a) the headline is bullshit. This is a small panel of economists selected from a right-wing economics association. b) It's clear from the responses that none o

a) the headline is bullshit. This is a small panel of economists selected from a right-wing economics association. b) It's clear from the responses that none of the individuals surveyed (in 2014) had any understanding of the issues involved. Most of them clearly think that net neutrality is about dealing with congestion/excessive use, and obviously think that ISPs should have some way of dealing with that. The question is worded in the most deceptive way possible to encourage that misunderstanding. For example, look at the response of Thaler. He says he agrees (meaning he is "against" net neutrality for this question) and then explains his answer: "Seems like those who cause congestion should pay more. I know some worry that ISPs will play favorites, but that should be preventable." He's clearly for net neutrality but is an "against" vote for this question because he doesn't understand what the issues are (or didn't in 2014). Another way of looking at it is that the question as stated, despite being titled "Net Neutrality", has nothing to do with net neutrality.