Editing Net neutrality (section)

==Criticism==
{{See also|Libertarianism}}
Opponents of net neutrality regulations include ISPs, broadband and telecommunications companies, computer hardware manufacturers, economists, and notable technologists.

Many of the major hardware and telecommunications companies specifically oppose the reclassification of broadband as a&nbsp;[[Common carrier#Telecommunications|common carrier]]&nbsp;under Title II. Corporate opponents of this measure include [[Comcast]], [[AT&T]], [[Verizon]], [[IBM]], [[Intel]], [[Cisco]], [[Nokia]], [[Qualcomm]], [[Broadcom]], [[Juniper Networks|Juniper]], [[D-Link]], [[Wintel]], [[Alcatel-Lucent]], [[Corning, Inc.|Corning]], [[Panasonic]], [[Ericsson]], [[Oracle Corporation|Oracle]], [[Akamai]], and others.<ref name="tiaonline.org">[http://www.tiaonline.org/sites/default/files/pages/Internet_ecosystem_letter_FINAL_12.10.14.pdf "Letter expressing strong opposition to proposals to classify broadband as a 'Title II' service"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150216163709/http://www.tiaonline.org/sites/default/files/pages/Internet_ecosystem_letter_FINAL_12.10.14.pdf |date=16 February 2015 }}, to U.S. congressional leaders and members of the FCC, from representatives of a wide range of technology companies, 10 December 2014.</ref><ref name="fcc.gov">{{cite web |url=http://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5 |title=Oral Dissenting Statement of Commissioner Ajit Pai, Re: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28 |first=Ajit |last=Pai |date=26 February 2015 |website=DOC-332260A5 |publisher=fcc.gov |access-date=28 April 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150520185555/https://www.fcc.gov/article/doc-332260a5 |archive-date=20 May 2015}}</ref><ref name="books.google.com">{{cite book |title=Internet Law |last= Hart |first=Jonathan D. |year=2007 |publisher=BNA Books |isbn= 9781570186837 |page=750}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Oracle-Cisco-break-ranks-support-repeal-of-net-11133957.php|title=Oracle, Cisco break ranks, support repeal of net neutrality rules|newspaper=San Francisco Chronicle|date=9 May 2017|access-date=14 May 2018|archive-date=14 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180514213619/https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Oracle-Cisco-break-ranks-support-repeal-of-net-11133957.php|url-status=live |last1=Fracassa |first1=By Dominic }}</ref> The [[United States Telecom Association|US Telecom and Broadband Association]], which represents a diverse array of small and large broadband providers, is also an opponent.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/1017%20USTelecom%20Net%20Neutrality%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf|title=US Telecom Net Neutrality Fact Sheet|last=Roberts|first=Jasamyn|date=21 November 2017|website=USTelecom|access-date=2018-05-18|archive-date=14 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180514213449/https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/1017%20USTelecom%20Net%20Neutrality%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/people/net-neutrality-should-not-apply-to-content-delivery-networks-akamais-mcconnell/59127242|title=Net Neutrality should not apply to content delivery networks: Akamai's McConnell – ETtech|last=www.ETtech.com|newspaper=The Economic Times|access-date=14 May 2018|archive-date=15 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180515043530/https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/people/net-neutrality-should-not-apply-to-content-delivery-networks-akamais-mcconnell/59127242|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2006 campaign against net neutrality was funded by AT&T and members included [[BellSouth]], [[Alcatel-Lucent|Alcatel]], [[Cingular]], and [[Citizens Against Government Waste]].<ref name="Jeffrey H. Birnbaum 2006">Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, "No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle", ''The Washington Post'', 26 July 2006.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Hands Off the Internet, "Member Organizations," |url=http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105234015/http://handsoff.org/hoti_docs/aboutus/members.shtml |archive-date=5 January 2009 |access-date=4 August 2006}}</ref><ref>Anne Veigle, "Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neutrality Ads, Study Finds", Communications Daily, 20 July 2006.</ref><ref>"One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet", press release, June 14, 2006; at [http://www.savetheinternet.com/=press11 Savetheinternet.com]. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080919065427/http://www.savetheinternet.com/%3Dpress11|archive-date=19 September 2008}}.</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Hands Off the Internet |url=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hands_Off_the_Internet |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070225111248/http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hands_Off_the_Internet |archive-date=25 February 2007 |access-date=28 February 2015 |website=sourcewatch.org}}</ref>

[[Nobel Memorial Prize]]-winning economist [[Gary Becker]]'s paper titled, "Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare", published by the ''Journal of Competition Law & Economics'', argues that claims by net neutrality proponents "do not provide a compelling rationale for regulation" because there is "significant and growing competition" among broadband access providers.<ref name="nationalreview.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/257531/back-future-peter-thiel-interview |title=Back to the Future with Peter Thiel |website=National Review Online |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150302165534/http://www.nationalreview.com/article/257531/back-future-peter-thiel-interview |archive-date=2 March 2015|date=20 January 2011 }}</ref><ref name="faculty.chicagobooth.edu">{{cite journal | last1 = Becker | first1 = Gary S. | last2 = Carlton | first2 = Dennis W. | last3 = Sider | first3 = Hal S. | year = 2010 | title = Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare | url = http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/dennis.carlton/research/pdfs/NetNeutralityConsumerWelfare.pdf | journal = Journal of Competition Law & Economics | volume = 6 | issue = 3 | pages = 497–519 | doi = 10.1093/joclec/nhq016 | access-date = 28 February 2015 | archive-date = 18 March 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20150318194206/http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/dennis.carlton/research/pdfs/NetNeutralityConsumerWelfare.pdf | url-status = dead }}</ref> Google chairman [[Eric Schmidt]] states that, while Google views that similar data types should not be discriminated against, it is okay to discriminate across different data types—a position that both Google and Verizon generally agree on, according to Schmidt.<ref name=affe/><ref name="ReferenceB">{{cite web |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-nears-1424819532 |title=Jostling Begins as FCC's Net Neutrality Vote Nears |author1=Brody Mullins |author2=Gautham Nagesh |name-list-style=amp |date=24 February 2015 |website=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170703105428/https://www.wsj.com/articles/jostling-begins-as-fccs-net-neutrality-vote-nears-1424819532 |archive-date=3 July 2017}}</ref> According to the Journal, when President Barack Obama announced his support for strong net neutrality rules late in 2014, Schmidt told a top White House official the president was making a mistake. Google once strongly advocated net-neutrality–like rules prior to 2010, but their support for the rules has since diminished; the company however still remains "committed" to net neutrality.<ref name="ReferenceB"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/netflix-google-net-neutrality/548768/|title=Where Were Netflix and Google in the Net-Neutrality Fight?|first=Joe|last=Pinsker|website=theatlantic.com|date=20 December 2017|access-date=18 May 2018|archive-date=19 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519033112/https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/netflix-google-net-neutrality/548768/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Individuals who opposed net neutrality rules include [[Bob Kahn]],<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/cerf_1083211.cfm|title=Vinton Cerf – A.M. Turing Award Winner|website=amturing.acm.org|language=en|access-date=2017-11-17|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170629090105/http://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/cerf_1083211.cfm|archive-date=29 June 2017}}</ref><ref name="kahn-vid">{{cite video |people=Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum |date=9 January 2007 |title=An Evening with Robert Kahn |url=http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599 |format=WMV |publisher=Computer History Museum |access-date=26 December 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120928201632/http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599 |archive-date=28 September 2012}} Partial transcript: [http://vasarely.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/kahn_net_neutrality_transcript.html Hu-Berlin.de] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070829170707/http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?id=1162920599 |date=29 August 2007 }}</ref> [[Marc Andreessen]],<ref name="marginalrevolution.com">{{cite web|url=http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/marc-andreessen-on-net-neutrality.html|title=Marc Andreessen on net neutrality|website=marginalrevolution.com|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150308032603/http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/marc-andreessen-on-net-neutrality.html|archive-date=8 March 2015|date=23 May 2014}}</ref> [[Scott McNealy]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201405.html|title=McNealy Discusses|website=washingtonpost.com|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170730032805/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201405.html|archive-date=30 July 2017|date=2 May 2006}}</ref> [[Peter Thiel]] and [[Max Levchin]],<ref name="nationalreview.com" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/26/father-of-net-neutrality-rules-wont-kill-spending.html|title=Father of net neutrality: Rules won't kill spending|first=Tom|last=DiChristopher|website=[[CNBC]]|date=26 February 2015|access-date=19 May 2018|archive-date=25 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625161506/https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/26/father-of-net-neutrality-rules-wont-kill-spending.html|url-status=live}}</ref> [[David Farber]],<ref name="Farber">{{cite mailing list |url=http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200606/msg00014.html |title=Common sense about network neutrality |date=2 June 2006 |access-date=26 December 2008 |mailing-list=Interesting-People |last=Farber |first=David |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216143448/http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200606/msg00014.html |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref> [[David D. Clark|David Clark]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-saving-the-open-internet/|title=Expert View: If the Internet is Working Well, Don't Add New Regulations|first=Gerald Faulhaber and David|last=Farber|website=technologyreview.com|access-date=18 May 2018|archive-date=9 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181109035320/https://www.technologyreview.com/s/531671/are-we-really-saving-the-open-internet/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eecs.mit.edu/news-events/media/david-clark-talks-mit-news-office-re-net-neutrality|title=David Clark talks with MIT News Office re Net Neutrality – MIT EECS|website=www.eecs.mit.edu|access-date=18 May 2018|archive-date=31 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331202520/https://www.eecs.mit.edu/news-events/media/david-clark-talks-mit-news-office-re-net-neutrality|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Louis Pouzin]],<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lebrument |first=Chantal |date=23 April 2014 |title=Network Neutrality and QoS |url=https://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/47/Network%20Neutrality%20and%20QoS-en.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829201732/http://www.itu.int/en/Lists/CWGContributionmar2014/Attachments/47/Network%20Neutrality%20and%20QoS-en.pdf |archive-date=29 August 2017 |access-date=2018-05-18 |website=[[ITU]]}}</ref> [[MIT Media Lab]] co-founder [[Nicholas Negroponte]],<ref name="bigthink.com">{{cite web|url=http://bigthink.com/videos/bits-bits-everywhere-with-mit-media-labs-nicholas-negroponte|title=Nicholas Negroponte: Net Neutrality Doesn't Make Sense – Big Think|author=Nicholas Negroponte|website=Big Think|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150228185821/http://bigthink.com/videos/bits-bits-everywhere-with-mit-media-labs-nicholas-negroponte|archive-date=28 February 2015|date=13 August 2014}}</ref> [[Rajeev Suri]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/nokia-knocks-net-neutrality-self-driving-cars-wont-get-the-service-you-need/|title=Nokia knocks Net neutrality: Self-driving cars 'won't get the service you need'|work=CNET|access-date=2017-11-17|language=en|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171019082756/https://www.cnet.com/news/nokia-knocks-net-neutrality-self-driving-cars-wont-get-the-service-you-need/|archive-date=19 October 2017}}</ref> [[Jeff Pulver]],<ref name="lightreading.com">{{cite news |title=Internet Pioneers Decry Title II Rules |url=http://www.lightreading.com/net-neutrality/internet-pioneers-decry-title-ii-rules/d/d-id/714129 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150304043356/http://www.lightreading.com/net-neutrality/internet-pioneers-decry-title-ii-rules/d/d-id/714129 |archive-date=4 March 2015 |website=[[Light Reading]]}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=May 2024}} [[Mark Cuban]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.recode.net/2015/2/23/11559292/mark-cuban-vs-the-world-the-full-codemedia-interview-video|title=Mark Cuban Vs. the World: The Full Code/Media Interview (Video)|work=Recode|access-date=2017-11-17|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171212084117/https://www.recode.net/2015/2/23/11559292/mark-cuban-vs-the-world-the-full-codemedia-interview-video|archive-date=12 December 2017}}</ref> [[Robert Pepper]]<ref>{{cite web |last=Pepper |first=Robert |date=14 March 2007 |title=Network Neutrality: Avoiding a Net Loss |url=http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56272.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081011211403/http://www.technewsworld.com/story/56272.html |archive-date=11 October 2008 |access-date=26 December 2008 |website=TechNewsWorld |quote=The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn't exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer.}}</ref> and former FCC chairman [[Ajit Pai]].

[[List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics|Nobel Prize laureate economists]] who opposed net neutrality rules include Princeton economist [[Angus Deaton]], Chicago economist [[Richard Thaler]], [[MIT]] economist [[Bengt Holmström]], and the late Chicago economist [[Gary Becker]].<ref name="igmchicago.org">{{Cite web|url=http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii|title=Net Neutrality II {{!}} IGM Forum|website=www.igmchicago.org|access-date=2018-05-18|archive-date=10 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180510161254/http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/net-neutrality-ii|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|ssrn=1695696|title=Net Neutrality and Consumer Welfare|first1=Gary S.|last1=Becker|first2=Dennis W.|last2=Carlton |first3=Hal|last3=Sider|date=1 September 2010}}</ref> Others include MIT economists [[David Autor]], [[Amy Finkelstein]], and [[Richard Schmalensee]]; Stanford economists [[Raj Chetty]], [[Darrell Duffie]], [[Caroline Hoxby]], and [[Kenneth Judd]]; Harvard economist [[Alberto Alesina]]; Berkeley economists [[Alan Auerbach]] and [[Emmanuel Saez]]; and Yale economists [[William Nordhaus]], [[Joseph Altonji]] and [[Pinelopi Goldberg]].<ref name="igmchicago.org"/>

Some civil rights groups, such as the [[National Urban League]], [[Jesse Jackson]]'s [[Rainbow/PUSH]], and [[League of United Latin American Citizens]], also opposed Title II net neutrality regulations,<ref name="wsj.com">{{cite web |author=Holman W. Jenkins Jr. |date=27 February 2015 |title=Holman Jenkins: The Net Neutrality Crack-Up – WSJ |url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-the-net-neutrality-crack-up-1425080173 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161125090729/http://www.wsj.com/articles/holman-jenkins-the-net-neutrality-crack-up-1425080173 |archive-date=25 November 2016 |website=[[The Wall Street Journal]] |type=Opinion}}</ref> citing concerns over stifling investment in underserved areas.<ref name="JesseJacksonFCC2014">{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/18/jesse-jackson-is-lobbying-the-fcc-against-aggressive-net-neutrality-rules/|title=Jesse Jackson is lobbying the FCC against aggressive net neutrality rules|first=Brian|last=Fung|date=18 November 2014|via=www.washingtonpost.com|access-date=19 May 2018|archive-date=21 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180521104656/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/18/jesse-jackson-is-lobbying-the-fcc-against-aggressive-net-neutrality-rules/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=HughPickens.com |date=9 December 2014 |title=Civil Rights Groups Divided On Net Neutrality |url=https://politics.slashdot.org/story/14/12/09/0042241/civil-rights-groups-divided-on-net-neutrality |access-date=2024-05-01 |website=[[Slashdot]] |language=en}}</ref>

The [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which runs Wikipedia, told ''[[The Washington Post]]'' in 2014 that it had a "complicated relationship" with net neutrality.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/|title=Wikipedia's 'complicated' relationship with net neutrality|last=Fung|first=Brian|date=25 November 2014|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=2018-05-18|language=en-US|issn=0190-8286|archive-date=25 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625161338/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/|url-status=live}}</ref> The organization partnered with telecommunications companies to provide free access to Wikipedia for people in developing countries, under a program called [[Wikipedia Zero]], without requiring mobile data to access information. The concept is known as [[zero rating]]. Said Wikimedia Foundation officer Gayle Karen Young, "Partnering with telecom companies in the near term, it blurs the net neutrality line in those areas. It fulfills our overall mission, though, which is providing free knowledge."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/wikipedia-zero-ends-data-free-access-for-developing-countries/|title=Wikipedia ends zero-rated access for users in developing world|date=19 February 2018|access-date=18 May 2018|archive-date=19 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180519120728/https://www.cnet.com/news/wikipedia-zero-ends-data-free-access-for-developing-countries/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Farber has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz, [[Christopher Yoo]], and Gerald Faulhaber in an op-ed for ''The Washington Post'' critical of network neutrality, stating that while the Internet is in need of remodeling, congressional action aimed at protecting the best parts of the current Internet could interfere with efforts to build a replacement.<ref name="FarberKatz2007">{{cite news |author=David Farber |author2=Michael Katz |title=Hold Off On Net Neutrality |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |access-date=26 December 2008 |date=19 January 2007 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080516072955/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801508.html |archive-date=16 May 2008}}</ref>

===Reduction in investment===
According to a letter to FCC commissioners and key congressional leaders sent by 60 major ISP technology suppliers including IBM, Intel, Qualcomm, and Cisco, Title II regulation of the Internet "means that instead of billions of broadband investment driving other sectors of the economy forward, any reduction in this spending will stifle growth across the entire economy. This is not idle speculation or fear mongering...Title II is going to lead to a slowdown, if not a hold, in broadband build out, because if you don't know that you can recover on your investment, you won't make it."<ref name="tiaonline.org"/><ref name="ncta.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.ncta.com/platform/public-policy/tech-and-manufacturing-companies-warn-against-title-ii/|title=Tech and Manufacturing Companies Warn Against Title II|website=platform|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402125303/https://www.ncta.com/platform/public-policy/tech-and-manufacturing-companies-warn-against-title-ii/|archive-date=2 April 2015|access-date=28 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="cultofmac.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.cultofmac.com/305821/ibm-intel-cisco-come-net-neutrality/|title=IBM, Intel, and Cisco come out against net neutrality|website=Cult of Mac|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150302155024/http://www.cultofmac.com/305821/ibm-intel-cisco-come-net-neutrality/|archive-date=2 March 2015|date=11 December 2014|access-date=16 April 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://gizmodo.com/a-ton-of-tech-companies-just-came-out-against-net-neutr-1669797497|title=A Ton of Tech Companies Just Came Out Against Net Neutrality|author=Mario Aguilar|publisher=Gawker Media|website=Gizmodo|date=11 December 2014 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171018192620/https://gizmodo.com/a-ton-of-tech-companies-just-came-out-against-net-neutr-1669797497|archive-date=18 October 2017}}</ref> According to the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', in one of Google's few lobbying sessions with FCC officials, the company urged the agency to craft rules that encourage investment in broadband Internet networks—a position that mirrors the argument made by opponents of strong net neutrality rules, such as AT&T and Comcast.<ref name="ReferenceB"/> Opponents of net neutrality argue that prioritization of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on the Internet.<ref name="books.google.com"/> Telecommunications providers such as telephone and cable companies, and some technology companies that supply networking gear, argue telecom providers should have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of [[tiered service]]s, for example by giving online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer their data packets faster than other Internet traffic.<ref>J. Gregory Sidak, What is the Network Neutrality Debate Really About?, 1 INT'L J. COMM. 377, 384 (2007).</ref> The added income from such services could be used to pay for the building of increased broadband access to more consumers.<ref name="meza" />

Opponents say that net neutrality would make it more difficult for ISPs and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2006/12/ftc-host-workshop-broadband-connectivity-competition-policy |title=FTC to Host Workshop on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy |date=December 2006 |publisher=Federal trade Commission |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150702022157/https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2006/12/ftc-host-workshop-broadband-connectivity-competition-policy |archive-date=2 July 2015 |access-date=16 May 2014 }}</ref> John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of [[Verizon]], a [[broadband]] and telecommunications company, has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and [[Skype]] of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.<ref name="books.google.com"/><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601624.html |title=Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google's 'Free Lunch' |last=Mohammed |first=Arshad |date=February 2007 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830112213/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/06/AR2006020601624.html |archive-date=30 August 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Net Neutrality: The Technical Side of the Debate: A White Paper |last=Crowcroft |first=Jon |year=2007 |publisher=University of Cambridge|page=5 |doi=10.1145/1198255.1198263 |s2cid=207161916 }}</ref> [[Marc Andreessen]] states that "a pure net neutrality view is difficult to sustain if you also want to have continued investment in broadband networks. If you're a large telco right now, you spend on the order of $20 [[billion]] a year on [[capex]] [capital expenditure]. You need to know how you're going to get a [[Return on investment|return on that investment]]. If you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a company like Netflix anything, you're not ever going to get a return on continued network investment – which means you'll stop investing in the network. And I would not want to be sitting here 10 or 20 years from now with the same broadband speeds we're getting today."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/marc-andreessen-on-net-neutrality.html#sthash.FJbueb6O.dpuf|title=Marc Andreessen on net neutrality|website=marginalrevolution.com|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150308032603/http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/marc-andreessen-on-net-neutrality.html#sthash.FJbueb6O.dpuf|archive-date=8 March 2015|date=23 May 2014}}</ref>

Proponents of net neutrality regulations say network operators have continued to under-invest in infrastructure.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/net-neutrality-monopoly-and-the-death-of-the-democratic-internet/|title=Net Neutrality, Monopoly, and the Death of the Democratic Internet|website=Motherboard|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150301232728/http://motherboard.vice.com/read/net-neutrality-monopoly-and-the-death-of-the-democratic-internet|archive-date=1 March 2015|date=8 May 2014}}</ref> However, according to Copenhagen Economics, U.S. investment in telecom infrastructure is 50 percent higher than in the European Union. As a share of GDP, the United States' broadband investment rate per GDP trails only the UK and South Korea slightly, but exceeds Japan, Canada, Italy, Germany, and France sizably.<ref name="progressivepolicy.org">[http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014.06-Ehrlich_The-State-US-Broadband_Is-it-competitive-are-we-falling-behind.pdf "The State of U.S. Broadband: Is it Competitive? Are We Falling Behind"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150305235117/http://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014.06-Ehrlich_The-State-US-Broadband_Is-it-competitive-are-we-falling-behind.pdf |date=5 March 2015 }}, Everett Ehrlich, Progressive Policy Institute, June 2014.</ref> On broadband speed, Akamai reported that the US trails only South Korea and Japan among its major trading partners, and trails only Japan in the G-7 in both average peak connection speed and percentage of the population connection at 10&nbsp;Mbit/s or higher, but are substantially ahead of most of its other major trading partners.<ref name="progressivepolicy.org"/>

The White House reported in June 2013 that U.S. connection speeds are "the fastest compared to other countries with either a similar population or land mass."<ref>[https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/broadband_report_final.pdf "Four Years of Broadband Growth"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170122213036/https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/broadband_report_final.pdf |date=22 January 2017 }}, The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and The National Economic Council, June 2013.</ref> Akamai's report on "The State of the Internet" in the 2nd quarter of 2014 says "a total of 39 states saw 4K readiness rate more than double over the past year." In other words, as ZDNet reports, those states saw a ''major'' increase in the availability of the 15&nbsp;Mbit/s speed needed for 4K video.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/akamai-shows-global-and-us-internet-speeds-increasing/|title=Akamai shows global and US internet speeds increasing|website=ZDNet|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150305074309/http://www.zdnet.com/article/akamai-shows-global-and-us-internet-speeds-increasing/|archive-date=5 March 2015}}</ref> According to the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] and ITU data, the United States has the most affordable entry-level prices for fixed broadband in the OECD.<ref name="progressivepolicy.org"/><ref>[http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/MIS2013_without_Annex_4.pdf "Measuring the Information Society"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150430133914/http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/MIS2013_without_Annex_4.pdf |date=30 April 2015 }}, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), 2013, {{ISBN|978-92-61-14401-2}}.</ref>

In Indonesia, there is a very high number of Internet connections that are subject to exclusive deals between the ISP and the building owner. Representatives of [[Google, Inc]] claim that changing this dynamic could unlock much more [[consumer choice]]s and higher speeds.<ref name="ssrn.com"/> Former FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission's Lee Goldman also wrote in a Politico piece in February 2015, "Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband's reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/fcc-internet-regulations-ajit-pai-115399.html#ixzz3TClknlL7|title=Internet Freedom Works|author1=Ajit Pai|author2=Lee Goodman|name-list-style=amp|website=[[Politico]] Magazine|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150306043403/http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/fcc-internet-regulations-ajit-pai-115399.html#ixzz3TClknlL7|archive-date=6 March 2015}}</ref>

[[VOIP]] pioneer [[Jeff Pulver]] states that the uncertainty of the FCC imposing Title II, which experts said would create regulatory restrictions on using the Internet to transmit a voice call, was the "single greatest impediment to innovation" for a decade.<ref name=PulverForbes2014>{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/12/15/title-ii-and-utility-style-regulation-is-not-how-we-should-protect-open-internet|title=Title II And Utility-Style Regulation Is Not How We Should Protect Open Internet|first=Capital|last=Flows|website=[[Forbes]]|access-date=19 May 2018|archive-date=20 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180520055737/https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/12/15/title-ii-and-utility-style-regulation-is-not-how-we-should-protect-open-internet|url-status=live}}</ref> According to Pulver, investors in the companies he helped found, like Vonage, held back investment because they feared the FCC could use Title II to prevent VOIP startups from bypassing telephone networks.<ref name=PulverForbes2014 />

===Significant and growing competition, investment===
A 2010 paper on net neutrality by Nobel Prize economist [[Gary Becker]] and his colleagues stated that "there is significant and growing competition among broadband access providers and that few significant competitive problems have been observed to date, suggesting that there is no compelling competitive rationale for such regulation."<ref name="faculty.chicagobooth.edu"/> Becker and fellow economists Dennis Carlton and Hal Sidler found that "Between mid-2002 and mid-2008, the number of high-speed broadband access lines in the United States grew from 16 million to nearly 133 million, and the number of residential broadband lines grew from 14 million to nearly 80 million. Internet traffic roughly tripled between 2007 and 2009. At the same time, prices for broadband Internet access services have fallen sharply."<ref name="faculty.chicagobooth.edu"/> The PPI reports that the profit margins of U.S. broadband providers are generally one-sixth to one-eighth of companies that use broadband (such as Apple or Google), contradicting the idea of monopolistic price-gouging by providers.<ref name="progressivepolicy.org"/>

When FCC chairman Tom Wheeler redefined broadband from 4&nbsp;Mbit/s to 25&nbsp;Mbit/s (3.125&nbsp;[[MB/s]]) or greater in January 2015, FCC commissioners Ajit Pai and Mike O'Reilly believed the redefinition was to set up the agency's intent to settle the net neutrality fight with new regulations. The commissioners argued that the stricter speed guidelines painted the broadband industry as less competitive, justifying the FCC's moves with Title II net neutrality regulations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-your-broadband-internet-technically-isnt-broadband-anymore/|title=Sorry, your broadband Internet technically isn't broadband anymore|publisher=CBS Interactive|website=CNET|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150224022942/http://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-your-broadband-internet-technically-isnt-broadband-anymore/|archive-date=24 February 2015}}</ref>

A report by the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] in June 2014 argues that nearly every American can choose from at least 2–4 broadband Internet service providers, despite claims that there are only a "small number" of broadband providers.<ref name="progressivepolicy.org"/> Citing research from the FCC, the Institute wrote that 90 percent of American households have access to at least one wired and one wireless broadband provider at speeds of at least 4&nbsp;[[Mbit/s]] (500&nbsp;[[kbyte/s]]) downstream and 1&nbsp;Mbit/s (125&nbsp;kbyte/s) upstream and that nearly 88 percent of Americans can choose from at least two wired providers of broadband disregarding speed (typically choosing between a cable and telco offering). Further, three of the four national wireless companies report that they offer 4G LTE to 250–300&nbsp;million Americans, with the fourth (T-Mobile) sitting at 209&nbsp;million and counting.<ref name="progressivepolicy.org"/> Similarly, the FCC reported in June 2008 that 99.8% of [[ZIP code]]s in the United States had two or more providers of high-speed Internet lines available, and 94.6% of ZIP codes had four or more providers, as reported by University of Chicago economists Gary Becker, Dennis Carlton, and Hal Sider in a 2010 paper.<ref name="faculty.chicagobooth.edu"/>

===Deterring competition===
FCC commissioner [[Ajit Pai]] states that the FCC completely brushes away the concerns of smaller competitors who are going to be subject to various taxes, such as state property taxes and general receipts taxes.<ref name="cnbc.com">[https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/27/why-fcc-ruling-will-hurt-us-consumers-fcc-commish.html "Why FCC ruling will hurt US consumers: FCC commish"], Fred Imbert, CNBC, 27 February 2015.</ref> As a result, according to Pai, that does nothing to create more competition within the market.<ref name="cnbc.com"/> According to Pai, the FCC's ruling to impose Title II regulations is opposed by the country's smallest private competitors and many [[municipal broadband]] providers.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.fcc.gov/document/summary-commissioner-pais-oral-dissent-internet-regulation|title=Summary of Commissioner Pai's Oral Dissent on Internet Regulation|website=fcc.gov|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150228175821/http://www.fcc.gov/document/summary-commissioner-pais-oral-dissent-internet-regulation|archive-date=28 February 2015|date=10 December 2015|access-date=28 February 2015}}</ref> In his dissent, Pai noted that 142 wireless ISPs (WISPs) said that FCC's new "regulatory intrusion into our businesses ... would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both." He also noted that 24 of the country's smallest ISPs, each with fewer than 1,000 residential broadband customers, wrote to the FCC stating that Title II "will badly strain our limited resources" because they "have no in-house attorneys and no budget line items for outside counsel." Further, another 43 municipal broadband providers told the FCC that Title II "will trigger consequences beyond the Commission's control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without bringing any concrete benefit for consumers or edge providers that the market is not already proving today without the aid of any additional regulation."<ref name="fcc.gov"/>

According to a ''[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]'' magazine article by TechFreedom's Berin Szoka, Matthew Starr, and Jon Henke, local governments and public utilities impose the most significant barriers to entry for more cable broadband competition: "While popular arguments focus on supposed 'monopolists' such as big cable companies, it's government that's really to blame." The authors state that local governments and their public utilities charge ISPs far more than they actually cost and have the final say on whether an ISP can build a network. The public officials determine what requirements an ISP must meet to get approval for access to publicly owned rights of way (which lets them place their wires), thus reducing the number of potential competitors who can profitably deploy Internet services—such as AT&T's U-Verse, Google Fiber, and Verizon FiOS. Kickbacks may include municipal requirements for ISPs such as building out service where it is not demanded, donating equipment, and delivering free broadband to government buildings.<ref>{{Cite magazine |url=https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ |title=Don't Blame Big Cable. It's Local Governments That Choke Broadband Competition – WIRED |magazine=Wired |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160112071736/http://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/ |archive-date=12 January 2016|date=16 July 2013 }}</ref>

According to a research article from [[MIS Quarterly]], the authors stated their findings subvert some of the expectations of how ISPs and CPs act regarding net neutrality laws. The paper shows that even if an ISP is under restrictions, it still has the opportunity and the incentive to act as a gatekeeper over CPs by enforcing priority delivery of content.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Hong | first1 = Guo | display-authors = etal | year = 2017| title = Effects of Competition among Internet Service Providers and Content Providers on the Net Neutrality Debate | journal = MIS Quarterly | volume = 41| issue = 2 | pages = 353–370| doi = 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.2.02 }}</ref>

===Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality===
Those in favor of forms of non-neutral tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level playing field, and that large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by providing more and better-quality servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Should scrapping of net neutrality regulations precipitate a price drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, such would make Internet usage more adaptable to the needs of those individuals and corporations who specifically seek differentiated tiers of service. Network expert<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.itif.org/people/richard-bennett|title=Former ITIF Staff|website=ITIF|access-date=6 March 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150312111551/http://www.itif.org/people/richard-bennett|archive-date=12 March 2015}}</ref> Richard Bennett has written, "A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/08/EDBH11LNQS.DTL|title=Google's political Head-fake|date=9 July 2008|website=SFGate|access-date=14 September 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120309053853/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2008%2F07%2F08%2FEDBH11LNQS.DTL|archive-date=9 March 2012}}</ref>

===Potentially increased taxes===
FCC commissioner Ajit Pai, who opposed the 2015 Title II reclassification of ISPs, says that the ruling allows new fees and taxes on broadband by subjecting them to telephone-style taxes under the Universal Service Fund. Net neutrality proponent [[Free Press (advocacy group)|Free Press]] writes, "the average potential increase in taxes and fees per household would be far less" than the estimate given by net neutrality opponents, and that if there were to be additional taxes, the tax figure may be around US$4&nbsp;billion. Under favorable circumstances, "the increase would be exactly zero."<ref name="New-Internet-Tax-Claim-Skew-the-Math-and-Confuse-the-Law">{{cite web |url=http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/12/02/claims-real-net-neutrality-would-result-new-internet-tax-skew-math-and-confuse-law |title=Claims That Real Net Neutrality Would Result in New Internet Tax Skew the Math and Confuse the Law |publisher=Free Press |date=2 December 2014 |access-date=28 February 2015 |author=Wood, Matt |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150301070752/http://www.freepress.net/blog/2014/12/02/claims-real-net-neutrality-would-result-new-internet-tax-skew-math-and-confuse-law |archive-date=1 March 2015}}</ref> Meanwhile, the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims that Title II could trigger taxes and fees up to $11&nbsp;billion a year.<ref name="Politifact-Net-Neutrality-Tax-Effect-Uncertain">{{cite web|url=http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/mike-lee/effect-net-neutrality-rules-taxes-uncertain|title=Effect of net neutrality rules on taxes is uncertain|website=[[PolitiFact]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150301162235/http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/feb/26/mike-lee/effect-net-neutrality-rules-taxes-uncertain/|archive-date=1 March 2015}}</ref> Financial website ''Nerd Wallet'' did their own assessment and settled on a possible US$6.25&nbsp;billion tax impact, estimating that the average American household may see their tax bill increase US$67 annually.<ref name="Politifact-Net-Neutrality-Tax-Effect-Uncertain"/>

FCC spokesperson Kim Hart said that the ruling "does not raise taxes or fees. Period."<ref name="Politifact-Net-Neutrality-Tax-Effect-Uncertain" />

===Unnecessary regulations===
According to [[PayPal]] founder and Facebook investor [[Peter Thiel]] in 2011, "Net neutrality has not been necessary to date. I don't see any reason why it's suddenly become important, when the Internet has functioned quite well for the past 15 years without it. ... Government attempts to regulate technology have been extraordinarily counterproductive in the past."<ref name="nationalreview.com"/> [[Max Levchin]], the other co-founder of PayPal, echoed similar statements, telling CNBC, "The Internet is not broken, and it got here without government regulation and probably in part because of lack of government regulation."<ref>[https://www.cnbc.com/2015/02/26/father-of-net-neutrality-rules-wont-kill-spending.html "Father of net neutrality: Rules won't kill spending"], Tom DiChristopher, CNBC, 26 February 2015.</ref>

FCC Commissioner [[Ajit Pai]], who was one of the two commissioners who opposed the net neutrality proposal, criticized the FCC's ruling on Internet neutrality, stating that the perceived threats from ISPs to deceive consumers, degrade content, or disfavor the content that they dislike are non-existent: "The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it's all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. "FCC chairman Pai wants to switch ISP rules from proactive restrictions to after-the-fact litigation, which means a lot more leeway for ISPs that don't particularly want to be treated as impartial utilities connecting people to the internet." (Atherton, 2017).<ref name="auto3"/> Examples this picayune and stale aren't enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy."<ref name="fcc.gov"/> FCC Commissioner Mike O'Reilly, the other opposing commissioner, also claims that the ruling is a solution to a hypothetical problem, "Even after enduring three weeks of spin, it is hard for me to believe that the Commission is establishing an entire Title II/net neutrality regime to protect against hypothetical harms. There is not a shred of evidence that any aspect of this structure is necessary. The D.C. Circuit called the prior, scaled-down version a 'prophylactic' approach. I call it guilt by imagination."{{citation needed|date=October 2020}} In a ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' article, FCC Commissioner Pai and [[Joshua D. Wright|Joshua Wright]] of the [[Federal Trade Commission]] argue that "the Internet isn't broken, and we don't need the president's plan to 'fix' it. Quite the opposite. The Internet is an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open and thriving platform."<ref name="chicagotribune.com">{{cite web|url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-internet-regulations-fcc-ftc-obama-broadband-perspec-0219-20150218-story.html|title=The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it|author=Chicago Tribune|date=February 18, 2015|website=chicagotribune.com|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226173240/http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-internet-regulations-fcc-ftc-obama-broadband-perspec-0219-20150218-story.html|archive-date=February 26, 2015}}</ref>

===Inability to make the Internet accessible to the poor===
Opponents argue that net neutrality regulations prevent service providers from providing more affordable Internet access to those who can not afford it.<ref name="JesseJacksonFCC2014"/> A concept known as [[zero-rating]], ISPs would be unable to provide Internet access for free or at a reduced cost to the poor under net neutrality rules.<ref name=KansasCityStarCanon2017>{{cite web|url=http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article151477557.html|title=Digital Life: The Trump path to free internet for the poor|access-date=19 May 2018|archive-date=20 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180520061409/http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/technology/article151477557.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="JesseJacksonFCC2014"/> For example, low-income users who can not afford bandwidth-hogging Internet services such as [[video streams]] could be exempted from paying through subsidies or advertising.<ref name="JesseJacksonFCC2014"/> However, under the rules, ISPs would not be able to discriminate traffic, thus forcing low-income users to pay for high-bandwidth usage like other users.<ref name=KansasCityStarCanon2017 />

The [[Wikimedia Foundation]], which runs Wikipedia, created [[Wikipedia Zero]] to provide Wikipedia free-of-charge on mobile phones to low-income users, especially those in developing countries. However, the practice violates net neutrality rules as traffic would have to be treated equally regardless of the users' ability to pay.<ref name="JesseJacksonFCC2014"/><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/|title=Wikipedia's 'complicated' relationship with net neutrality|first=Brian|last=Fung|date=25 November 2014|via=www.washingtonpost.com|access-date=18 May 2018|archive-date=25 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180625161338/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2014, Chile banned the practice of Internet service providers giving users free access to websites like Wikipedia and Facebook, saying the practice violates net neutrality rules.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/|title=When net neutrality backfires: Chile just killed free access to Wikipedia and Facebook|first=Leo|last=Mirani|date=30 May 2014|access-date=19 May 2018|archive-date=28 June 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180628100556/https://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/|url-status=live}}</ref> In 2016, India banned Free Basics application run by [[Internet.org]], which provides users in less developed countries with free access to a variety of websites like Wikipedia, [[BBC]], [[Dictionary.com]], health sites, Facebook, [[ESPN]], and weather reports—ruling that the initiative violated net neutrality.<ref>{{Cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/2016/02/facebooks-free-basics-app-is-now-banned-in-india/|title=India Bans Facebook's Basics App to Support Net Neutrality|magazine=Wired|date=8 February 2016|access-date=19 May 2018|archive-date=22 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180522053102/https://www.wired.com/2016/02/facebooks-free-basics-app-is-now-banned-in-india/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Inability to allocate Internet traffic efficiently===
Net neutrality rules would prevent the traffic from being allocated to the most needed users, according to [[David Farber]].<ref name=FarberKatz2007/> Because net neutrality regulations prevent a [[Data discrimination|discrimination of traffic]], networks would have to treat critical traffic equally with non-critical traffic. According to Farber, "When traffic surges beyond the ability of the network to carry it, something is going to be delayed. When choosing what gets delayed, allowing a network to favor traffic from, say, a patient's heart monitor over traffic delivering a music download makes sense. It also makes sense to allow network operators to restrict harmful traffic, such as viruses, worms, and spam."<ref name=FarberKatz2007 />