View source for Net neutrality

{{short description|Principle that Internet service providers should treat all data equally}}
{{Use American English|date=March 2024}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2020}}

<!-- See talk page before editing the image. This is included per [[WP:CONSENSUS]].-->
[[File:Screenshot-2017-10-28 MEO - Televisão, Internet, Telefone e Telemóvel.png|thumb|right|350px|Portuguese [[Internet service provider]] [[MEO (Portugal)|MEO]] offers smartphone contracts with monthly data limits, and sells additional monthly packages for particular data services.<ref>
From MEO: {{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171214100904/https://www.meo.pt/telemovel/tarifarios/unlimited|title=Pós-Pagos Unlimited|date=December 14, 2017|publisher=MEO|url=https://www.meo.pt/telemovel/tarifarios/unlimited|archive-date=2017-12-14}}</ref> Critics of EU net neutrality rules say loopholes allow data for different services to be sold under [[zero rating]] exceptions to data limits.<ref name=guardianeu>{{cite news|last1=Hern|first1=Alex|title=EU net neutrality laws fatally undermined by loopholes, critics say|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/27/eu-net-neutrality-laws-fatally-undermined-by-loopholes-critics-say|access-date=February 16, 2016|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=October 27, 2015|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160213124554/http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/27/eu-net-neutrality-laws-fatally-undermined-by-loopholes-critics-say|archive-date=February 13, 2016}}</ref> Consumer advocates of net neutrality have cited this pricing model as an illustration of [[Internet access]] with weak net neutrality protection.<ref>This particular image has been the subject of discussion in media including the following:
* {{cite web|last1=Doctorow|first1=Cory|author-link=Cory Doctorow|title=Portuguese non-neutral ISP shows us what our Trumpian internet will look like/Boing Boing|url=https://boingboing.net/2017/10/28/warning-taken-as-suggestion.html|website=[[Boing Boing]]|date=October 28, 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171130022508/https://boingboing.net/2017/10/28/warning-taken-as-suggestion.html|archive-date=November 30, 2017}}
* {{cite web|last1=Coren|first1=Michael J.|title=Without net neutrality in Portugal, mobile internet is bundled like a cable package|url=https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand|website=[[Quartz (publication)|Quartz]]|date=October 30, 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171130053010/https://qz.com/1114690/why-is-net-neutrality-important-look-to-portugal-and-spain-to-understand/|archive-date=November 30, 2017}}
* {{cite web|last1=Bode|first1=Karl|title=Portugal Shows The Internet Why Net Neutrality Is Important|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml|website=[[Techdirt]]|date=October 31, 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201045336/https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20171030/12364538513/portugal-shows-internet-why-net-neutrality-is-important.shtml|archive-date=December 1, 2017}}</ref>
]]{{Net neutrality}}
{{Internet}}

'''Net neutrality''', sometimes referred to as '''network neutrality''', is the principle that [[Internet service provider]]s (ISPs) must treat all Internet communications equally, offering [[User (computing)|users]] and online content providers consistent transfer rates regardless of content, website, [[computing platform|platform]], [[application software|application]], type of equipment, source address, destination address, or method of communication (i.e., without [[price discrimination]]).<ref name=":2032">{{Cite SSRN|title=Easley, R., Guo, H., Krämer, J. – From Net Neutrality to Data Neutrality, Information Systems Research 29(2):253–272|date=8 March 2017 |language=en-US|ssrn = 2666217|last1=Easley |first1=Robert F. |last2=Guo |first2=Hong |last3=Kraemer |first3=Jan }}</ref><ref>{{cite report | first=Angele A. | last=Gilroy | title=Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate | page=1 | publisher=DIANE Publishing | isbn=978-1437984545 | date=11 March 2011}}</ref> Net neutrality was advocated for in the 1990s by the presidential administration of [[Presidency of Bill Clinton|Bill Clinton]] in the United States. Clinton signed of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]], an amendment to the [[Communications Act of 1934]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Statement on Signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 {{!}} The American Presidency Project |url=https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-signing-the-telecommunications-act-1996 |access-date=2024-05-08 |website=www.presidency.ucsb.edu}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Shumate |first1=Brett |last2=Wiley |first2=Richard |date=28 August 2015 |title=Net Neutrality and the Rule of Law |url=https://fedsoc.org/fedsoc-review/net-neutrality-and-the-rule-of-law-1 |website=The Federalist Society}}</ref>{{Better source needed|reason=The current source is insufficiently reliable ([[WP:NOTRS]]).|date=May 2024}} In 2025, an American court ruled that Internet companies should not be regulated like utilities, which weakened net neutrality regulation and put the decision in the hands of the [[United States Congress]] and state legislatures.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Sherman |first1=Natalie |title=Court strikes down US net neutrality rules |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gl417l757o |website=BBC |access-date=3 January 2025}}</ref>

Supporters of net neutrality argue that it prevents ISPs from filtering Internet content without a court order, fosters [[freedom of speech]] and democratic participation, promotes competition and innovation, prevents dubious services, and maintains the [[end-to-end principle]], and that users would be intolerant of slow-loading websites. Opponents argue that it reduces investment, deters competition, increases taxes, imposes unnecessary regulations, prevents the Internet from being accessible to lower income individuals, and prevents Internet traffic from being allocated to the most needed users, that large ISPs already have a performance advantage over smaller providers, and that there is already significant competition among ISPs with few competitive issues.

== Etymology ==
The term was coined by [[Columbia University]] media law professor [[Tim Wu]] in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a [[common carrier]] which was used to describe the role of [[telephone system]]s.<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF|title=Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination|journal=Journal on Telecom and High Tech Law|author=Tim Wu|year=2003|access-date=23 April 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424062409/http://www.jthtl.org/content/articles/V2I1/JTHTLv2i1_Wu.PDF|archive-date=24 April 2014}}</ref><ref name="kraemer-def">{{cite journal|last1=Kramer|first1=J|last2=Wiewiorra|first2=L.|last3=Weinhardt|first3=C.|date=2013|url=http://www.im.uni-karlsruhe.de/Upload/Publications/336c39b3-7a62-4159-bb1a-483f39dd5b24.pdf|title=Net Neutrality: A Progress Report|journal=Telecommunications Policy|volume=37|number=9|pages=794–813|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150301014007/http://www.im.uni-karlsruhe.de/Upload/Publications/336c39b3-7a62-4159-bb1a-483f39dd5b24.pdf|archive-date=1 March 2015|doi=10.1016/j.telpol.2012.08.005|citeseerx=10.1.1.258.5878}}</ref><ref name="berners-lee-def">{{cite web |url=http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 |title=Net Neutrality: This is Serious |access-date=26 December 2008 |last=Berners-Lee |first=Tim |author-link=Tim Berners-Lee |date=21 June 2006 |website=timbl's blog |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081227100511/http://dig.csail.mit.edu/breadcrumbs/node/144 |archive-date=27 December 2008}}</ref><ref name="nn-for-google-users">{{cite web |author=Staff |url= https://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html |title=A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users |access-date=7 December 2008 |website=Google |url-status=dead |archive-date=1 September 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080901084929/https://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html }}</ref>

== Regulatory considerations ==
Net neutrality regulations may be referred to as ''common carrier'' regulations.<ref name="auto2">Jensen, Cory. "Net Neutrality." ''American Governance'', edited by Stephen Schechter, et al., vol. 3, Macmillan Reference USA, 2016, p. 326. ''Gale Virtual Reference Library'', http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/CX3629100443/GVRL?u=mcc_pv&sid=GVRL&xid=4d1b573d. Accessed 16 June 2018.</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hazlett |first1=Thomas W. |last2=Wright |first2=Joshua D. |date=21 December 2016 |title=The Effect of Regulation on Broadband Markets: Evaluating the Empirical Evidence in the FCC's 2015 "Open Internet" Order |url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11151-016-9556-6 |journal=Review of Industrial Organization |language=en |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=487–507 |doi=10.1007/s11151-016-9556-6 |s2cid=157870595 |issn=0889-938X|url-access=subscription |doi-access=free }}</ref> Net neutrality does not block all abilities that ISPs have to impact their customers' services. Opt-in and opt-out services exist on the end user side, and filtering can be done locally, as in the filtering of sensitive material for minors.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions#Web%20sites%20and%20online|title=Complying with COPPA: Frequently Asked Questions|date=20 March 2015|work=Federal Trade Commission|access-date=2018-07-02|language=en|archive-date=3 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203040200/https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/complying-coppa-frequently-asked-questions#Web%20sites%20and%20online|url-status=live}}</ref>

Research suggests that a combination of [[policy instrument]]s can help realize the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the network neutrality debate.<ref name="ReferenceC">{{cite journal|last1=Bauer|first1=Johannes|last2=Obar|first2=Jonathan A.|title=Reconciling political and economic goals in the net neutrality debate|journal=Information Society|date=2014|volume=30|issue=1|pages=1–19|ssrn=2910104|doi=10.1080/01972243.2013.856362|s2cid=17970123}}</ref> Combined with public opinion, this has led some governments to regulate broadband Internet services as a [[public utility]], similar to the way electricity, gas, and the water supply are regulated, along with limiting providers and regulating the options those providers can offer.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html|title=F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility|date=27 February 2015|work=[[The New York Times]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150226212654/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/technology/net-neutrality-fcc-vote-internet-utility.html|archive-date=26 February 2015}}</ref>

Proponents of net neutrality, which include [[computer science]] experts,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moulton |first=Cyrus |date=0505 |title=What is net neutrality? And why it’s vital to the future of the internet, Northeastern computer scientist explains |url=https://news.northeastern.edu/2024/05/14/net-neutrality-internet-past-future/ |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=Northeastern Global News |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=McCrary {{!}} |first=Jamie |date=2018-02-13 |title=Net Neutrality Explained: A Conversation with Gwanhoo Lee |url=https://www.american.edu/kogod/news/kogod-net-neutrality-gwanhoo-lee.cfm |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=American University |language=en}}</ref> internet policy experts,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-02-24 |title=Barbara van Schewick: Net neutrality and the future of the internet {{!}} Stanford University School of Engineering |url=https://engineering.stanford.edu/news/barbara-van-schewick-net-neutrality-and-future-internet |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=engineering.stanford.edu |language=en}}</ref> and several [[Nonprofit organization|non-profit organizations]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Net Neutrality: An Intellectual Freedom Issue {{!}} ALA |url=https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/netneutrality |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=www.ala.org |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Wheeler |first=Tom |date=April 9, 2024 |title=AI makes the fight for net neutrality even more important |url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ai-makes-the-fight-for-net-neutrality-even-more-important/ |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=Brookings |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Net Neutrality |url=https://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Net Neutrality? |url=https://www.aclu.org/what-is-net-neutrality |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=American Civil Liberties Union |language=en-US}}</ref> and Internet content providers,<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-07-12 |title=Net Neutrality Day of Action: Help preserve the open internet |url=https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/net-neutrality-day-action-help-preserve-open-internet/ |access-date=2025-06-09 |website=Google |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Starzak |first=Alissa |date=2017-07-09 |title=Participate in the Net Neutrality Day of Action |url=https://blog.cloudflare.com/net-neutrality-day-of-action/ |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20250421045854/https://blog.cloudflare.com/net-neutrality-day-of-action/ |archive-date=2025-04-21 |access-date=2025-06-09 |work=The Cloudflare Blog |language=en-us}}</ref> assert that net neutrality helps to provide freedom of information exchange, promotes competition and innovation for Internet services, and upholds standardization of Internet data transmission which was essential for its growth.

Opponents of net neutrality, which include ISPs, computer hardware manufacturers, economists, [[wikt:Special:Search/technologist|technologists]] and [[telecommunications equipment manufacturers]], argue that net neutrality requirements would reduce their incentive to build out the Internet and reduce competition in the marketplace, and may raise their operating costs, which they would have to pass along to their users.{{citation needed|date=September 2023}}

==Definition and related principles==
===Internet neutrality===
Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.macworld.com/article/132075/2008/02/netneutrality1.html|title=Inside Net Neutrality: Is your ISP filtering content?|access-date=26 December 2008|last=Honan|first=Matthew|date=12 February 2008|work=MacWorld|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081218093225/http://www.macworld.com/article/132075/2008/02/netneutrality1.html|archive-date=18 December 2008}}</ref> According to [[Columbia Law School]] professor [[Tim Wu]], a public information network will be most useful when this is the case.<ref name="wu-def">{{cite web|url=http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html|title=Network Neutrality FAQ|access-date=26 December 2008|last=Wu|first=Tim|author-link=Tim Wu|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141832/http://timwu.org/network_neutrality.html|archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref>

Internet traffic consists of various types of digital data sent over the Internet between all kinds of devices (e.g., data center servers, personal computers, [[mobile device]]s, [[video game console]]s, etc.), using hundreds of different transfer technologies. The data includes email messages; [[HTML]], [[JSON]], and all related web browser [[MIME]] content types; text, word processing, spreadsheet, database and other academic, business or personal documents in any conceivable format; [[Digital audio|audio]] and [[Digital video|video]] files; [[streaming media]] content; and countless other formal, proprietary, or ad-hoc [[file format|schematic formats]]—all transmitted via myriad [[Communication protocol|transfer protocols]].

Indeed, while the focus is often on the ''type'' of digital content being transferred, network neutrality includes the idea that if all such ''types'' are to be treated equally, then it follows that any ostensibly arbitrary choice of ''protocol''—that is, the technical details of the actual communications transaction itself—must be as well. For example, the same digital video file could be accessed by viewing it live while the data is being received ([[HTTP Live Streaming|HLS]]), interacting with its playback from a remote server ([[Dynamic Adaptive Streaming over HTTP|DASH]]), by receiving it in an email message ([[SMTP]]), or by downloading it from either a website ([[HTTP]]), an [[FTP]] server, or via [[BitTorrent]], among other means. Although all of these use the Internet for transport, and the content received locally is ultimately identical, the interim data traffic is dramatically different depending on which transfer method is used. To proponents of net neutrality, this suggests that prioritizing any one transfer protocol over another is generally unprincipled, or that doing so penalizes the free choices of some users.

In sum, net neutrality is the principle that an ISP be required to provide access to all sites, content, and applications at the same speed, under the same conditions, without blocking or giving preference to any content. Under net neutrality, whether a user connects to Netflix, Wikipedia, YouTube, or a family blog, their ISP must treat them all the same.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thestreet.com/technology/what-is-net-neutrality-14816850|title=What Is Net Neutrality and Why Is it Important?|first=Eric|last=Reed|website=TheStreet|access-date=27 June 2019|archive-date=30 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190530193021/https://www.thestreet.com/technology/what-is-net-neutrality-14816850|url-status=live}}</ref> Without net neutrality, an ISP can influence the quality that each experience offers to end users, which suggests a regime of [[pay-to-play]], where content providers can be charged to improve the exposure of their own products versus those of their competitors.<ref name="auto3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-is-under-attack-heres-why-we-need-to-protect-it/|title=Net neutrality is under threat (again). Here's why you should care|date=18 March 2019|access-date=13 October 2020|archive-date=17 October 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201017131506/https://www.popsci.com/net-neutrality-is-under-attack-heres-why-we-need-to-protect-it/|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Open Internet===
Under an ''open Internet'' system, the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it should be easily accessible to all individuals, companies, and organizations.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/09/15/what-is-the-open-internet-rule|title=What is the Open Internet Rule?|last=Wheeler|first=Tom|date=15 September 2017|website=Brookings|access-date=27 October 2017|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171028201703/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/09/15/what-is-the-open-internet-rule/|archive-date=28 October 2017}}</ref> Applicable concepts include: net neutrality, [[open standard]]s, [[Transparency (telecommunication)|transparency]], lack of [[Internet censorship]], and low [[barriers to entry]]. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of [[Technological decentralization|decentralized technological power]], and is seen by some observers as closely related to [[open-source software]], a type of software program whose maker allows users access to the code that runs the program, so that users can improve the software or fix [[bug (computing)|bugs]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://gigaom.com/2012/03/23/open-vs-closed-what-kind-of-internet-do-we-want|title=Open vs. closed: What kind of internet do we want?|website=GigaOm|author=Ingram, Mathew|date=23 March 2012|access-date=8 June 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140528071158/http://gigaom.com/2012/03/23/open-vs-closed-what-kind-of-internet-do-we-want/|archive-date=28 May 2014}}</ref> Proponents of net neutrality see neutrality as an important component of an ''open Internet'', wherein policies such as equal treatment of data and open [[web standards]] allow those using the Internet to easily communicate, and conduct business and activities without interference from a third party.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/about-open-internet|title=About the Open Internet|website=European Commission|access-date=23 April 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140424065845/http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/about-open-internet|archive-date=24 April 2014}}</ref>

In contrast, a ''closed Internet'' refers to the opposite situation, wherein established persons, corporations, or governments favor certain uses, restrict access to necessary [[web standards]], [[Traffic shaping|artificially degrade]] some services, or explicitly [[Internet censorship|filter out content]]. Some countries such as [[Thailand]] block certain websites or types of sites, and monitor and/or censor Internet use using [[Internet police]], a specialized type of [[law enforcement]], or [[secret police]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml|title=Website Censorship in Thailand – 2008–2011 {{!}} 2Bangkok.com|last=admin|website=2bangkok.com|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-14|archive-date=27 June 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060627183638/http://www.2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref> Other countries such as Russia,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/russia|title=Russia|date=10 November 2016|website=freedomhouse.org|language=en|access-date=2019-03-22|archive-date=24 January 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200124081915/https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/2016/russia|url-status=dead}}</ref> China,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm|title="Race to the Bottom": Corporate Complicity in Chinese Internet Censorship: II. How Censorship Works in China: A Brief Overview|website=www.hrw.org|access-date=2019-03-22|archive-date=22 April 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150422063645/http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/china0806/3.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> and [[North Korea]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.chogabje.com/board/view.asp?C_IDX=59852&C_CC=AZ|title=국경없는 기자회 '북한 언론자유 세계 최악 수준'|website=www.chogabje.com|access-date=2019-03-22|archive-date=25 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225201734/http://www.chogabje.com/board/view.asp?C_IDX=59852&C_CC=AZ|url-status=live}}</ref> also use similar tactics to Thailand to control the variety of Internet media within their respective countries. In comparison to the United States or Canada for example, these countries have far more restrictive Internet service providers. This approach is reminiscent of a [[closed platform]] system, as both ideas are highly similar.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tåg|first=Joacim|date=April 2008|title=Open Versus Closed Platforms|url=https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f672/bc06ea9b47994a0677f8eaa088a86699b525.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190322010231/https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f672/bc06ea9b47994a0677f8eaa088a86699b525.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=2019-03-22|journal=Open Versus Closed Platforms|volume=209|pages=18|s2cid=33240943}}</ref> These systems all serve to hinder access to a wide variety of Internet service, which is a stark contrast to the idea of an open Internet system.

===Dumb pipe===
The term ''[[dumb pipe]]'' was coined in the early 1990s and refers to water pipes used in a city water supply system. In theory, these pipes provide a steady and reliable source of water to every household without discrimination. In other words, it connects the user with the source without any intelligence or decrement. Similarly, a ''dumb network'' is a network with little or no control or management of its use patterns.<ref>L.DE MUYTER, Y. DESMEDT, "Net Neutrality-from Catch-all to Catch-22" (2012) in A. STROWEL, Net Neutrality in Europe/ La neutralité de l'InternetInternet en Europe, Bruylant, Brussels, 2013, p.57</ref>

Experts in the [[High tech|high-technology field]] will often compare the dumb pipe concept with [[smart pipe]]s and debate which one is best applied to a certain portion of Internet policy. These conversations usually refer to these two concepts as being analogous to the concepts of open and closed Internet respectively. As such, certain models have been made that aim to outline four layers of the Internet with the understanding of the dumb pipe theory:<ref name="Thierer">Thierer, Adam. (2006) Are "Dumb Pipe" Mandates Smart Public Policy? Vertical Integration, Net Neutrality, and the Network Layers Model. In: Lenard T.M., May R.J. (eds) Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Internet Services be Regulated. Springer, Boston, MA</ref>
* Content Layer: Contains services such as communication as well as entertainment videos and music.
* Applications Layer: Contains services such as e-mail and web browsers.
* Logical Layer (also called the Code Layer): Contains various Internet protocols such as [[TCP/IP]] and [[HTTP]].
* Physical Layer: Consists of services that provide all others such as cable or wireless connections.

===End-to-end principle===
The [[end-to-end principle]] of [[network design]] was first laid out in the 1981 paper ''End-to-end arguments in system design'' by [[Jerome H. Saltzer]], [[David P. Reed]], and [[David D. Clark]].<ref name="SRC1981">Saltzer, J. H., D. P. Reed, and D. D. Clark (1981) "End-to-End Arguments in System Design". In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems. Paris, France. 8–10 April 1981. IEEE Computer Society, pp. 509–512.</ref> The principle states that, whenever possible, [[communications protocol]] operations should be defined to occur at the end-points of a communications system, or as close as possible to the resources being controlled. According to the end-to-end principle, protocol features are only justified in the lower layers of a system if they are a performance optimization; hence, [[Transmission Control Protocol|TCP]] retransmission for reliability is still justified, but efforts to improve TCP reliability should stop after peak performance has been reached.

They argued that, in addition to any processing in the intermediate systems, reliable systems tend to require processing in the end-points to operate correctly. They pointed out that most features in the lowest level of a communications system impose costs for all higher-layer clients, even if those clients do not need the features, and are redundant if the clients have to re-implement the features on an end-to-end basis. This leads to the model of a minimal [[dumb network]] with smart terminals, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with [[dumb terminal]]s. Because the end-to-end principle is one of the central design principles of the Internet, and because the practical means for implementing data discrimination violate the end-to-end principle, the principle often enters discussions about net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is closely related and sometimes seen as a direct precursor to the principle of net neutrality.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/the-best-writing-on-net-neutrality/361237/ |title=Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History of) a Contested Idea |work=[[The Atlantic]] |author1=Alexis C. Madrigal |author2=Adrienne LaFrance |name-list-style=amp |date=25 April 2014 |access-date=5 June 2014 |quote=This idea of net neutrality...[Lawrence Lessig] used to call the principle e2e, for end to end |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140531073108/http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/04/the-best-writing-on-net-neutrality/361237/ |archive-date=31 May 2014}}</ref>

===Traffic shaping===
[[Traffic shaping]] is the control of [[computer network]] traffic to optimize or guarantee performance, improve [[Network latency|latency]] (i.e., decrease Internet response times), or increase usable [[Bandwidth (computing)|bandwidth]] by delaying [[Packet (information technology)|packets]] that meet certain criteria.<ref>[[:rfc:2475#section-2.3.3.3|IETF RFC 2475]] "An Architecture for Differentiated Services" section 2.3.3.3 – definition of "Shaper"</ref> In practice, traffic shaping is often accomplished by [[Bandwidth throttling|throttling]] certain types of data, such as [[streaming video]] or [[peer-to-peer file sharing|P2P]] file sharing. More specifically, traffic shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a flow) that imposes additional delay on those packets such that they conform to some predetermined constraint (a contract or traffic profile).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-I.371-200403-I/en |title=ITU-T I.371: Traffic control and congestion control in B-ISDN |author=tsbmail |access-date=14 September 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141220063807/http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-I.371-200403-I/en |archive-date=20 December 2014}}</ref> Traffic shaping provides a means to control the volume of traffic being sent into a [[computer network|network]] in a specified period ([[bandwidth throttling]]), or the maximum rate at which the traffic is sent ([[rate limiting]]), or more complex criteria such as [[generic cell rate algorithm]].

===Over-provisioning===
If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter at the edges, then good quality of service (QoS) can be obtained without policing or throttling. For example, telephone networks employ admission control to limit user demand on the network core by refusing to create a circuit for the requested connection. During a [[natural disaster]], for example, most users will get a [[circuit busy]] signal if they try to make a call, as the phone company prioritizes emergency calls. Over-provisioning is a form of [[statistical multiplexing]] that makes liberal estimates of [[Peak demand|peak user demand]]. Over-provisioning is used in private networks such as [[WebEx]] and the [[Abilene Network|Internet 2 Abilene Network]], an American university network. David Isenberg believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less expense than QoS and [[deep packet inspection]] technologies.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://isen.com/blog/2007/07/research-on-costs-of-net-neutrality.html |title=Research on Costs of Net Neutrality |access-date=26 December 2008 |last=Isenberg |first=David |date=2 July 2007 |website=isen.com |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216143441/http://isen.com/blog/2007/07/research-on-costs-of-net-neutrality.html |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packet-inspection-meets-net-neutrality.ars/3 |title=Deep packet inspection meets 'Net neutrality, CALEA |access-date=26 December 2008 |last=Anderson |first=Nate |date=25 July 2007 |work=Ars Technica |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216142243/http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/Deep-packet-inspection-meets-net-neutrality.ars/3 |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref>

===Device neutrality===
[[Device neutrality]] is the principle that to ensure freedom of choice and freedom of communication for users of network-connected devices, it is not sufficient that network operators do not interfere with their choices and activities; users must be free to use applications of their choice and hence remove the applications they do not want. Device vendors can establish policies for managing applications, but they, too, must be applied neutrally.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

An unsuccessful bill to enforce network and device neutrality was introduced in Italy in 2015 by [[Stefano Quintarelli]].<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.hermescenter.org/net-neutrality-device-neutrality/ |title=After Net Neutrality, Device Neutrality |access-date=20 March 2018 |date=4 December 2017 |website=hermescenter.org |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180102212402/https://www.hermescenter.org/net-neutrality-device-neutrality/ |archive-date=2 January 2018 }}</ref> The law gained formal support at the European Commission<ref>{{cite web |date=25 January 2018 |title=Draft law laying down measures concerning the provision of Internet services for the protection of competition and freedom of access for users (under 'Contributions') |url=http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2017&num=498#contrib |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180320230706/http://ec.europa.eu/growth/tools-databases/tris/en/search/?trisaction=search.detail&year=2017&num=498#contrib |archive-date=20 March 2018 |access-date=20 March 2018 |website=ec.europa.eu}}</ref> from BEUC, the [[European Consumer Organisation]], the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] and the [[Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights]].{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}} A similar law was enacted in South Korea.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.kimchang.com/frame2.jsp?lang=2&b_id=88&m_id=81&mode=view&idx=17195 |title=Amended Enforcement Decree of the Telecommunications Business Act Now Effective |access-date=20 March 2018 |date=20 July 2017 |website=kimchang.com |archive-date=21 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180321130314/http://www.kimchang.com/frame2.jsp?lang=2&b_id=88&m_id=81&mode=view&idx=17195 |url-status=live }}</ref> Similar principles were proposed in China.<ref>{{cite web
 |url=http://www.kwm.com/en/cn/knowledge/insights/chinas-m-i-i-t-to-expand-oversight-over-mobile-phone-apps-20160108
 |title=China's M.I.I.T. Proposes Broad Regulatory Oversight over Pre-Installed Mobile Phone/Device Applications
 |access-date=5 May 2018
|website=kwm.com
 |archive-date=5 May 2018
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180505134743/http://www.kwm.com/en/cn/knowledge/insights/chinas-m-i-i-t-to-expand-oversight-over-mobile-phone-apps-20160108
 |url-status=live
 }}</ref> The French telecoms regulator ARCEP has called for the introduction of device neutrality in Europe.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/regulator-slams-devices-as-weak-link-for-net-neutrality/ |title=Regulator slams devices as weak link for net neutrality |access-date=20 March 2018 |date=16 February 2018 |website=mobileworldlive.com |archive-date=21 March 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180321063219/https://www.mobileworldlive.com/featured-content/top-three/regulator-slams-devices-as-weak-link-for-net-neutrality/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

The principle has been incorporated in the EU's [[Digital Markets Act]] (Articles 6.3 an 6.4)<ref>{{Cite web |title=L_2022265EN.01000101.xml |url=https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32022R1925 |access-date=2023-12-12 |website=eur-lex.europa.eu}}</ref>{{Primary source inline|date=May 2024}}

=== Invoicing and tariffs ===
ISPs can choose a balance between a base subscription tariff (monthly bundle) and a pay-per-use (pay by MB metering). The ISP sets an upper monthly threshold on data usage, just to be able to provide an equal share among customers, and a fair use guarantee. This is generally not considered to be an intrusion but rather allows for a commercial positioning among ISPs.{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

=== Alternative networks ===
Some networks like [[public Wi-Fi]] can take traffic away from conventional [[Telecommunications network|fixed]] or [[mobile network]] providers. This can significantly change the end-to-end behavior (performance, tariffs).{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}}

==Issues==
===Discrimination by protocol===
Discrimination by protocol is the favoring or blocking of information based on aspects of the [[communications protocol]] that the computers are using.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/technology/02fcc.html?_r=1|title=F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage|work=[[The New York Times]]|first=Saul|last=Hansell|date=2 August 2008|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170919212820/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/technology/02fcc.html?_r=1|archive-date=19 September 2017}}</ref> In the US, a complaint was filed with the [[Federal Communications Commission]] against the cable provider [[Comcast]] alleging they had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using the popular file-sharing software [[BitTorrent]].<ref>{{cite news|work=Center for Internet and Society|url=https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|title=Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051141/http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|archive-date=4 March 2016|access-date=27 June 2016}}</ref> Comcast admitted no wrongdoing<ref>{{cite news|author=Duncan, Geoff|title=Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications|url=http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/comcast-to-pay-16-million-for-blocking-p2p-applications/|date=23 December 2009|work=Digital Trends|access-date=23 December 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091225191525/http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/comcast-to-pay-16-million-for-blocking-p2p-applications/|archive-date=25 December 2009}}</ref> in its proposed settlement of up to {{USD|16}} per share in December 2009.<ref>{{cite news|author=Cheng, Jacqui|title=Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement.ars|date=22 December 2009|publisher=Condé Nast|work=Ars Technica|access-date=23 December 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100102030632/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement.ars|archive-date=2 January 2010}}</ref> However, a U.S. appeals court ruled in April 2010 that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008. However, the FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard responded, "The court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303411604575167782845712768|title=Court Backs Comcast Over FCC|author=Amy Schatz|date=7 April 2010|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312150343/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303411604575167782845712768/|archive-date=12 March 2017}}</ref> Despite the ruling in favor of Comcast, a study by ''Measurement Lab'' in October 2011 verified that Comcast had virtually stopped its BitTorrent throttling practices.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/2011/10/bittorrent-throttling-comcast/|title=Comcast No Longer Choking File Sharers' Connections, Study Says|magazine=WIRED|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427100906/https://www.wired.com/2011/10/bittorrent-throttling-comcast/|archive-date=27 April 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-throttling-internet-providers-exposed-111020/|title=BitTorrent Throttling Internet Providers Exposed|work=TorrentFreak|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170808193441/https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-throttling-internet-providers-exposed-111020/|archive-date=8 August 2017}}</ref>

===Discrimination by Internet Protocol (IP) address===
{{See also|IP address blocking}}

During the 1990s, creating a non-neutral Internet was technically infeasible.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|title=Deep Packet Inspection: The end of the Internet as we know it?|website=Center for Internet and Society|author1=M. Chris Riley|author2=Ben Scott, Free Press|name-list-style=amp|date=Mar 2009|access-date=29 May 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140909081342/http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|archive-date=9 September 2014}}</ref> Originally developed to filter harmful [[malware]], the Internet security company [[NetScreen Technologies]] released network [[firewall (computing)|firewalls]] in 2003 with so-called [[deep packet inspection]] capabilities. Deep packet inspection helped make real-time discrimination between different kinds of data possible,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.networkworld.com/news/2003/1020netscannou.html|title=NetScreen announces deep inspection firewall|work=Network World|author=Paul Roberts, IDG News Service|date=20 October 2003|access-date=29 May 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081207184318/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2003/1020netscannou.html|archive-date=7 December 2008}}</ref> and is often used for [[Internet censorship]]. 

One criticism regarding discrimination is that the system set up by ISPs for this purpose is capable of not only discriminating but also scrutinizing the full-packet content of communications. For instance, deep packet inspection technology installs intelligence within the lower layers of the network to discover and identify the source, type, and destination of packets, revealing information about packets traveling in the physical infrastructure so it can dictate the quality of transport such packets will receive.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Handbook of Research on Telecommunications Planning and Management for Business|url=https://archive.org/details/handbookresearch00leei_023|url-access=limited|last=Lee|first=In|publisher=Information Science Reference|year=2009|isbn=9781605661940|location=Hershey, PA|pages=[https://archive.org/details/handbookresearch00leei_023/page/n189 135]}}</ref> This is seen as an architecture of [[surveillance]], one that can be shared with [[intelligence agencies]], copyrighted content owners, and civil litigants, exposing the users' secrets in the process.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Law, Policy, and Technology: Cyberterrorism, Information Warfare, and Internet Immobilization: Cyberterrorism, Information Warfare, and Internet Immobilization|last1=Reich|first1=Pauline|last2=Gelbstein|first2=Eduardo|publisher=IGI Global|year=2012|isbn=9781615208319|location=Hershey, PA|pages=229}}</ref>

In a practice called [[zero-rating]], companies will not invoice data use related to certain IP addresses, favoring the use of those services. Examples include [[Facebook Zero]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/t-mobile-prepaid-free-facebook/|title=T-Mobile prepaid offering free data... but only to access Facebook|website=Engadget|author=Ben Gilbert|date=23 December 2013|access-date=18 November 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129023841/http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/t-mobile-prepaid-free-facebook/|archive-date=29 November 2014}}</ref> [[Wikipedia Zero]], and [[Google Free Zone]]. These zero-rating practices are especially common in the [[developing world]].<ref>{{cite web|website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/21/net_neutrality_internet_access_is_already_in_trouble_in_the_developing_world.html|title=Net Neutrality Is Already in Trouble in the Developing World|author=Hay Newman, Lily|date=21 January 2014|access-date=18 November 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141116134940/http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/21/net_neutrality_internet_access_is_already_in_trouble_in_the_developing_world.html|archive-date=16 November 2014}}</ref> Aside from the zero-rating method, ISPs will also use certain strategies to reduce the costs of pricing plans such as the use of sponsored data. In a scenario where a sponsored data plan is used, a third party will step in and pay for all the content that it (or the carrier or consumer) does not want around. This is generally used as a way for ISPs to remove [[out-of-pocket]] costs from subscribers.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/j.telpol.2016.10.002 | volume=41 | title=Grey nuances in the black and white debate over subsidized Internet access | year=2017 | journal=Telecommunications Policy | pages=1017–1026 | last1 = Frieden | first1 = Rob| issue=10 | s2cid=157404487 }}</ref>

Sometimes ISPs will charge some companies, but not others, for the traffic they cause on the ISP's network. French telecom operator Orange, complaining that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites consist of roughly 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, made a deal with Google, in which they charge Google for the traffic incurred on the Orange network.<ref>{{cite web |last=Robertson |first=Adi |url=https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/19/3894182/french-isp-orange-says-google-pays-to-send-traffic |title=French ISP Orange says it's making Google pay to send traffic over its network |website=[[The Verge]] |date=19 January 2013 |access-date=14 January 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116074203/http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/19/3894182/french-isp-orange-says-google-pays-to-send-traffic |archive-date=16 January 2014}}</ref> Some also thought that Orange's rival ISP [[Free (ISP)|Free]] throttled YouTube traffic. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=1&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Buid%5D=1619&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bannee%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Btheme%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bmotscle%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5BbackID%5D=26&cHash=8d42d6993c018a12924d83cf72e3bd36|website=arcep.fr|title=ARCEP closes the administrative inquiry involving several companies, including Free and Google, on the technical and financial terms governing IP traffic routing.|date=19 July 2013|access-date=18 January 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201162548/http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=1&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Buid%5D=1619&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bannee%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Btheme%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bmotscle%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5BbackID%5D=26&cHash=8d42d6993c018a12924d83cf72e3bd36|archive-date=1 February 2014}}</ref>

===Favoring private networks===
Proponents of net neutrality argue that without new regulations, Internet service providers would be able to profit from and favor their own private networks and that ISPs would be able to pick and choose who they offer a greater bandwidth to. If one website or company is able to afford more, they will go with them. This especially stifles private up-and-coming businesses.

ISPs are able to encourage the use of specific services by using private networks to discriminate what data is counted against bandwidth caps. For example, Comcast struck a deal with Microsoft that allowed users to stream television through the Xfinity app on their [[Xbox 360]]s without it affecting their bandwidth limit. However, using other television [[streaming]] apps, such as [[Netflix]], [[HBO Go]], and [[Hulu]], counted towards the limit. Comcast denied that this infringed on net neutrality principles since "it runs its Xfinity for Xbox service on its own, private Internet protocol network."<ref>{{cite news|url= http://fortune.com/2012/05/16/is-comcast-violating-net-neutrality-rules/|author= Mitchell, Dan|title= Is Comcast violating net-neutrality rules?|work=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]|date= May 2012|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151115140002/http://fortune.com/2012/05/16/is-comcast-violating-net-neutrality-rules/|archive-date= 15 November 2015}}</ref> In 2009, when [[AT&T]] was bundling [[iPhone 3G]] with its 3G network service, the company placed restrictions on which iPhone applications could run on its network.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=PRASAD|first1=ROHIT|last2=SRIDHAR|first2=V|date=2014|title=The Economics of Net Neutrality|journal=Economic and Political Weekly|volume=49|issue=16|pages=52–58|jstor=24480155|issn=0012-9976}}</ref> 

According to net neutrality proponents, this capitalization on which content producers ISPs can favor would ultimately lead to fragmentation, where some ISPs would have certain content that is not necessarily present in the networks offered by other ISPs. The danger behind fragmentation, as viewed by proponents of net neutrality, is the concept that there could be ''multiple Internets'', where some ISPs offer exclusive Internet applications or services or make it more difficult to gain access to Internet content that may be more easily viewable through other Internet service providers. An example of a fragmented service would be television, where some cable providers offer exclusive media from certain content providers.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last1=Lee|first1=Robin S|last2=Wu|first2=Tim|date=1 August 2009|title=Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|volume=23|issue=3|pages=61–76|doi=10.1257/jep.23.3.61|issn=0895-3309|url=https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1601|access-date=26 August 2020|archive-date=20 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200920075859/https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1601/|url-status=live|doi-access=free}}</ref> 

However, in theory, allowing ISPs to favor certain content and private networks would overall improve Internet services since they would be able to recognize packets of information that are more time-sensitive and prioritize that over packets that are not as sensitive to latency. The issue, as explained by Robin S. Lee and Tim Wu, is that there are literally too many ISPs and Internet content providers around the world to reach an agreement on how to standardize that prioritization. A proposed solution would be to allow all online content to be accessed and transferred freely, while simultaneously offering a ''fast lane'' for a preferred service that does not discriminate on the content provider.<ref name=":02" />

===Peering discrimination===
There is disagreement about whether [[peering]] is a net neutrality issue.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-24/netflixs-deal-with-comcast-isnt-about-net-neutrality-except-that-it-is|title=Netflix's Deal With Comcast Isn't About Net Neutrality—Except That It Is|publisher=[[Bloomberg News|Bloomberg]]|author=Joshua Brustein|date=24 February 2014|access-date=18 November 2014|work=BusinessWeek|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140915030202/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-24/netflixs-deal-with-comcast-isnt-about-net-neutrality-except-that-it-is|archive-date=15 September 2014}}</ref> In the first quarter of 2014, streaming website Netflix reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its service to Netflix clients with a peering agreement whereby Netflix delivered data directly to the Comcast network.<ref>{{cite news|author=Waniata, Ryan|url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/comcast-jumps-netflix-speed-rankings-payola-style-agreement|title=Comcast Jumps up in Netflix Speed Rankings after Payola-style Agreement|work=Digital Trends|date=14 April 2014|access-date=1 February 2023|archive-date=1 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230201031744/https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/comcast-jumps-netflix-speed-rankings-payola-style-agreement/|url-status=live}}</ref> This arrangement was made in response to increasingly slow connection speeds through Comcast over the course of 2013, where average speeds dropped by over 25% of their values a year before to an all-time low. After the deal was struck in January 2014, the Netflix speed index recorded a 66% increase. Netflix agreed to a similar deal with [[Verizon]] in 2014, after Verizon [[DSL]] customers' connection speed dropped to less than 1&nbsp;Mbit/s early in the year. Netflix spoke out against this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds, using the Netflix client.<ref>{{cite news|author=Waniata, Ryan|url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/netflix-calls-verizon-right-big-red-screen|title=Netflix Calls Verizon out on the Big Red Screen [Update: Netflix Backs Off]|work=Digital Trends|date=9 June 2014|access-date=1 February 2023|archive-date=1 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230201031743/https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/netflix-calls-verizon-right-big-red-screen/|url-status=live}}</ref> This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that led to Verizon's obtaining a [[cease and desist]] order on 5 June 2014, that forced Netflix to stop displaying this message.<!--[[User:Kvng/RTH]]-->

===Favoring fast-loading websites===
Pro-net neutrality arguments have also noted that regulations are necessary due to research showing low tolerance to slow-loading content providers. In a 2009 research study conducted by Forrester Research, online shoppers expected the web pages they visited to download content instantly.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/technology/impatient-web-users-flee-slow-loading-sites.html|title=Impatient Web Users Flee Slow-Loading Sites|last=Lohr|first=Steve|date=29 February 2012|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2017-03-04|issn=0362-4331|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304193720/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/technology/impatient-web-users-flee-slow-loading-sites.html|archive-date=4 March 2017}}</ref> When a page fails to load at the expected speed, many of them simply click out. A study found that even a one-second delay could lead to "11% fewer page views, a 16% decrease in customer satisfaction, and 7% loss in conversions."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2012/12/04/fast-sites/#14be9e3353cf|title=Don't Let a Slow Website Kill Your Bottom Line|last=Dooley|first=Roger|work=[[Forbes]]|access-date=2017-03-04|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304195437/https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2012/12/04/fast-sites/#14be9e3353cf|archive-date=4 March 2017}}</ref> This delay can cause a severe problem to small innovators who have created new technology. If a website is slow by default, the general public will lose interest and favor a website that runs faster. This helps large corporate companies maintain power because they have the means to fund faster Internet speeds.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality|title=Net Neutrality|last=Feld|first=Harold|date=14 December 2017|website=Public Knowledge|access-date=2018-05-23|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714011143/https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality|url-status=live}}</ref> On the other hand, smaller competitors have less financial capabilities making it harder for them to succeed in the online world.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.inverse.com/article/38735-net-neutrality-timeline-fcc-meeting|title=Net Neutrality Timeline: 10 Events That Led to Dec. 14|last=Leskin|first=P.|date=27 November 2017|website=Inverse|access-date=2018-05-15|archive-date=29 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929000438/https://www.inverse.com/article/38735-net-neutrality-timeline-fcc-meeting|url-status=live}}</ref>

==Legal aspects==
{{Main|Net neutrality law}}
Legal enforcement of net neutrality principles takes a variety of forms, from provisions that outlaw anti-competitive blocking and ''throttling'' of Internet services, all the way to legal enforcement that prevents companies from subsidizing Internet use on particular sites.<ref name="NYT-20150410">{{cite news |author=The Editorial Board |title=Editorial – Global Threats to Net Neutrality |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/opinion/global-threats-to-net-neutrality.html |date=10 April 2015 |work=[[The New York Times]] |access-date=10 April 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150411011236/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/opinion/global-threats-to-net-neutrality.html |archive-date=11 April 2015}}</ref> Contrary to popular rhetoric and statements by various individuals involved in the ongoing academic debate, research suggests that a single policy instrument (such as a no-blocking policy or a quality of service tiering policy) cannot achieve the range of valued political and economic objectives central to the debate.<ref name="ReferenceC"/> As Bauer and Obar suggest, "safeguarding multiple goals requires a combination of instruments that will likely involve government and nongovernment measures. Furthermore, promoting [rights and] goals such as the [[freedom of speech]], political participation, investment, and innovation calls for complementary policies."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bauer |first1=Johannes |last2=Obar |first2=Jonathan A. |title=Reconciling political and economic goals in the net neutrality debate |journal=Information Policy |date=2014 |volume=30 |issue=1 |page=1 |ssrn=2910104 |doi=10.1080/01972243.2013.856362|s2cid=17970123 }}</ref>

==By country==
{{Main|Net neutrality by country}}
Net neutrality is administered on a national or regional basis, though much of the world's focus has been on the conflict over [[net neutrality in the United States]]. Net neutrality in the US has been a topic since the early 1990s, as they were one of the world leaders in providing online services. However, they face the same problems as the rest of the world.

In 2019, the Save the Internet Act to "guarantee broadband internet users equal access to online content" was passed by the US House of Representatives<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kang |first=Cecilia |date=10 April 2019 |title=Net Neutrality Vote Passes House, Fulfilling Promise by Democrats |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/technology/net-neutrality-vote.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201023010105/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/technology/net-neutrality-vote.html |archive-date=23 October 2020 |access-date=19 October 2020 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> but not by the US Senate. Finding an appropriate solution by creating more regulations for ISPs has been a major work in progress. Net neutrality rules were repealed in the US in 2017 during the Trump administration and subsequent appeals upheld the ruling,<ref>{{Cite news |last=Shepardson |first=David |date=27 October 2020 |title=U.S. FCC votes to maintain 2017 repeal of net neutrality rules |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/u-s-fcc-votes-to-maintain-2017-repeal-of-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKBN27C2EO |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211029175702/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/u-s-fcc-votes-to-maintain-2017-repeal-of-net-neutrality-rules-idUSKBN27C2EO |archive-date=29 October 2021 |access-date=12 October 2021 |newspaper=[[Reuters]]}}</ref> until the FCC voted to reinstate them in 2024.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kang |first=Cecilia |date=25 April 2024 |title=F.C.C. Votes to Restore Net Neutrality Rules |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-open-internet.html |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240425175315/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-open-internet.html |archive-date=25 April 2024 |access-date=25 April 2024 |newspaper=[[The New York Times]] }}</ref> In 2025, on January 2nd, however, "a US appeals court on Thursday ruled the Federal Communications Commission did not have the legal authority to reinstate landmark net neutrality rules."<ref>{{Cite news |author=<!-- not stated --> |agency=[[Reuters]] |work=[[New York Post]] |date=2 January 2025 |title=Biden admin net neutrality rules blocked by appeals court |url=https://nypost.com/2025/01/02/business/biden-admin-net-neutrality-rules-blocked-by-appeals-court/ |access-date=2 January 2025 |language=en-US}}</ref>

Governments of countries that comment on net neutrality usually support the concept.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Garrett |first1=Thiago |last2=Setenareski |first2=Ligia E. |last3=Peres |first3=Leticia M. |last4=Bona |first4=Luis C. E. |last5=Duarte Jr |first5=Elias P. |title=A survey of Network Neutrality regulations worldwide |journal=Computer Law & Security Review |date=1 April 2022 |volume=44 |pages=105654 |doi=10.1016/j.clsr.2022.105654|s2cid=246619255 |doi-access=free |hdl=10852/101635 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>

===United States===
{{Main|Net neutrality in the United States}}
Net neutrality in the United States has been a point of conflict between network users and service providers since the 1990s. Much of the conflict over net neutrality arises from how Internet services are classified by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the authority of the [[Communications Act of 1934]]. The FCC would have significant ability to regulate ISPs should Internet services be treated as a Title II "[[common carrier]] service", or otherwise the ISPs would be mostly unrestricted by the FCC if Internet services fell under Title I "information services". In 2009, the United States Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, which granted a stimulus of $2.88&nbsp;billion for extending broadband services into certain areas of the United States. It was intended to make the internet more accessible for under-served areas, and aspects of net neutrality and open access were written into the grant. However, the bill never set any significant precedents for net neutrality or influenced future legislation relating to net neutrality.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Daniels|first=Lesley-Ann|date=8 April 2016|title=Tras el velo del antiterrorismo|journal=Revista CIDOB d'Afers Internacionals|issue=112|pages=255–257|doi=10.24241/rcai.2016.112.1.255|issn=1133-6595|doi-access=free}}</ref> Until 2017, the FCC had generally been favorable towards net neutrality, treating ISPs under Title II common carrier. With the onset of the [[First presidency of Donald Trump|Presidency of Donald Trump]] in 2017, and the appointment of [[Ajit Pai]], an opponent of net neutrality, to the chairman of the FCC, the FCC has reversed many previous net neutrality rulings and reclassified Internet services as Title I information services.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/u-s-net-neutrality-rules-will-end-on-june-11-fcc-idUSKBN1IB1UN|title=U.S. 'net neutrality' rules will expire on June 11: FCC|first=David|last=Shepardson|work=[[Reuters]]|date=10 May 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=9 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180809184255/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet/u-s-net-neutrality-rules-will-end-on-june-11-fcc-idUSKBN1IB1UN|url-status=live}}</ref> The FCC's decisions have been a matter of several ongoing legal challenges by both states supporting net neutrality, and ISPs challenging it. The United States Congress has attempted to pass legislation supporting net neutrality but has failed to gain sufficient support. In 2018, a bill cleared the U.S. Senate, with Republicans [[Lisa Murkowski]], [[John Kennedy (Louisiana politician)|John Kennedy]], and [[Susan Collins]] joining all 49 Democrats but the House majority denied the bill a hearing.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wired.com/story/senate-approves-measure-to-save-net-neutrality/|title=Senate votes to save net neutrality but hurdles remain|last1=Finley|first1=Klint|date=6 May 2018|access-date=2 June 2019|work=Wired.com|archive-date=3 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190603155855/https://www.wired.com/story/senate-approves-measure-to-save-net-neutrality/|url-status=live}}</ref> Individual states have been trying to pass legislation to make net neutrality a requirement within their state, overriding the FCC's decision. California has successfully passed its own [[California Internet Consumer Protection and Net Neutrality Act of 2018|net neutrality act]], which the United States Department of Justice challenged on a legal basis.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/technology/net-neutrality-california.html|title=Justice Department Sues to Stop California Net Neutrality Law|last1=Kang|first1=Cecilia|date=30 September 2018|access-date=25 June 2019|work=[[The New York Times]]|archive-date=25 July 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190725142758/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/technology/net-neutrality-california.html|url-status=live}}</ref> On 8 February 2021, the U.S. Justice Department withdrew its challenge to California's data protection law. Federal Communications Commission Acting Chairwoman [[Jessica Rosenworcel]] voiced support for an open Internet and restoring net neutrality.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Veigle|first=Anne|date=8 February 2021|title=Statement from the Federal Communication Commission|url=https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-369799A1.pdf|website=FCC.gov|access-date=12 February 2021|archive-date=8 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210208205500/https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-369799A1.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> Vermont, Colorado, and Washington, among other states, have also enacted net neutrality. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ballotpedia.org/Net_neutrality_responses_by_state|title=Net neutrality responses by state|website=Ballotpedia}}</ref>

On 19 October 2023, the FCC voted 3–2 to approve a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that seeks comments on a plan to restore net neutrality rules and regulation of Internet service providers.<ref name="fcc-oct-2023">{{cite news |last1=Brodkin |first1=John |title=FCC moves ahead with Title II net neutrality rules in 3-2 party-line vote |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/10/fcc-moves-ahead-with-title-ii-net-neutrality-rules-in-3-2-party-line-vote/ |access-date=19 October 2023 |work=Ars Technica |date=19 October 2023}}</ref> On 25 April 2024, the FCC voted 3–2 to reinstate net neutrality in the United States by reclassifying the Internet under Title II.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Kang |first=Cecilia |date=25 April 2024 |title=F.C.C. Votes to Restore Net Neutrality Rules |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/25/technology/fcc-net-neutrality-open-internet.html |access-date=2024-04-25 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Fung |first1=Brian |title=Net neutrality is back as FCC votes to regulate internet providers |work=CNN |publisher=CNN |date=25 April 2024 |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/25/tech/net-neutrality-is-back/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240712180127/https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/25/tech/net-neutrality-is-back/index.html |archive-date=12 July 2024}}</ref> However, legal challenges immediately filed by ISPs resulted in an appeals court issuing an order that stays the net neutrality rules until the court makes a final ruling, while issuing the opinion that the ISPs will likely prevail over the FCC on the merits.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brodkin |first=Jon |date=2024-08-05 |title=Court blocks net neutrality, says ISPs are likely to win case against FCC |url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/08/fcc-suffers-major-setback-in-attempt-to-defend-net-neutrality-rules/ |access-date=2024-10-23 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-US}}</ref>

On 2 January 2025, net neutrality rules, which disallow broadband providers from selectively interfering with Internet speeds depending on the accessed resource, were struck down by [[United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit|US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit]] in ''MCP No. 185''.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bowman |first=Emma |date=2025-01-03 |title=Net neutrality is struck, ending a long battle to regulate ISPs like public utilities |url=https://www.npr.org/2025/01/03/nx-s1-5247840/net-neutrality-fcc-struck |access-date=2025-04-15 |work=NPR |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=In re MCP No. 185: FCC, No. 24-7000 (6th Cir. 2025) |url=https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/24-7000/24-7000-2025-01-02.html |access-date=2025-04-16 |website=Justia Law |language=en}}</ref>

Federal law shows that broadband must be classified as an "information service" and not the more heavily-regulated "telecommunications service" the FCC said it was when it adopted the rules in April 2024, a three-judge panel for the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled. The FCC lacked the authority to impose its rules on the broadband providers, the court said.<ref name=":0">{{Cite news |last=Heisig |first=Eric |date=January 2, 2025 |title=FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules Struck Down by Sixth Circuit (3) |url=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/fccs-net-neutrality-rules-struck-down-by-sixth-circuit |access-date=April 16, 2025 |work=[[Bloomberg News]]}}</ref>

According to [[Bloomberg News]], the Sixth Circuit's ruling is "one of the highest-profile examples" so far of an appeals court exercising the expanded authority following ''Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo'', which overturned a doctrine that had supported agency interpretations of ambiguous laws.  The court also rejected a similar FCC classification for mobile broadband providers.<ref name=":0" />

===Canada===
[[Net neutrality in Canada]] is a debated issue in that nation, but not to the degree of partisanship in other nations such as the United States in part because of its federal regulatory structure and pre-existing supportive laws that were enacted decades before the debate arose.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/us-canada-net-neutrality-party-politics-fcc-crtc-fight-1.4447558|title=Why Canada's net neutrality fight hasn't been as fierce as the one in the U.S.|last1=Braga|first1=Matthew|date=14 December 2017|access-date=15 December 2017|publisher=CBC|agency=CBC News|archive-date=14 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171214192948/http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/us-canada-net-neutrality-party-politics-fcc-crtc-fight-1.4447558|url-status=live}}</ref> In Canada, ISPs generally provide Internet service in a neutral manner. Some notable incidents otherwise have included [[Bell Canada]]'s throttling of certain protocols and [[Telus Communications|Telus]]'s censorship of a specific website supporting striking union members.<ref>{{Cite news|date=24 July 2005|title=Telus cuts subscriber access to pro-union website|work=CBC News|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166|access-date=12 July 2021|archive-date=29 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210429065554/https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/telus-cuts-subscriber-access-to-pro-union-website-1.531166|url-status=live}}</ref> In the case with Bell Canada, the debate for net neutrality became a more popular topic when it was revealed that they were throttling traffic by limiting people's accessibility to view ''[[Canada's Next Great Prime Minister]]'', which eventually led to the Canadian Association of Internet Providers (CAIP) demanding the [[Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission|Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC)]] to take action on preventing the throttling of third-party traffic.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last=Anderson|first=Steve|title=Dynamic Fair Dealing|publisher=University of Toronto Press|year=2014|isbn=978-1-4426-6561-3|pages=133–143}}</ref> On 22 October 2009, the CRTC issued a ruling about Internet traffic management, which favored adopting guidelines that were suggested by interest groups such as [[OpenMedia.ca]] and the Open Internet Coalition. However, the guidelines set in place require citizens to file formal complaints proving that their Internet traffic is being throttled, and as a result, some ISPs still continue to throttle the Internet traffic of their users.<ref name=":3" />

===India===
{{Main|Net neutrality in India}}
In the year 2018, the [[Indian Government]] unanimously approved new regulations supporting net neutrality. The regulations are considered to be the "world's strongest" net neutrality rules, guaranteeing free and open Internet for nearly half a billion people,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/12/technology/india-net-neutrality-rules-telecom/index.html|title=India now has the 'world's strongest' net neutrality rules|first=Rishi|last=Iyengar|website=cnn.com|date=12 July 2018|access-date=9 August 2018|archive-date=7 August 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180807220531/https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/12/technology/india-net-neutrality-rules-telecom/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> and are expected to help the culture of [[startups]] and innovation. The only exceptions to the rules are new and emerging services like [[autonomous driving]] and [[Telemedicine|tele-medicine]], which may require prioritized Internet lanes and faster than normal speeds.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/internet-to-remain-free-and-fair-in-india-govt-approves-net-neutrality/articleshow/64948838.cms|title=Web stays equal for all as govt clears net neutrality|last=Doval|first=Pankaj|date=12 July 2018|work=The Times of India|access-date=31 August 2018|archive-date=11 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180911105458/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/internet-to-remain-free-and-fair-in-india-govt-approves-net-neutrality/articleshow/64948838.cms|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== China ===
Net neutrality in China is not enforced, and ISPs in China play important roles in regulating the content that is available domestically on the Internet. There are several ISPs filtering and blocking content at the national level, preventing domestic Internet users from accessing certain sites or services or foreign Internet users from gaining access to domestic web content. This filtering technology is referred to as the [[Great Firewall]], or GFW.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Hu|first=Henry L.|date=2011|title=The Political Economy of Governing ISPs in China: Perspectives of Net Neutrality and Vertical Integration|journal=The China Quarterly|volume=207|issue=207|pages=523–540|doi=10.1017/S0305741011000634|jstor=41305255|s2cid=143429384|issn=0305-7410}}</ref>

In an article published by the Cambridge University Press, they observed the political environment with net neutrality in China. Chinese ISPs have become a way for the country to control and restrict information rather than providing neutral Internet content for those who use the Internet.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Cambridge |title=The Political Economy of Governing ISPs in China |journal=The China Quarterly |date=September 2011 |volume=207 |pages=523–540 |doi=10.1017/S0305741011000634 |s2cid=143429384 |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/the-political-economy-of-governing-isps-in-china-perspectives-of-net-neutrality-and-vertical-integration/678FA3FEDDF28AE8B096CE9FC743B6F5 |access-date=8 March 2021 |archive-date=11 April 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220411002653/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/china-quarterly/article/abs/the-political-economy-of-governing-isps-in-china-perspectives-of-net-neutrality-and-vertical-integration/678FA3FEDDF28AE8B096CE9FC743B6F5 |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Philippines ===
Net neutrality in the [[Philippines]] is not enforced. Mobile Internet providers like [[Globe Telecom]] and [[Smart Communications]] commonly offer data package promos tied to specific applications, games or websites like Facebook, [[Instagram]], and [[TikTok]].<ref name="netNeutralityBadlyNeededPhilippines">{{cite news |last1=Feria |first1=Rom |title=Net Neutrality Badly Needed in the Philippines |url=https://mb.com.ph/2018/09/05/net-neutrality-badly-needed-in-the-philippines/ |publisher=[[Manila Bulletin]] |date=5 September 2018 |access-date=25 May 2022 |archive-date=25 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220525174329/https://mb.com.ph/2018/09/05/net-neutrality-badly-needed-in-the-philippines/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="globeGoSURF">{{cite web |title=GoSURF |url=https://www.globe.com.ph/prepaid/gosurf.html |website=[[Globe Telecommunications]] |access-date=26 May 2022 |archive-date=18 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220518194727/https://www.globe.com.ph/prepaid/gosurf.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="smartPrepaidPromos">{{cite web |title=Prepaid Promos |url=https://smart.com.ph/Prepaid/promos |website=[[Smart Communications]] |access-date=26 May 2022 |archive-date=27 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220527161806/https://smart.com.ph/prepaid/promos/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In the mid-2010s, Philippine telcos came under fire from the [[Department of Justice (Philippines)|Department of Justice]] for throttling the bandwidth of subscribers of unlimited data plans if the subscribers exceeded arbitrary data caps imposed by the telcos under a supposed "fair use policy" on their "unlimited" plans.<ref name="phThrottlingUnlimited">{{cite news |last1=Balea |first1=Jum |title=Philippine gov't warns telcos of penalties for throttling 'unlimited' data users |url=https://www.techinasia.com/philippines-telcos-smart-globe-penalties-data-cap |publisher=[[Tech in Asia]] |date=12 December 2014 |access-date=25 May 2022 |archive-date=25 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220525174258/https://www.techinasia.com/philippines-telcos-smart-globe-penalties-data-cap |url-status=live }}</ref> Certain adult sites like [[Pornhub]], [[Redtube]], and [[XTube]] have also been blocked by some Philippine ISPs at the request of the [[Philippine National Police]] to the [[National Telecommunications Commission]], even without the necessary court orders required by the [[Supreme Court of the Philippines]].<ref name="phBlockAdultSites">{{cite news |last1=de Santos |first1=Jonathan |title=Civil rights group: Blocking adult sites may have been illegal |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/02/01/1668028/civil-rights-group-blocking-adult-sites-may-have-been-illegal |publisher=[[The Philippine Star]] |date=1 February 2017 |access-date=25 May 2022 |archive-date=25 May 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220525174328/https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/02/01/1668028/civil-rights-group-blocking-adult-sites-may-have-been-illegal |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Support==
{{globalize|date=October 2017|section|the United States}}
Proponents of net neutrality regulations include [[consumer advocate]]s, human rights organizations such as [[Article 19]],<ref>{{cite web|title=Four tenors: Call for Internet Speech Rights|publisher=ARTICLE 19|url=http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/1776/en/four-tenors:-call-for-internet-speech-rights|access-date=31 August 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120903000748/http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/1776/en/four-tenors:-call-for-internet-speech-rights|archive-date=3 September 2012}}</ref> online companies and some technology companies.<ref name="meza">{{cite book |title=Coming Attractions? |last=Meza |first=Philip E. |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=9780804756600 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QzMtQGPizqgC |page=158 |date=20 March 2007 |access-date=26 August 2020 |archive-date=17 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117061942/https://books.google.com/books?id=QzMtQGPizqgC |url-status=live }}</ref> Net neutrality tends to be supported by those on the [[political left]], while opposed by those on the [[political right]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Chen |first=Angela |date=16 May 2018 |title=Here Are The Real Reasons Democrats & Republicans Just Can't Agree On Net Neutrality |url=https://www.bustle.com/p/why-is-net-neutrality-a-political-issue-democrats-republicans-wont-settle-for-a-compromise-9099979 |access-date=2023-06-25 |website=[[Bustle.com]]}}</ref>

Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality, such as [[eBay]],<ref name=":4" /> [[Amazon.com|Amazon]],<ref name=":4">{{cite news |title=Defeat for net neutrality backers |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm |work=[[BBC News]] |access-date=26 December 2008 |date=9 June 2006 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081226052628/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/5063072.stm |archive-date=26 December 2008}}</ref> [[Netflix]],<ref name=":2" /> [[Reddit]],<ref name=":2" /> [[Microsoft]],<ref name="Open-Letter-to-Committee-Energy-Commerce">{{cite web |date=1 March 2006 |title=Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce |url=http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060424065626/http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/nn-letter-20060301.pdf |archive-date=24 April 2006 |access-date=26 December 2008}}</ref> Twitter,{{Citation needed|date=May 2024}} [[Etsy]],<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=Michael J. |date=27 February 2015 |title=The FCC on Net Neutrality: Be Careful What You Wish For {{!}} PCMag.com |url=http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/332400-the-fcc-on-net-neutrality-be-careful-what-you-wish-for |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171012091548/http://forwardthinking.pcmag.com/none/332400-the-fcc-on-net-neutrality-be-careful-what-you-wish-for |archive-date=2017-10-12 |access-date=2024-05-02 |website=[[PC Mag]]}}</ref> [[IAC Inc.]],<ref name="Open-Letter-to-Committee-Energy-Commerce" /> [[Daily Kos|Yahoo!]],<ref name=":5" /> [[Daily Kos|Vonage]],<ref name=":5">{{cite book |last=Plunkett |first=Jack W. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6PUiN5cE7-QC&q=%22data+prioritization%22+network+neutrality |title=Plunkett's Telecommunications Industry Almanac 2009 |publisher=Plunkett Research |year=2008 |isbn=9781593921415 |page=208 |access-date=6 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117061943/https://books.google.com/books?id=6PUiN5cE7-QC&q=%22data+prioritization%22+network+neutrality |archive-date=17 January 2023 |url-status=live}}</ref> and [[Cogent Communications]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Cogent Communications, Inc |author-link=Cogent Communications |title=Net Neutrality Policy Statement |url=http://www.cogentco.com/us/NetNeutrality.php |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090418060408/http://www.cogentco.com/us/NetNeutrality.php |archive-date=18 April 2009 |access-date=21 April 2009}}</ref> In September 2014, an online protest known as [[Internet Slowdown Day]] took place to advocate for the equal treatment of Internet traffic. Notable participants included Netflix and Reddit.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Friedlander|first=Simone A.|date=2016|title=Net Neutrality and the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order|journal=Berkeley Technology Law Journal|volume=31|issue=2|pages=905–930}}</ref>

[[Consumer Reports]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=25 April 2024 |title=Consumer Reports applauds FCC vote to restore Net Neutrality rules |url=https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/press_release/consumer-reports-applauds-fcc-vote-to-restore-net-neutrality-rules/ |access-date=2024-05-03 |website=CR Advocacy |language=en}}</ref> the [[Open Society Foundations]]<ref>{{cite web |last=Lohninger |first=Thomas |date=6 October 2016 |title=How We Kept the Internet Open in Europe |url=https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/how-we-kept-internet-open-europe |access-date=2023-06-25 |website=Open Society Foundations}}</ref> along with several civil rights groups, such as the [[ACLU]], the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]], [[Free Press (advocacy group)|Free Press]], [[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet]], and [[Fight for the Future]] support net neutrality.<ref name="Team-Internet">{{cite web |title=Team Internet |url=https://www.battleforthenet.com/teaminternet/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102093757/https://www.battleforthenet.com/teaminternet/ |archive-date=2 January 2016 |access-date=28 February 2015 |publisher=[[Fight for the Future]]}}</ref><ref name=":2" />

Individuals who support net neutrality include [[World Wide Web]] inventor [[Tim Berners-Lee]],<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5|title=The inventor of the web Tim Berners-Lee on the future of the internet, 'fake news,' and why net neutrality is so important|last=Döpfner|first=Mathias|date=7 May 2017|work=[[Business Insider]]|access-date=6 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170830213334/http://www.businessinsider.com/mathias-dopfner-tim-berners-lee-world-wide-web-interview-2017-5|archive-date=30 August 2017|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Vinton Cerf]],<ref name="cerf-testimony">{{cite web|author=Cerf, Vinton|author-link=Vinton Cerf|title=The Testimony of Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google|url=http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf|access-date=5 November 2012|page=1|date=7 February 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121217133220/http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf|archive-date=17 December 2012}}</ref><ref name="Cerf July 2009">{{cite journal |author=Cerf, Vinton |title=The open internet: What it is, and why it matters |journal=Telecommunications Journal of Australia |volume=59 |date=July 2009 |doi=10.2104/tja09018|issn=1835-4270 |issue=2 |pages=18.1–18.10 |doi-access=free |hdl=1959.3/454760 |hdl-access=free }}{{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=Codyorb |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> [[Lawrence Lessig]],<ref name="no-tolls"/> [[Robert W. McChesney]],<ref>{{cite web |url=https://socialistproject.ca/2009/08/b246/ |title=Media Capitalism, the State and 21st Century Media Democracy Struggles – An interview with Robert McChesney |date=9 August 2009 |access-date=2023-06-25}}</ref> [[Steve Wozniak]], [[Susan P. Crawford]], [[Marvin Ammori]], [[Ben Scott (Policy Expert)|Ben Scott]], [[David P. Reed|David Reed]],<ref name="dps-signers">{{cite web |url=http://www.dpsproject.com#Signers |title=Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality |access-date=26 December 2008 |author=Dynamic Platform Standards Project |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216141831/http://www.dpsproject.com/#Signers |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref> and former U.S. President [[Barack Obama]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Albanesius |first=Chloe |url=https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353195,00.asp |website=PC Magazine |date=22 September 2009 |title=Obama Supports Net Neutrality Plan |access-date=25 January 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130216130934/http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353195,00.asp |archive-date=16 February 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Broache |first=Anne |url=http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html |website=CNET |date=29 October 2007 |title=Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president |access-date=25 January 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121110042602/http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9806707-7.html |archive-date=10 November 2012}}</ref> On 10 November 2014, Obama recommended that the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service to preserve net neutrality.<ref name="NYT-20141110-EW">{{cite news |last=Wyatt |first=Edward |title=Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html |date=10 November 2014 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=15 November 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141114230550/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/technology/obama-net-neutrality-fcc.html |archive-date=14 November 2014}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20141114">{{cite news |author=NYT Editorial Board |title=Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/why-the-fcc-should-heed-president-obama-on-internet-regulations.html |date=14 November 2014 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=15 November 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141115023705/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/opinion/why-the-fcc-should-heed-president-obama-on-internet-regulations.html |archive-date=15 November 2014}}</ref><ref name="WRD-20150121-DAS">{{cite journal |last=Sepulveda |first=Ambassador Daniel A. |title=The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let's Get It Right |url=https://www.wired.com/2015/01/on-net-nuetrality-internet-freedom/ |date=21 January 2015 |journal=[[Wired (website)|Wired]] |access-date=20 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150122002922/http://www.wired.com/2015/01/on-net-nuetrality-internet-freedom/ |archive-date=22 January 2015}}</ref> On 31 January 2015, [[AP News]] reported that the FCC will present the notion of applying ("with some caveats") [[Common carrier#Telecommunications|Title II (common carrier)]] of the [[Communications Act of 1934]] and section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996<ref name="auto">Federal Communications Commission url={{cite web |url=https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet |title=Open Internet &#124; Federal Communications Commission |access-date=2016-08-04 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160828050332/https://www.fcc.gov/general/open-internet |archive-date=28 August 2016}} accessdate=4 August 2016</ref> to the Internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.<ref name="NYT-20150202a">{{cite news |last=Lohr |first=Steve |title=In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html |date=2 February 2015 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2 February 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203020455/http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/03/technology/in-net-neutrality-push-fcc-is-expected-to-propose-regulating-the-internet-as-a-utility.html |archive-date=3 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20150202b">{{cite news |last=Lohr |first=Steve |title=F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services |url=http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/f-c-c-chief-wants-to-override-state-laws-curbing-community-net-services/ |date=2 February 2015 |work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2 February 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150203015750/http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/02/f-c-c-chief-wants-to-override-state-laws-curbing-community-net-services/ |archive-date=3 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="AP-20150131">{{cite news |last=Flaherty |first=Anne |title=Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150131/us--net_neutrality-news_guide-c235cbd2b9.html |date=31 January 2015 |work=[[AP News]] |access-date=31 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150201001057/http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150131/us--net_neutrality-news_guide-c235cbd2b9.html |archive-date=1 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="WP-20150102">{{cite news |last=Fung |first=Brian |title=Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/01/02/get-ready-the-fcc-says-itll-vote-on-net-neutrality-in-february/ |date=2 January 2015 |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|access-date=2 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150102225724/http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/01/02/get-ready-the-fcc-says-itll-vote-on-net-neutrality-in-february/ |archive-date=2 January 2015}}</ref><ref name="AP-20150102">{{cite news |author=Staff |title=FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules |url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150103/us-fcc-net-neutrality-d8f89ffc53.html |date=2 January 2015 |work=[[AP News]] |access-date=2 January 2015 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150103042904/http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150103/us-fcc-net-neutrality-d8f89ffc53.html |archive-date=3 January 2015}}</ref>

===Control of data===
Supporters of net neutrality in the United States want to designate [[cable companies]] as [[common carrier]]s, which would require them to allow ISPs free access to cable lines, the same model used for [[dial-up]] Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without a [[court order]].<ref name="censored-2007-p34">{{cite book |title=Censored 2007 |last=Phillips |first=Peter |year=2006 |publisher=Seven Stories Press |isbn=9781583227381 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XdBe64fAsiwC&q=network+neutrality |page=34 |access-date=6 October 2020 |archive-date=17 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117061945/https://books.google.com/books?id=XdBe64fAsiwC&q=network+neutrality |url-status=live }}</ref> Common carrier status would give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality rules.<ref>{{cite web|last=Robertson|first=Adi|title=Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules|url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules|website=[[The Verge]]|access-date=14 January 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140115033704/http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/14/5307650/federal-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules|archive-date=15 January 2014|date=14 January 2014}}</ref> [[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet.com]] accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of gatekeepers, being able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly, or do not load at all. According to SaveTheInternet.com, these companies want to charge content providers who require guaranteed speedy data delivery{{spaced ndash}}to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services{{spaced ndash}}and slowing access or blocking access to those of competitors.<ref name="savetheinternet.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what |title=Frequently Asked Questions |access-date=7 December 2008 |publisher=SaveTheInternet.com |url-status=dead |archive-date=11 December 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081211200309/http://savetheinternet.com/%3Dfaq }}</ref> [[Vinton Cerf]], a co-inventor of the [[Internet Protocol]] and current vice president of Google, argues that the Internet was designed without any authorities controlling access to new content or new services.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html |title=Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality |last=Davidson |first=Alan |date=8 November 2005 |website=The Official Google Blog |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130114220322/http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/11/vint-cerf-speaks-out-on-net-neutrality.html |archive-date=14 January 2013}}</ref> He concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to affect what people see and do online.<ref name="cerf-testimony" /> Cerf has also written about the importance of looking at problems like Net Neutrality through a combination of the Internet's layered system and the multistakeholder model that governs it.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=13 August 2013|title=Internet Governance is our Shared Responsibility|journal=I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 10 ISJLP 1 (2014)|pages=1–42|ssrn= 2309772 |last1=Cerf |first1=Vinton G S |last2=Ryan|first2=Patrick S|last3=Senges|first3=Max}}</ref> He shows how challenges can arise that can implicate Net Neutrality in certain infrastructure-based cases, such as when ISPs enter into exclusive arrangements with large building owners, leaving the residents unable to exercise any choice in broadband provider.<ref name="ssrn.com">{{Cite conference|date=4 August 2015|title=The Problem of Exclusive Arrangements in Multiple Dwelling Units: Unlocking Broadband Growth in Indonesia and the Global South |publisher=The 7th Indonesia International Conference on Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Small Business (IICIES 2015)|pages=1–16|ssrn= 2637654|last1=Ryan|first1=Patrick S|last2=Zwart|first2=Breanna|last3=Whitt|first3=Richard S|last4=Goldburg|first4=Marc|last5=Cerf|first5=Vinton G}}</ref>

===Digital rights and freedoms===
{{See also|Digital rights}}
Proponents of net neutrality argue that a neutral net will foster free speech and lead to further democratic participation on the Internet. Former [[Senator Al Franken]] from Minnesota fears that without new regulations, the major Internet Service Providers will use their position of power to stifle people's rights. He calls net neutrality the "[[First Amendment]] issue of our time."<ref>Hattem, Julian, ''[https://thehill.com/policy/technology/211607-franken-net-neutrality-is-first-amendment-issue-of-our-time/ Franken: Net neutrality is 'First Amendment issue of our time'] '', The Hill, Jul '14</ref> The past two decades has been an ongoing battle of ensuring that all people and websites have equal access to an unrestricted platform, regardless of their ability to pay, proponents of net neutrality wish to prevent the need to pay for speech and the further centralization of media power.<ref>Nunziato DC. ''Virtual Freedom : Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age''. Stanford, Calif: Stanford Law Books; 2009. {{EBSCOhost|395792}}. Accessed 1 April 2019.</ref> [[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]] argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content.<ref name="no-tolls" />

===User intolerance for slow-loading sites===
[[File:Abandonment rate of online video users for different Internet connectivities.jpg|thumbnail|Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).<ref name="people.cs.umass.edu">{{cite web|url=http://people.cs.umass.edu/~ramesh/Site/HOME_files/imc208-krishnan.pdf|title=Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior, by Krishnan and Sitaraman, ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Nov 2012|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212000605/http://people.cs.umass.edu/~ramesh/Site/HOME_files/imc208-krishnan.pdf|archive-date=12 February 2015|access-date=14 November 2014}}</ref>]] Proponents of net neutrality invoke the human psychological process of adaptation where when people get used to something better, they would not ever want to go back to something worse. In the context of the Internet, the proponents argue that a user who gets used to the "fast lane" on the Internet would find the ''slow lane'' intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any provider who is unable to pay for the ''fast lane''. Video providers Netflix<ref>{{cite web |url= http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522785302 |title= NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141129021834/http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522785302 |archive-date= 29 November 2014}}</ref> and Vimeo<ref>{{cite web |url= http://vimeo.com/assets/downloads/press_releases/07152014-vimeo_fcc_letter.pdf |title= Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014 |url-status= live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141002165617/http://vimeo.com/assets/downloads/press_releases/07152014-vimeo_fcc_letter.pdf |archive-date= 2 October 2014}}</ref> in their comments to FCC in favor of net neutrality use the research<ref name="people.cs.umass.edu"/> of S.S. Krishnan and [[Ramesh Sitaraman]] that provides the first quantitative evidence of adaptation to speed among online video users. Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users who had faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity. The results demonstrate how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectations of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay that occurs. Author [[Nicholas G. Carr|Nicholas Carr]]<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.roughtype.com/?p=2069 |title= Patience is a Network Effect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov 2012 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141215005635/http://www.roughtype.com/?p=2069 |archive-date= 15 December 2014 |date= 11 November 2012 |access-date= 14 November 2014 }}</ref> and other social commentators<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.npr.org/2013/01/10/168974423/in-video-streaming-rat-race-fast-is-never-fast-enough/|title=NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race, Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012|website=[[NPR]]|access-date=2014-07-03|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714230354/http://www.npr.org/2013/01/10/168974423/in-video-streaming-rat-race-fast-is-never-fast-enough/|archive-date=14 July 2014}}</ref><ref name="bostonglobe">{{cite web|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/02/01/the-growing-culture-impatience-where-instant-gratification-makes-crave-more-instant-gratification/q8tWDNGeJB2mm45fQxtTQP/story.html?s_campaign=8315|title=Boston Globe: Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient, Feb 2013|website=[[The Boston Globe]]|access-date=2014-07-03|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714183142/http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/style/2013/02/01/the-growing-culture-impatience-where-instant-gratification-makes-crave-more-instant-gratification/q8tWDNGeJB2mm45fQxtTQP/story.html?s_campaign=8315|archive-date=14 July 2014}}</ref> have written about the habituation phenomenon by stating that a faster flow of information on the Internet can make people less patient.

===Competition and innovation===
Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create an exploitative business model based on the ISPs position as [[gatekeeper]]s.<ref name="Accel-Networks.com">{{cite web |url= http://www.accel-networks.com/blog/index.php?q=/2010/08/what-is-net-neutrality.html |title= What Is Net Neutrality? 10 Aug 2010 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110616043917/http://www.accel-networks.com/blog/index.php?q=%2F2010%2F08%2Fwhat-is-net-neutrality.html |archive-date= 16 June 2011}}</ref> Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay.<ref name="no-tolls">{{cite news |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html |title=No Tolls on The Internet |last=[[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]] |date=8 June 2006 |work=Columns |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170726173331/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/07/AR2006060702108.html |archive-date=26 July 2017}}</ref> According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to reserve bandwidth for their own television services, and charge companies a toll for priority service.<ref name="slate.com">{{cite web |url=http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/ |title=Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality |first=Timothy |last=Wu |date=1 May 2006 |website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216145930/http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/ |archive-date=16 December 2008}}</ref> Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or [[tiered service]], would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services.<ref name="meza" /> [[Tim Wu]] argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to one ruled by deal-making.<ref name="slate.com"/> [[Save the Internet|SaveTheInternet.com]] argues that net neutrality puts everyone on equal terms, which helps drive innovation. They claim it is a preservation of the way the Internet has always operated, where the quality of websites and services determined whether they succeeded or failed, rather than deals with ISPs.<ref name="savetheinternet.com"/> [[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]] argue that eliminating net neutrality would lead to the Internet resembling the world of cable TV, so that access to and distribution of content would be managed by a handful of massive, near monopolistic companies, though there are multiple service providers in each region. These companies would then control what is seen as well as how much it costs to see it. Speedy and secure Internet use for such industries as healthcare, finance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large fees charged by these companies. They further explain that a majority of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garages, inspired by great ideas. This was possible because the protections of net neutrality ensured limited control by owners of the networks, maximal competition in this space, and permitted innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content was guaranteed a free and highly competitive space by the existence of net neutrality.<ref name="no-tolls"/> For example, back in 2005, YouTube was a small startup company. Due to the absence of Internet fast lanes, YouTube had the ability to grow larger than Google Video. Tom Wheeler and Senators Ronald Lee Wyden (D-Ore.) and [[Al Franken]] (D-Minn.) said, "Internet service providers treated YouTube's videos the same as they did Google's, and Google couldn't pay the ISPs [Internet service providers] to gain an unfair advantage, like a fast lane into consumers' homes," they wrote. "Well, it turned out that people liked YouTube a lot more than Google Video, so YouTube thrived."<ref name="auto1">{{Cite news|url=https://thehill.com/policy/technology/331012-what-killing-net-neutrality-means-for-the-internet/|title=What killing net neutrality means for the internet|last=Breland|first=Ali|date=28 April 2017|work=[[The Hill (newspaper)|The Hill]]|access-date=2017-11-10|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170904230552/http://thehill.com/policy/technology/331012-what-killing-net-neutrality-means-for-the-internet|archive-date=4 September 2017|url-status=live}}</ref>

The lack of competition among internet providers has been cited as a major reason to support net neutrality.<ref name=":6" /> The loss of net neutrality in 2017 in the U.S. increased the calls for public broadband.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jilani |first=Zaid |date=15 December 2017 |title=Killing Net Neutrality Has Brought On a New Call for Public Broadband |url=https://theintercept.com/2017/12/15/fcc-net-neutrality-public-broadband-seattle/ |access-date=2024-05-02 |website=The Intercept |language=en-US}}</ref>

===Preserving Internet standards===
Net neutrality advocates have sponsored legislation claiming that authorizing incumbent network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would signal the decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority. Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer's designed flexibility.<ref name="dps-2.11">{{cite web |url=http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html |title=Internet Platform for Innovation Act |access-date=26 December 2008 |author=Dynamic Platform Standards Project |at=Sec. 2.11 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090218020022/http://www.dpsproject.com/legislation.html |archive-date=18 February 2009}}</ref>

===End-to-end principle===
Some advocates say network neutrality is needed to maintain the [[end-to-end principle]]. According to [[Lawrence Lessig]] and [[Robert W. McChesney]], all content must be treated the same and must move at the same speed for net neutrality to be true. They say that it is this simple but brilliant end-to-end aspect that has allowed the Internet to act as a powerful force for economic and social good.<ref name="no-tolls"/> Under this principle, a neutral network is a [[dumb network]], merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, ''The Rise of the Stupid Network''. He states that the vision of an intelligent network is being replaced by a new network philosophy and architecture in which the network is designed for always-on use, not intermittence and scarcity. Rather than intelligence being designed into the network itself, the intelligence would be pushed out to the end-user devices; and the network would be designed simply to deliver bits without fancy network routing or smart number translation. The data would be in control, telling the network where it should be sent. End-user devices would then be allowed to behave flexibly, as bits would essentially be free and there would be no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.<ref name="rageboy.com">{{cite web|author=Isenberg, David|title=The Rise of the Stupid Network|url=http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html|date=1 August 1996|access-date=19 August 2006|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060820170503/http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html|archive-date=20 August 2006}}</ref>

Contrary to this idea, the research paper titled ''End-to-end arguments in system design'' by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark argues that [[network intelligence]] does not relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for wholesale removal of intelligence from the network core.<ref>{{Cite Q | Q56503280 | access-date = 2022-04-05}} <!-- Saltzer 1984 --></ref>

==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=dead|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 />

==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>

==See also==
{{Portal|Freedom of speech}}
{{div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Concentration of media ownership]]
* [[Economic rent]]
* [[Industrial information economy]]
* [[Killswitch (film)|''Killswitch'' (film)]]
* [[Media regulation]]
* [[Search neutrality]]
* [[Switzerland (software)]]
{{div col end}}

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}

==External links==
* [https://www.wired.com/story/guide-net-neutrality/ The WIRED Guide to Net Neutrality] by [[WIRED]]. 5 May 2020.
* [https://theoatmeal.com/blog/net_neutrality Net Neutrality] a 2014 comic by ''[[The Oatmeal]]''

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Network Neutrality}}
[[Category:Net neutrality| ]]
[[Category:Internet access]]