Editing Net neutrality (section)

==Support==
{{globalize|date=October 2017|section|the United States}}
Proponents of net neutrality regulations include [[consumer advocate]]s, human rights organizations such as [[Article 19]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Four tenors: Call for Internet Speech Rights|publisher=ARTICLE 19|url=http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/1776/en/four-tenors:-call-for-internet-speech-rights|access-date=31 August 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120903000748/http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/1776/en/four-tenors:-call-for-internet-speech-rights|archive-date=3 September 2012}}</ref> online companies and some technology companies.<ref name="meza">{{cite book |title=Coming Attractions? |last=Meza |first=Philip E. |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=9780804756600 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QzMtQGPizqgC |page=158 |date=20 March 2007 |access-date=26 August 2020 |archive-date=17 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117061942/https://books.google.com/books?id=QzMtQGPizqgC |url-status=live }}</ref> Net neutrality tends to be supported by those on the [[political left]], while opposed by those on the [[political right]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Chen |first=Angela |date=16 May 2018 |title=Here Are The Real Reasons Democrats & Republicans Just Can't Agree On Net Neutrality |url=https://www.bustle.com/p/why-is-net-neutrality-a-political-issue-democrats-republicans-wont-settle-for-a-compromise-9099979 |access-date=2023-06-25 |website=[[Bustle.com]]}}</ref>

Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality, such as [[eBay]],<ref name=":4" /> [[Amazon.com|Amazon]],<ref name=":4">{{cite news |title=Defeat for net neutrality backers |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=26 December 2008 |date=9 June 2006 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081226052628/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm |archive-date=26 December 2008}}</ref> [[Netflix]],<ref name=":2" /> [[Reddit]],<ref name=":2" /> [[Microsoft]],<ref name="Open-Letter-to-Committee-Energy-Commerce">{{cite web |date=1 March 2006 |title=Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce |url=http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060424065626/http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf |archive-date=24 April 2006 |access-date=26 December 2008}}</ref> Twitter,{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}} [[Etsy]],<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=Michael J. |date=27 February 2015 |title=The FCC on Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For {{!}} PCMag.com |url=http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/332400-the-fcc-on-net-neutrality-be-careful-what-you-wish-for |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171012091548/http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/332400-the-fcc-on-net-neutrality-be-careful-what-you-wish-for |archive-date=2017-10-12 |access-date=2024-05-02 |website=[[PC Mag]]}}</ref> [[IAC Inc.]],<ref name="Open-Letter-to-Committee-Energy-Commerce" /> [[Daily Kos|Yahoo!]],<ref name=":5" /> [[Daily Kos|Vonage]],<ref name=":5">{{cite book |last=Plunkett |first=Jack W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6PUiN5cE7-QC&q=%22data+prioritization%22+network+neutrality |title=Plunkett's Telecommunications Industry Almanac 2009 |publisher=Plunkett Research |year=2008 |isbn=9781593921415 |page=208 |access-date=6 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117061943/https://books.google.com/books?id=6PUiN5cE7-QC&q=%22data+prioritization%22+network+neutrality |archive-date=17 January 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Cogent Communications]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Cogent Communications, Inc |author-link=Cogent Communications |title=Net Neutrality Policy Statement |url=http://www.cogentco.com/us/NetNeutrality.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418060408/http://www.cogentco.com/us/NetNeutrality.php |archive-date=18 April 2009 |access-date=21 April 2009}}</ref> In September 2014, an online protest known as [[Internet Slowdown Day]] took place to advocate for the equal treatment of Internet traffic. Notable participants included Netflix and Reddit.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Friedlander|first=Simone A.|date=2016|title=Net Neutrality and the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order|journal=Berkeley Technology Law Journal|volume=31|issue=2|pages=905–930}}</ref>

[[Consumer Reports]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=25 April 2024 |title=Consumer Reports applauds FCC vote to restore Net Neutrality rules |url=https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-reports-applauds-fcc-vote-to-restore-net-neutrality-rules/ |access-date=2024-05-03 |website=CR Advocacy |language=en}}</ref> the [[Open Society Foundations]]<ref>{{cite web |last=Lohninger |first=Thomas |date=6 October 2016 |title=How We Kept the Internet Open in Europe |url=https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/how-we-kept-internet-open-europe |access-date=2023-06-25 |website=Open Society Foundations}}</ref> along with several civil rights groups, such as the [[ACLU]], the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], [[Free Press (advocacy group)|Free Press]], [[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet]], and [[Fight for the Future]] support net neutrality.<ref name="Team-Internet">{{cite web |title=Team Internet |url=https://www.battleforthenet.com/teaminternet/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102093757/https://www.battleforthenet.com/teaminternet/ |archive-date=2 January 2016 |access-date=28 February 2015 |publisher=[[Fight for the Future]]}}</ref><ref name=":2" />

Individuals who support net neutrality include [[World Wide Web]] inventor [[Tim Berners-Lee]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5|title=The inventor of the web Tim Berners-Lee on the future of the internet, 'fake news,' and why net neutrality is so important|last=Döpfner|first=Mathias|date=7 May 2017|work=[[Business Insider]]|access-date=6 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830213334/http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5|archive-date=30 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Vinton Cerf]],<ref name="cerf-testimony">{{cite web|author=Cerf, Vinton|author-link=Vinton Cerf|title=The Testimony of Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google|url=http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf|access-date=5 November 2012|page=1|date=7 February 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121217133220/http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf|archive-date=17 December 2012}}</ref><ref name="Cerf July 2009">{{cite journal |author=Cerf, Vinton |title=The open internet: What it is, and why it matters |journal=Telecommunications Journal of Australia |volume=59 |date=July 2009 |doi=10.2104/tja09018|issn=1835-4270 |issue=2 |pages=18.1–18.10 |doi-access=free |hdl=1959.3/454760 |hdl-access=free }}{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=Codyorb |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> [[Lawrence Lessig]],<ref name="no-tolls"/> [[Robert W. McChesney]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://socialistproject.ca/2009/08/b246/ |title=Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles – An interview with Robert McChesney |date=9 August 2009 |access-date=2023-06-25}}</ref> [[Steve Wozniak]], [[Susan P. Crawford]], [[Marvin Ammori]], [[Ben Scott (Policy Expert)|Ben Scott]], [[David P. Reed|David Reed]],<ref name="dps-signers">{{cite web |url=http://www.dpsproject.com#Signers |title=Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality |access-date=26 December 2008 |author=Dynamic Platform Standards Project |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141831/http://www.dpsproject.com/#Signers |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref> and former U.S. President [[Barack Obama]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Albanesius |first=Chloe |url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353195,00.asp |website=PC Magazine |date=22 September 2009 |title=Obama Supports Net Neutrality Plan |access-date=25 January 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216130934/http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353195,00.asp |archive-date=16 February 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Broache |first=Anne |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html |website=CNET |date=29 October 2007 |title=Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president |access-date=25 January 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110042602/http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html |archive-date=10 November 2012}}</ref> On 10 November 2014, Obama recommended that the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service to preserve net neutrality.<ref name="NYT-20141110-EW">{{cite news |last=Wyatt |first=Edward |title=Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html |date=10 November 2014 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=15 November 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141114230550/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html |archive-date=14 November 2014}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20141114">{{cite news |author=NYT Editorial Board |title=Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/why-the-fcc-should-heed-president-obama-on-internet-regulations.html |date=14 November 2014 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=15 November 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141115023705/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/why-the-fcc-should-heed-president-obama-on-internet-regulations.html |archive-date=15 November 2014}}</ref><ref name="WRD-20150121-DAS">{{cite journal |last=Sepulveda |first=Ambassador Daniel A. |title=The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let's Get It Right |url=https://www.wired.com/2015/01/on-net-nuetrality-internet-freedom/ |date=21 January 2015 |journal=[[Wired (website)|Wired]] |access-date=20 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150122002922/http://www.wired.com/2015/01/on-net-nuetrality-internet-freedom/ |archive-date=22 January 2015}}</ref> On 31 January 2015, [[AP News]] reported that the FCC will present the notion of applying ("with some caveats") [[Common carrier#Telecommunications|Title II (common carrier)]] of the [[Communications Act of 1934]] and section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996<ref name="auto">Federal Communications Commission url={{cite web |url=https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet |title=Open Internet &#124; Federal Communications Commission |access-date=2016-08-04 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160828050332/https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet |archive-date=28 August 2016}} accessdate=4 August 2016</ref> to the Internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.<ref name="NYT-20150202a">{{cite news |last=Lohr |first=Steve |title=In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html |date=2 February 2015 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2 February 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203020455/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html |archive-date=3 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20150202b">{{cite news |last=Lohr |first=Steve |title=F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/f-c-c-chief-wants-to-override-state-laws-curbing-community-net-services/ |date=2 February 2015 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2 February 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203015750/http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/f-c-c-chief-wants-to-override-state-laws-curbing-community-net-services/ |archive-date=3 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="AP-20150131">{{cite news |last=Flaherty |first=Anne |title=Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150131/us--net_neutrality-news_guide-c235cbd2b9.html |date=31 January 2015 |work=[[AP News]] |access-date=31 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150201001057/http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150131/us--net_neutrality-news_guide-c235cbd2b9.html |archive-date=1 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="WP-20150102">{{cite news |last=Fung |first=Brian |title=Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/01/02/get-ready-the-fcc-says-itll-vote-on-net-neutrality-in-february/ |date=2 January 2015 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=2 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150102225724/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/01/02/get-ready-the-fcc-says-itll-vote-on-net-neutrality-in-february/ |archive-date=2 January 2015}}</ref><ref name="AP-20150102">{{cite news |author=Staff |title=FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150103/us-fcc-net-neutrality-d8f89ffc53.html |date=2 January 2015 |work=[[AP News]] |access-date=2 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150103042904/http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150103/us-fcc-net-neutrality-d8f89ffc53.html |archive-date=3 January 2015}}</ref>

===Control of data===
Supporters of net neutrality in the United States want to designate [[cable companies]] as [[common carrier]]s, which would require them to allow ISPs free access to cable lines, the same model used for [[dial-up]] Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without a [[court order]].<ref name="censored-2007-p34">{{cite book |title=Censored 2007 |last=Phillips |first=Peter |year=2006 |publisher=Seven Stories Press |isbn=9781583227381 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XdBe64fAsiwC&q=network+neutrality |page=34 |access-date=6 October 2020 |archive-date=17 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117061945/https://books.google.com/books?id=XdBe64fAsiwC&q=network+neutrality |url-status=live }}</ref> Common carrier status would give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality rules.<ref>{{cite web|last=Robertson|first=Adi|title=Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=14 January 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140115033704/http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules|archive-date=15 January 2014|date=14 January 2014}}</ref> [[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet.com]] accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of gatekeepers, being able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly, or do not load at all. According to SaveTheInternet.com, these companies want to charge content providers who require guaranteed speedy data delivery{{spaced ndash}}to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services{{spaced ndash}}and slowing access or blocking access to those of competitors.<ref name="savetheinternet.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what |title=Frequently Asked Questions |access-date=7 December 2008 |publisher=SaveTheInternet.com |url-status=dead |archive-date=11 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211200309/http://savetheinternet.com/%3Dfaq }}</ref> [[Vinton Cerf]], a co-inventor of the [[Internet Protocol]] and current vice president of Google, argues that the Internet was designed without any authorities controlling access to new content or new services.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html |title=Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality |last=Davidson |first=Alan |date=8 November 2005 |website=The Official Google Blog |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130114220322/http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html |archive-date=14 January 2013}}</ref> He concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to affect what people see and do online.<ref name="cerf-testimony" /> Cerf has also written about the importance of looking at problems like Net Neutrality through a combination of the Internet's layered system and the multistakeholder model that governs it.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=13 August 2013|title=Internet Governance is our Shared Responsibility|journal=I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 10 ISJLP 1 (2014)|pages=1–42|ssrn= 2309772 |last1=Cerf |first1=Vinton G S |last2=Ryan|first2=Patrick S|last3=Senges|first3=Max}}</ref> He shows how challenges can arise that can implicate Net Neutrality in certain infrastructure-based cases, such as when ISPs enter into exclusive arrangements with large building owners, leaving the residents unable to exercise any choice in broadband provider.<ref name="ssrn.com">{{Cite conference|date=4 August 2015|title=The Problem of Exclusive Arrangements in Multiple Dwelling Units: Unlocking Broadband Growth in Indonesia and the Global South |publisher=The 7th Indonesia International Conference on Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Small Business (IICIES 2015)|pages=1–16|ssrn= 2637654|last1=Ryan|first1=Patrick S|last2=Zwart|first2=Breanna|last3=Whitt|first3=Richard S|last4=Goldburg|first4=Marc|last5=Cerf|first5=Vinton G}}</ref>

===Digital rights and freedoms===
{{See also|Digital rights}}
Proponents of net neutrality argue that a neutral net will foster free speech and lead to further democratic participation on the Internet. Former [[Senator Al Franken]] from Minnesota fears that without new regulations, the major Internet Service Providers will use their position of power to stifle people's rights. He calls net neutrality the "[[First Amendment]] issue of our time."<ref>Hattem, Julian, ''[https://thehill.com/policy/technology/211607-franken-net-neutrality-is-first-amendment-issue-of-our-time/ Franken: Net neutrality is 'First Amendment issue of our time'] '', The Hill, Jul '14</ref> The past two decades has been an ongoing battle of ensuring that all people and websites have equal access to an unrestricted platform, regardless of their ability to pay, proponents of net neutrality wish to prevent the need to pay for speech and the further centralization of media power.<ref>Nunziato DC. ''Virtual Freedom : Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age''. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law Books; 2009. {{EBSCOhost|395792}}. Accessed 1 April 2019.</ref> [[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]] argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content.<ref name="no-tolls" />

===User intolerance for slow-loading sites===
[[File:Abandonment rate of online video users for different Internet connectivities.jpg|thumbnail|Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).<ref name="people.cs.umass.edu">{{cite web|url=http://people.cs.umass.edu/~ramesh/Site/HOME_files/imc208-krishnan.pdf|title=Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior, by Krishnan and Sitaraman, ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Nov 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212000605/http://people.cs.umass.edu/~ramesh/Site/HOME_files/imc208-krishnan.pdf|archive-date=12 February 2015|access-date=14 November 2014}}</ref>]] Proponents of net neutrality invoke the human psychological process of adaptation where when people get used to something better, they would not ever want to go back to something worse. In the context of the Internet, the proponents argue that a user who gets used to the "fast lane" on the Internet would find the ''slow lane'' intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any provider who is unable to pay for the ''fast lane''. Video providers Netflix<ref>{{cite web |url= http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522785302 |title= NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021834/http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522785302 |archive-date= 29 November 2014}}</ref> and Vimeo<ref>{{cite web |url= http://vimeo.com/assets/downloads/press_releases/07152014-vimeo_fcc_letter.pdf |title= Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141002165617/http://vimeo.com/assets/downloads/press_releases/07152014-vimeo_fcc_letter.pdf |archive-date= 2 October 2014}}</ref> in their comments to FCC in favor of net neutrality use the research<ref name="people.cs.umass.edu"/> of S.S. Krishnan and [[Ramesh Sitaraman]] that provides the first quantitative evidence of adaptation to speed among online video users. Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users who had faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity. The results demonstrate how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectations of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay that occurs. Author [[Nicholas G. Carr|Nicholas Carr]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.roughtype.com/?p=2069 |title= Patience is a Network Effect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov 2012 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141215005635/http://www.roughtype.com/?p=2069 |archive-date= 15 December 2014 |date= 11 November 2012 |access-date= 14 November 2014 }}</ref> and other social commentators<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2013/01/10/168974423/in-video-streaming-rat-race-fast-is-never-fast-enough/|title=NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race, Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012|website=[[NPR]]|access-date=2014-07-03|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714230354/http://www.npr.org/2013/01/10/168974423/in-video-streaming-rat-race-fast-is-never-fast-enough/|archive-date=14 July 2014}}</ref><ref name="bostonglobe">{{cite web|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/02/01/the-growing-culture-impatience-where-instant-gratification-makes-crave-more-instant-gratification/q8tWDNGeJB2mm45fQxtTQP/story.html?s_campaign=8315|title=Boston Globe: Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient, Feb 2013|website=[[The Boston Globe]]|access-date=2014-07-03|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714183142/http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/02/01/the-growing-culture-impatience-where-instant-gratification-makes-crave-more-instant-gratification/q8tWDNGeJB2mm45fQxtTQP/story.html?s_campaign=8315|archive-date=14 July 2014}}</ref> have written about the habituation phenomenon by stating that a faster flow of information on the Internet can make people less patient.

===Competition and innovation===
Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create an exploitative business model based on the ISPs position as [[gatekeeper]]s.<ref name="Accel-Networks.com">{{cite web |url= http://www.accel-networks.com/blog/index.php?q=/2010/08/what-is-net-neutrality.html |title= What Is Net Neutrality? 10 Aug 2010 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110616043917/http://www.accel-networks.com/blog/index.php?q=%2F2010%2F08%2Fwhat-is-net-neutrality.html |archive-date= 16 June 2011}}</ref> Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay.<ref name="no-tolls">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html |title=No Tolls on The Internet |last=[[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]] |date=8 June 2006 |work=Columns |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170726173331/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html |archive-date=26 July 2017}}</ref> According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to reserve bandwidth for their own television services, and charge companies a toll for priority service.<ref name="slate.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/ |title=Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality |first=Timothy |last=Wu |date=1 May 2006 |website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216145930/http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/ |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref> Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or [[tiered service]], would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services.<ref name="meza" /> [[Tim Wu]] argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to one ruled by deal-making.<ref name="slate.com"/> [[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet.com]] argues that net neutrality puts everyone on equal terms, which helps drive innovation. They claim it is a preservation of the way the Internet has always operated, where the quality of websites and services determined whether they succeeded or failed, rather than deals with ISPs.<ref name="savetheinternet.com"/> [[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]] argue that eliminating net neutrality would lead to the Internet resembling the world of cable TV, so that access to and distribution of content would be managed by a handful of massive, near monopolistic companies, though there are multiple service providers in each region. These companies would then control what is seen as well as how much it costs to see it. Speedy and secure Internet use for such industries as healthcare, finance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large fees charged by these companies. They further explain that a majority of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garages, inspired by great ideas. This was possible because the protections of net neutrality ensured limited control by owners of the networks, maximal competition in this space, and permitted innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content was guaranteed a free and highly competitive space by the existence of net neutrality.<ref name="no-tolls"/> For example, back in 2005, YouTube was a small startup company. Due to the absence of Internet fast lanes, YouTube had the ability to grow larger than Google Video. Tom Wheeler and Senators Ronald Lee Wyden (D-Ore.) and [[Al Franken]] (D-Minn.) said, "Internet service providers treated YouTube's videos the same as they did Google's, and Google couldn't pay the ISPs [Internet service providers] to gain an unfair advantage, like a fast lane into consumers' homes," they wrote. "Well, it turned out that people liked YouTube a lot more than Google Video, so YouTube thrived."<ref name="auto1">{{Cite news|url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/331012-what-killing-net-neutrality-means-for-the-internet/|title=What killing net neutrality means for the internet|last=Breland|first=Ali|date=28 April 2017|work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|access-date=2017-11-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904230552/http://thehill.com/policy/technology/331012-what-killing-net-neutrality-means-for-the-internet|archive-date=4 September 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

The lack of competition among internet providers has been cited as a major reason to support net neutrality.<ref name=":6" /> The loss of net neutrality in 2017 in the U.S. increased the calls for public broadband.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jilani |first=Zaid |date=15 December 2017 |title=Killing Net Neutrality Has Brought On a New Call for Public Broadband |url=https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle/ |access-date=2024-05-02 |website=The Intercept |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Preserving Internet standards===
Net neutrality advocates have sponsored legislation claiming that authorizing incumbent network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would signal the decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority. Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer's designed flexibility.<ref name="dps-2.11">{{cite web |url=http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html |title=Internet Platform for Innovation Act |access-date=26 December 2008 |author=Dynamic Platform Standards Project |at=Sec. 2.11 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090218020022/http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html |archive-date=18 February 2009}}</ref>

===End-to-end principle===
Some advocates say network neutrality is needed to maintain the [[end-to-end principle]]. According to [[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]], all content must be treated the same and must move at the same speed for net neutrality to be true. They say that it is this simple but brilliant end-to-end aspect that has allowed the Internet to act as a powerful force for economic and social good.<ref name="no-tolls"/> Under this principle, a neutral network is a [[dumb network]], merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, ''The Rise of the Stupid Network''. He states that the vision of an intelligent network is being replaced by a new network philosophy and architecture in which the network is designed for always-on use, not intermittence and scarcity. Rather than intelligence being designed into the network itself, the intelligence would be pushed out to the end-user devices; and the network would be designed simply to deliver bits without fancy network routing or smart number translation. The data would be in control, telling the network where it should be sent. End-user devices would then be allowed to behave flexibly, as bits would essentially be free and there would be no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.<ref name="rageboy.com">{{cite web|author=Isenberg, David|title=The Rise of the Stupid Network|url=http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html|date=1 August 1996|access-date=19 August 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060820170503/http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html|archive-date=20 August 2006}}</ref>

Contrary to this idea, the research paper titled ''End-to-end arguments in system design'' by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark argues that [[network intelligence]] does not relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for wholesale removal of intelligence from the network core.<ref>{{Cite Q | Q56503280 | access-date = 2022-04-05}} <!-- Saltzer 1984 --></ref>