Editing Net neutrality (section)

===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 />