Editing Net neutrality (section)

===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>