Editing Net neutrality (section)

===Favoring private networks===
Proponents of net neutrality argue that without new regulations, Internet service providers would be able to profit from and favor their own private networks and that ISPs would be able to pick and choose who they offer a greater bandwidth to. If one website or company is able to afford more, they will go with them. This especially stifles private up-and-coming businesses.

ISPs are able to encourage the use of specific services by using private networks to discriminate what data is counted against bandwidth caps. For example, Comcast struck a deal with Microsoft that allowed users to stream television through the Xfinity app on their [[Xbox 360]]s without it affecting their bandwidth limit. However, using other television [[streaming]] apps, such as [[Netflix]], [[HBO Go]], and [[Hulu]], counted towards the limit. Comcast denied that this infringed on net neutrality principles since "it runs its Xfinity for Xbox service on its own, private Internet protocol network."<ref>{{cite news|url= http://fortune.com/2012/05/16/is-comcast-violating-net-neutrality-rules/|author= Mitchell, Dan|title= Is Comcast violating net-neutrality rules?|work=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]|date= May 2012|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151115140002/http://fortune.com/2012/05/16/is-comcast-violating-net-neutrality-rules/|archive-date= 15 November 2015}}</ref> In 2009, when [[AT&T]] was bundling [[iPhone 3G]] with its 3G network service, the company placed restrictions on which iPhone applications could run on its network.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=PRASAD|first1=ROHIT|last2=SRIDHAR|first2=V|date=2014|title=The Economics of Net Neutrality|journal=Economic and Political Weekly|volume=49|issue=16|pages=52–58|jstor=24480155|issn=0012-9976}}</ref> 

According to net neutrality proponents, this capitalization on which content producers ISPs can favor would ultimately lead to fragmentation, where some ISPs would have certain content that is not necessarily present in the networks offered by other ISPs. The danger behind fragmentation, as viewed by proponents of net neutrality, is the concept that there could be ''multiple Internets'', where some ISPs offer exclusive Internet applications or services or make it more difficult to gain access to Internet content that may be more easily viewable through other Internet service providers. An example of a fragmented service would be television, where some cable providers offer exclusive media from certain content providers.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last1=Lee|first1=Robin S|last2=Wu|first2=Tim|date=1 August 2009|title=Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|volume=23|issue=3|pages=61–76|doi=10.1257/jep.23.3.61|issn=0895-3309|url=https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1601|access-date=26 August 2020|archive-date=20 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200920075859/https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1601/|url-status=live|doi-access=free}}</ref> 

However, in theory, allowing ISPs to favor certain content and private networks would overall improve Internet services since they would be able to recognize packets of information that are more time-sensitive and prioritize that over packets that are not as sensitive to latency. The issue, as explained by Robin S. Lee and Tim Wu, is that there are literally too many ISPs and Internet content providers around the world to reach an agreement on how to standardize that prioritization. A proposed solution would be to allow all online content to be accessed and transferred freely, while simultaneously offering a ''fast lane'' for a preferred service that does not discriminate on the content provider.<ref name=":02" />