Editing Net neutrality (section)

===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>