The internet is currently open and free without these regulations. The free market tends to lower prices and provide better quality service to consumers. Government regulation tends to do the exact opposite. If everything is fine without government regulation, then it is best not to have government regulation. Anti-Net Neutrality supporters believe net neutrality will raise the cost to the consumer. Large companies who use a high-bandwith should pay more than people who use low-bandwith. Google and other companies want to expand the use of video and improve the video quality. This will require extra bandwidth, which companies like Verizon want to carge them for.
  The Cable and telephone companies take steps to increase bandwith, in order to keep up with the rising demand. This will cost money, and without the ability to charge large companies like google more, the consumer must be charged more. There may also be problems of systems crashing due to too much traffic, if content providers have the ability to flood the system with traffic without having to pay extra.

- Also, net neutrality would make it more difficult to block spam. In net neutrality, even spam is given a level playing field.

-Telephone and cable companies which provide the internet have not stated any intention to actually block websites.

-Furthermore, there are already regulations in place which support a mild form of net neutrality ( FCC principles of net neutrality).  


Problems with this view


What should be done?