Editing Net neutrality (section)

==Related issues==

===Data discrimination===
{{Main|Data discrimination}}
[[Tim Wu]], though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral as its implementation of [[best effort]] generally favors [[file transfer]] and other non-time-sensitive traffic over real-time communications.<ref name="Wu Neutrality">{{cite journal|author=Wu, Tim|title=Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination|journal=Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law|volume=2|page=141|year=2003|doi=10.2139/ssrn.388863|ssrn=388863|s2cid=19857168|url=https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2282&context=faculty_scholarship|access-date=24 September 2019|archive-date=23 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190623131908/https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2282&context=faculty_scholarship|url-status=live|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Generally, a network which blocks some [[Node (networking)|nodes]] or services for the customers of the network would normally be expected to be less useful to the customers than one that did not. Therefore, for a network to remain significantly non-neutral requires either that the customers not be concerned about the particular non-neutralities or the customers not have any meaningful choice of providers, otherwise they would presumably switch to another provider with fewer restrictions.{{Citation needed|date=December 2008}}

While the network neutrality debate continues, network providers often enter into peering arrangements among themselves. These agreements often stipulate how certain information flows should be treated. In addition, network providers often implement various policies such as blocking of port 25 to prevent insecure systems from serving as spam relays, or other ports commonly used by decentralized music search applications implementing peer-to-peer networking models. They also present terms of service that often include rules about the use of certain applications as part of their contracts with users.{{Citation needed |date=December 2008}} Most consumer Internet providers implement policies like these. The MIT Mantid Port Blocking Measurement Project is a measurement effort to characterize Internet port blocking and potentially discriminatory practices. However, the effect of peering arrangements among network providers are only local to the peers that enter into the arrangements and cannot affect traffic flow outside their scope.{{Citation needed|date=December 2008}}

[[Jon Peha]] from [[Carnegie Mellon University]] believes it is important to create policies that protect users from harmful traffic discrimination while allowing beneficial discrimination. Peha discusses the technologies that enable traffic discrimination, examples of different types of discrimination, and the potential impacts of regulation.<ref name="NN_benefits_risks">{{cite web |url=https://www.dpacket.org/articles/benefits-and-risks-mandating-network-neutrality-and-quest-balanced-policy |title=The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality, and the Quest for a Balanced Policy |access-date=1 January 2007 |author=Jon Peha |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726003643/https://www.dpacket.org/articles/benefits-and-risks-mandating-network-neutrality-and-quest-balanced-policy |archive-date=26 July 2011}}</ref> Google chairman [[Eric Schmidt]] aligns Google's views on data discrimination with Verizon's: "I want to be clear what we mean by Net neutrality: What we mean is if you have one data type like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. But it's okay to discriminate across different types. So you could prioritize voice over video. And there is general agreement with [[Verizon]] and Google on that issue."<ref name=affe>{{cite news |title= Why Google and Verizon's Net neutrality deal affects you |url= https://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/technology/google_verizon_net_neutrality_rules/index.htm |date= 5 August 2010 |publisher=[[CNN]] |work= CNNMoney |access-date= 6 August 2010 |first= David |last= Goldman |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20100806124340/http://money.cnn.com/2010/08/05/technology/google_verizon_net_neutrality_rules/index.htm |archive-date= 6 August 2010}}</ref> Echoing similar comments by Schmidt, Google's Chief Internet Evangelist and "father of the Internet", [[Vint Cerf]], says that "it's entirely possible that some applications needs far more latency, like games. Other applications need broadband streaming capability in order to deliver real-time video. Others don't really care as long as they can get the bits there, like e-mail or file transfers and things like that. But it should not be the case that the supplier of the access to the network mediates this on a competitive basis, but you may still have different kinds of service depending on what the requirements are for the different applications."<ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/10/10/5-insights-from-vinton-cerf-on-bitcoin-net-neutrality-and-more/ |title=5 insights from Vint Cerf on bitcoin, net neutrality and more |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402123209/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/10/10/5-insights-from-vinton-cerf-on-bitcoin-net-neutrality-and-more/ |archive-date=2 April 2015}}</ref>

===Content caching===
[[Cache (computing)|Content caching]] is the process by which frequently accessed contents are temporarily stored in strategic network positions (e.g., in servers close to the end-users<ref name="edgecaching_NN">{{cite web |last1=Marcus |first1=Adam |title=Nuts and Bolts: Network neutrality and edge caching |url=http://blog.pff.org/archives/2008/12/edge_caching.html |website=The Progress & Freedom Foundation |access-date=12 June 2018 |archive-date=24 February 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224081817/http://blog.pff.org/archives/2008/12/edge_caching.html |url-status=live }}</ref>) to achieve several performance objectives. For example, caching is commonly used by ISPs to reduce [[network congestion]] and results in a superior [[quality of experience]] (QoE) perceived by the final users.

Since the storage available in cache servers is limited, caching involves a process of selecting the contents worth storing. Several [[cache algorithm]]s have been designed to perform this process which, in general, leads to storing the most popular contents. The cached contents are retrieved at a higher QoE (e.g., lower latency), and caching can be therefore considered a form of traffic differentiation.<ref name="NN_benefits_risks" /> However, caching is not generally viewed as a form of discriminatory traffic differentiation. For example, the technical writer Adam Marcus states that "accessing content from edge servers may be a bit faster for users, but nobody is being discriminated against and most content on the Internet is not latency-sensitive".<ref name="edgecaching_NN" /> In line with this statement, caching is not regulated by legal frameworks that are favourable to Net Neutrality, such as the Open Internet Order issued by the [[FCC]] in 2015. Even more so, the legitimacy of caching has never been put in doubt by opponents of Net Neutrality. On the contrary, the complexity of caching operations (e.g., extensive information processing) has been successively regarded by the FCC as one of the technical reasons why ISPs should not be considered common carriers, which legitimates the abrogation of Net Neutrality rules.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Federal Communications Commission |title=Restoring Internet Freedom – DECLARATORY RULING, REPORT AND ORDER, AND ORDER |url=https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf |access-date=13 June 2018 |archive-date=17 May 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180517003003/https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347927A1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> Under a Net Neutrality regime, prioritization of a class of traffic with respect to another one is allowed only if several requirements are met (e.g., objectively different QoS requirements).<ref>{{cite web |last1=BEREC |title=What is traffic management and what is 'equal treatment'? |url=https://berec.europa.eu/eng/netneutrality/traffic_management/ |access-date=14 June 2018 |archive-date=14 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180614171517/https://berec.europa.eu/eng/netneutrality/traffic_management/ |url-status=live }}</ref> However, when it comes to caching, a selection of contents of the same class has to be performed (e.g., set of videos worth storing in cache servers). In the spirit of general deregulation with regard to caching, there is no rule that specifies how this process can be carried out in a non-discriminatory way. Nevertheless, the scientific literature considers the issue of caching as a potentially discriminatory process and provides possible guidelines to address it.<ref name="NN_2010s">{{cite journal |last1=Maillé |first1=Patrick |title=Toward a Net Neutrality Debate that Conforms to the 2010s |journal=IEEE Communications Magazine |date=2016 |volume=54 |issue=3 |pages=94–99 |doi=10.1109/MCOM.2016.7432154 |s2cid=3216065 |url=https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01127958/file/paper.pdf |access-date=19 August 2019 |archive-date=30 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200330232831/https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01127958/file/paper.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> For example, a non-discriminatory caching might be performed considering the popularity of contents, or with the aim of guaranteeing the same QoE to all the users, or, alternatively, to achieve some common welfare objectives.<ref name="NN_2010s" />

As far as [[content delivery network]]s (CDNs) are concerned, the relationship between caching and Net Neutrality is even more complex. In fact, CDNs are employed to allow scalable and highly-efficient content delivery rather than to grant access to the Internet. Consequently, differently from ISPs, CDNs are entitled to charge content providers for caching their content. Therefore, although this may be regarded as a form of paid traffic prioritization, CDNs are not subject to Net Neutrality regulations and are rarely included in the debate. Despite this, it is argued by some that the Internet ecosystem has changed to such an extent that all the players involved in the content delivery can distort competition and should be therefore also included in the discussion around Net Neutrality.<ref name="NN_2010s" /> Among those, the analyst Dan Rayburn suggested that "the Open Internet Order enacted by the FCC in 2015 was myopically focussed on ISPs".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Baksh |first1=Mariam |title=Content Delivery Networks Complicate Debate Over Net Neutrality |url=https://morningconsult.com/2017/07/28/content-delivery-networks-complicate-debate-net-neutrality/ |access-date=14 June 2018 |date=28 July 2017 |archive-date=14 June 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180614144232/https://morningconsult.com/2017/07/28/content-delivery-networks-complicate-debate-net-neutrality/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Quality of service===
{{Main|Quality of service}}
Internet routers forward packets according to the different peering and transport agreements that exist between network operators. Many internets using Internet protocols now employ quality of service (QoS), and Network Service Providers frequently enter into Service Level Agreements with each other embracing some sort of QoS. There is no single, uniform method of interconnecting networks using [[Internet Protocol|IP]], and not all networks that use IP are part of the Internet. [[IPTV]] networks are isolated from the Internet and are therefore not covered by network neutrality agreements. The IP [[datagram]] includes a 3-bit wide Precedence field and a larger [[DiffServ]] Code Point (DSCP) that are used to request a level of service, consistent with the notion that protocols in a layered architecture offer service through [[Service Access Point]]s. This field is sometimes ignored, especially if it requests a level of service outside the originating network's contract with the receiving network. It is commonly used in private networks, especially those including [[Wi-Fi]] networks where priority is enforced. While there are several ways of communicating service levels across Internet connections, such as [[Session Initiation Protocol|SIP]], [[Resource Reservation Protocol|RSVP]], [[IEEE 802.11e]], and [[MPLS]], the most common scheme combines SIP and DSCP. Router manufacturers now sell routers that have logic enabling them to route traffic for various Classes of Service at ''wire-speed''.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}}

Quality of service is sometimes taken as a measurement through certain tools to test a user's connection quality, such as Network Diagnostic Tools (NDT) and services on speedtest.net. These tools are known to be used by [[Regulatory agency|National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs)]], who use these QoS measurements as a way of detecting Net Neutrality violations. However, there are very few examples of such measurements being used in any significant way by NRAs, or in network policy for that matter. Often, these tools are used not because they fail at recording the results they are meant to record, but because said measurements are inflexible and difficult to exploit for any significant purpose. According to Ioannis Koukoutsidis, the problems with the current tools used to measure QoS stem from a lack of a standard detection methodology, a need to be able to detect various methods in which an ISP might violate Net Neutrality, and the inability to test an average measurement for a specific population of users.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Koukoutsidis|first=Ioannis|date=2015|title=Public QoS and Net Neutrality Measurements: Current Status and Challenges Toward Exploitable Results|jstor=10.5325/jinfopoli.5.2015.0245|journal=Journal of Information Policy|volume=5|pages=245–286|doi=10.5325/jinfopoli.5.2015.0245|doi-access=free}}</ref>

With the emergence of multimedia, [[VoIP]], IPTV, and other applications that benefit from low latency, various attempts to address the inability of some private networks to limit latency have arisen, including the proposition of offering [[tiered service]] levels that would shape Internet transmissions at the network layer based on application type. These efforts are ongoing and are starting to yield results as wholesale Internet transport providers begin to amend service agreements to include service levels.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=101271 |title=Carriers Seek IP QOS Peers |access-date=26 December 2008 |last=Sullivan |first=Mark |date=14 August 2006 |newspaper=Light Reading |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141744/http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=101271 |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref>

Advocates of net neutrality have proposed several methods to implement a net-neutral Internet that includes a notion of quality-of-service:
* An approach offered by Tim Berners-Lee allows discrimination between different tiers while enforcing strict neutrality of data sent at each tier: "If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality and quantity of service."<ref name="berners-lee-def" /> "[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me."<ref name="berners-lee-def1">{{cite web |url=http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132 |title=Neutrality of the Net |access-date=26 December 2008 |last=Berners-Lee |first=Tim |author-link=Tim Berners-Lee |date=2 May 2006 |website=timbl's blog |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090101023106/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/132 |archive-date=1 January 2009}}</ref>
* United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would now allow quality of service discrimination for certain services as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.<ref name="S215">''A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality'', {{USBill|110|S|215}}</ref>

===Wireless networks===
There are also some discrepancies in how wireless networks affect the implementation of net neutrality policy, some of which are noted in the studies of [[Christopher Yoo]]. In one research article, he claimed that "...bad handoffs, local congestion, and the physics of [[wave propagation]] make wireless broadband networks significantly less reliable than fixed broadband networks."<ref>{{cite journal|last=Yoo|first=Christopher S.|title=Wireless Network Neutrality: Technological Challenges and Policy Implications|journal=Berkeley Technology Law Journal|volume=31|issue=2|date=January 2017|pages=1409–1458|jstor=26381956}}</ref>

===Pricing models===
Broadband Internet access has most often been sold to users based on [[Excess Information Rate]] or maximum available bandwidth. If ISPs can provide varying levels of service to websites at various prices, this may be a way to manage the costs of unused capacity by selling surplus bandwidth (or "leverage [[price discrimination]] to recoup costs of '[[consumer surplus]]{{'"}}). However, purchasers of connectivity on the basis of [[Committed Information Rate]] or guaranteed bandwidth capacity must expect the capacity they purchase in order to meet their communications requirements. Various studies have sought to provide network providers with the necessary formulas for adequately pricing such a [[tiered service]] for their customer base. But while network neutrality is primarily focused on protocol-based provisioning, most of the pricing models are based on bandwidth restrictions.<ref name="pricingstudy">{{cite web |url=http://rouskas.csc.ncsu.edu/Publications/Thesis/PHD-Lv-2010.pdf |title=NCSU.edu |access-date=23 June 2011 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110720011813/http://rouskas.csc.ncsu.edu/Publications/Thesis/PHD-Lv-2010.pdf |archive-date=20 July 2011}}</ref>

Many Economists have analyzed Net Neutrality to compare various hypothetical pricing models. For instance, economic professors Michael L. Katz and Benjamin E. Hermalin at the University of California Berkeley co-published a paper titled, "The Economics of Product-Line Restrictions with an Application to the Network Neutrality Debate" in 2007. In this paper, they compared the single-service economic equilibrium to the multi-service economic equilibriums under Net Neutrality.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Choi, Jeon, Kim|first=Jay Pil, Doh-Shin, Byung|date=August 2015|title=Net, Neutrality, Business Models, and Internet Interconnection|journal=American Economic Association|volume=7|issue=3|pages=108|jstor=24467004}}</ref>

===Reactions to removing net neutrality in the US===
On 12 July 2017, an event called the [[Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality|Day of Action]] was held to advocate [[net neutrality in the United States]] in response to Ajit Pai's plans to remove government policies that upheld net neutrality. Several websites participated in this event, including ones such as [[Amazon.com|Amazon]], [[Netflix]], Google, and several other just as well-known websites. The gathering was called "the largest online protest in history." Websites chose many different ways to convey their message. The founder of [[the web]], [[Tim Berners-Lee]], published a video defending FCC's rules. [[Reddit]] made a pop-up message that loads slowly to illustrate the effect of removing net neutrality. Other websites also put up some less obvious notifications, such as Amazon, which put up a hard-to-notice link, or Google, which put up a policy blog post as opposed to a more obvious message.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15958030/net-neutrality-day-of-action-internet-companies-list|title=Here's how the internet's net neutrality day of action unfolded|last=Lecher|first=Colin|date=12 July 2017|website=[[The Verge]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107021826/https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/12/15958030/net-neutrality-day-of-action-internet-companies-list|archive-date=7 November 2017|url-status=live|access-date=3 November 2017}}</ref>

A poll conducted by [[Mozilla]] showed strong support for net neutrality across [[US political parties]]. Out of the approximately 1,000 responses received by the poll, 76% of Americans, 81% of Democrats, and 73% of Republicans, support net neutrality.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/|title=New Mozilla Poll: Americans from Both Political Parties Overwhelmingly Support Net Neutrality|last=Mozilla|date=6 June 2017|website=Mozilla|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107020559/https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2017/06/06/new-mozilla-poll-americans-political-parties-overwhelmingly-support-net-neutrality/|archive-date=7 November 2017|url-status=live|access-date=3 November 2017}}</ref> The poll also showed that 78% of Americans do not think that Trump's government can be trusted to protect access to the Internet. Net neutrality supporters had also made several comments on the FCC website opposing plans to remove net neutrality, especially after [[Net Neutrality (Last Week Tonight)#"Net Neutrality II"|a segment]] by [[John Oliver]] regarding this topic was aired on his show ''[[Last Week Tonight]]''.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/most-fcc-commenters-favor-net-neutrality-but-you-wouldnt-know-it-from-ajit-pai/|title=Flooded with thoughtful net neutrality comments, FCC highlights "mean tweets"|last=Brodkin|first=Jon|date=16 May 2017|website=Ars Technica|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107022204/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/most-fcc-commenters-favor-net-neutrality-but-you-wouldnt-know-it-from-ajit-pai/|archive-date=7 November 2017|url-status=live|access-date=6 November 2017}}</ref> He urged his viewers to comment on the FCC's website, and the flood of comments that were received crashed the FCC's website, with the resulting media coverage of the incident inadvertently helping it to reach greater audiences.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92vuuZt7wak |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211213/92vuuZt7wak |archive-date=2021-12-13 |url-status=live|title=Net Neutrality II: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)|last=LastWeekTonight|date=7 May 2017|website=YouTube|access-date=2018-05-28}}{{cbignore}}</ref> However, in response, Ajit Pai selected one particular comment that specifically supported removal of net neutrality policies.

At the end of August, the FCC released more than 13,000 pages of net neutrality complaints filed by consumers, one day before the deadline for the public to comment on Ajit Pai's proposal to remove net neutrality. It has been implied that the FCC ignored evidence against their proposal to remove the protection laws faster. It has also been noted that nowhere was it mentioned how FCC made any attempt to resolve the complaints made. Regardless, Ajit Pai's proposal has drawn more than 22 million comments, though a large amount was spam. However, there were 1.5&nbsp;million personalized comments, 98.5% of them protesting Ajit Pai's plan.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/fcc-makes-net-neutrality-complaints-public-but-too-late-to-stop-repeal/|title=FCC makes net neutrality complaints public, but too late to stop repeal|last=Brodin|first=Jon|date=5 September 2017|website=Ars Technica|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171107022032/https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/09/fcc-makes-net-neutrality-complaints-public-but-too-late-to-stop-repeal/|archive-date=7 November 2017|url-status=live|access-date=3 November 2017}}</ref>&nbsp;

{{As of|2018|1}},{{Update after|2018|5}} fifty senators had endorsed a legislative measure to override the Federal Communications Commission's decision to deregulate the broadband industry. [[Congressional Review Act|The Congressional Review Act]] paperwork was filed on 9 May 2018, which allowed the [[United States Senate|Senate]] to vote on the permanence of the new net neutrality rules proposed by the Federal Communications Commission.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/05/16/net-neutrality-is-getting-a-big-vote-in-the-senate-today-heres-what-to-expect/?noredirect=on|title=Senate approves bipartisan resolution to restore FCC net neutrality rules|last=Fung|first=Brian|date=16 May 2018|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=2018-05-28|archive-date=16 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180516222248/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/05/16/net-neutrality-is-getting-a-big-vote-in-the-senate-today-heres-what-to-expect/?noredirect=on|url-status=live}}</ref> The vote passed and a resolution was approved to try to remove the FCC's new rules on net neutrality; however, officials doubted there was enough time to completely repeal the rules before the [[Open Internet Order]] officially expired on 11 June 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/10/net-neutrality-will-officially-die-on-june-11/|title=Net neutrality will officially die on 11 June|last=Coldewey|first=Devin|date=10 May 2018|website=Tech Crunch|access-date=2018-05-28|archive-date=29 May 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180529165253/https://techcrunch.com/2018/05/10/net-neutrality-will-officially-die-on-june-11/|url-status=live}}</ref> A September 2018 report from Northeastern University and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst found that U.S. telecom companies are indeed slowing Internet traffic to and from those two sites in particular along with other popular apps.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kharif |first=Olga |date=4 September 2018 |title=YouTube, Netflix Videos Found to Be Slowed by Wireless Carriers |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds |work=[[Bloomberg News|Bloomberg]]|access-date=11 September 2018 |archive-date=11 September 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180911191439/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/youtube-and-netflix-throttled-by-carriers-research-finds |url-status=live }}</ref> In March 2019, congressional supporters of net neutrality introduced the Save the Internet Act in both the House and Senate, which if passed would reverse the FCC's 2017 repeal of net neutrality protections.<ref>{{cite news|last=Greer|first=Evan|date=6 March 2019|title=Trump killed net neutrality. Congress is getting a chance to bring it back|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-killed-net-neutrality-congressional-democrats-are-trying-make-internet-ncna979786|work=[[NBC News]]|access-date=9 March 2019|archive-date=8 March 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190308043944/https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-killed-net-neutrality-congressional-democrats-are-trying-make-internet-ncna979786|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Rural digital divide ===
A [[digital divide]] is referred to as the difference between those who have access to the internet and those using digital technologies based on urban against rural areas.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Connolly|first1=Michelle|last2=Lee|first2=Clement|last3=Tan|first3=Renhao|date=June 2017|title=The Digital Divide and Other Economic Considerations for Network Neutrality|journal=Review of Industrial Organization|language=en|volume=50|issue=4|pages=537–554|doi=10.1007/s11151-016-9554-8|s2cid=157582298|issn=0889-938X}}</ref> In the U.S, government city tech leaders warned in 2017 that the FCC's repeal of net neutrality will widen the digital divide, negatively affect small businesses, and job opportunities for middle class and low-income citizens. The FCC reports on their website that Americans in rural areas reach only 65 percent, while in urban areas reach 97 percent of access to high-speed Internet.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/bridging-digital-divide-all-americans|title=Bridging The Digital Divide For All Americans|access-date=8 March 2022|archive-date=19 August 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130819141428/https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/bridging-digital-divide-all-americans|url-status=usurped<!-- redirects -->}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.govtech.com/civic/Preparing-for-the-End-of-Net-Neutrality-City-Tech-Leaders-Warn-of-Widening-Digital-Divide.html|title=Preparing for the End of Net Neutrality, City Tech Leaders Warn of Widening Digital Divide|last=QUAINTANCE|first=ZACK|date=1 December 2017|website=Government Technology|language=en|access-date=2020-04-06|archive-date=6 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200406195518/https://www.govtech.com/civic/Preparing-for-the-End-of-Net-Neutrality-City-Tech-Leaders-Warn-of-Widening-Digital-Divide.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Public Knowledge has stated that this will have a larger impact on those living in rural areas without internet access.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.publicknowledge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/NNRural_Onepager.pdf|title=Tell Congress to Restore Net Neutrality to Help Close the Rural Digital Divide|website=Public Knowledge|access-date=6 April 2020|archive-date=6 April 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200406195518/https://www.publicknowledge.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/NNRural_Onepager.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> In developing countries like India that don't have reliable electricity or internet connections has only 9 percent of those living in rural areas that have internet access compared to 64 percent of those in urban areas that have access.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/West_Internet-Access.pdf|title=Digital divide: Improving Internet access in the developing world through affordable services and diverse content|last=West|first=Darrell M|date=February 2015|website=Center for Technology at Brookings|access-date=6 April 2020|archive-date=26 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200926125445/https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/West_Internet-Access.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>