Looks like it was worded to get intended results:
The very brief net neutrality description used by the pollsters is somewhat misleading insofar as it suggests that net neutrality would bar Internet Service Providers from selling faster service than is available today. Strict net neutrality does not concern itself with ultimate transfer speeds available to subscribers, but instead focuses on how different kinds of Internet traffic could be shaped by ISPs for anti-competitive purposes. For instance, strict net neutrality would not prevent an ISP from selling extremely fast 35Mbps connections, but it would prevent ISPs from privileging traffic for their own services for competitive advantage, or degrading the traffic of competing services. Furthermore, we have seen no net neutrality proposal in either the House or Senate that would address security offerings, leaving us puzzled as to its inclusion in the description of net neutrality.
This confusion would perhaps be forgivable if it were not for the fact that the poll engages in a bit of push polling on the issue of "choice" in cable. One question asks respondents to rate "how likely it is that you would see" a) lower prices, b) better customer service, c) new technology deployment, and d) higher quality programming if more choice were available. Varying by question, 73 to 83 percent said that these outcomes were "likely." There was no poll question to lead respondents down a road of benefits for net neutrality, however.