a utility for the public good, though the rich and powerful will have a lot to say about that...and they will speak with quiet hush money to greedy politicians. All Americans need to have this issue on their radars.

deckeda's picture

... which is why I can only presume that you meant to reply to David Vaughn and not to my comment. :)

X