> 1. Status quo bias. Ask whether any complicated policy should be changed and most people will say it should not. Leaving aside the question of whether net ne

> 1. Status quo bias. Ask whether any complicated policy should be changed and most people will say it should not. Leaving aside the question of whether net neutrality was a "complicated" thing for people to understand for a moment, I don't even understand how this is an issue with the polling. The subject or policy under question is whatever it is. You can't call the poll biased just because the subject it is polling about is complicated. (And you would need a citation for this too. I would expect the split to be closer to 50/50, perhaps with a slight bias in the direction you claim, but nothing like 80/20.) 2. The wording of the introduction is phrased in terms of ISPs providing more access (yayyy!) and being forbidden from charging "extra fees" (booo!). Here is a different phrasing: "Currently ISPs are forbidden from offering customers discounts if they do not use certain sites or services. ISPs are also prohibited from optimizing latency or bandwidth according to the nature of the content. Removing these restrictions could allow for cheaper Internet plans and faster speeds for some content. Should this regulation be removed?" Uhm... you talk about the FCC prohibiting discounts and speed boosts the entire time, and not once do you mention that this regulation also prevents ISPs from charging extra fees and throttling speeds for whatever sites they like. You really think your version of this is less biased? Seriously? > One might object that "offering customers discounts" is a hypothetical, but the pro-NN arguments are also hypothetical; the fact is we don't really know what will happen. IIRC other countries have already tried this and observed its effects. So we have some real-world evidence that would seem to suggest some outcomes are not merely hypothetical. But in any case, you don't get to accuse someone/something of being biased and then bias them farther in the reverse direction. That's just dishonest.