argument top image

What are the positions on net neutrality?
Back to question

Net neutrality promotes competition

Net neutrality ensures a level playing field between companies operating online, allowing consumers to freely choose which sites to browse in the free market place of media.


Without net neutrality, companies with more resources would gain an unfair edge on smaller startups online. This would create an uneven playing field, which is bad for competition and consumers.

The Argument

Without net neutrality, there would be nothing to stop a company like YouTube, with deep pockets, from paying telecommunications firms to ensure that their content is delivered faster than their competitors online. The existence of such a policy is vital and "closely tied to technological innovation, economic development, and information access." [1] This would make it even more difficult for smaller actors in the video hosting space to compete with giants like YouTube. Net neutrality helps ensure that smaller businesses enter a level playing field online. Their products and services are discoverable and delivered online at the same quality as existing corporations.[2] Additionally, these new innovators and actors in the market are now capable of providing new applications and innovations which ultimately yield economy-driving benefits![3][4] Without net neutrality, YouTube itself wouldn’t have gotten off the ground. When it entered the digital video hosting sector, Google Videos was the major player. If Google had been allowed to use its financial power to pay internet providers for preferential treatment on their networks, YouTube would have been unable to compete. It was only due to net neutrality that YouTube was able to offer a comparable service and draw users to its platform.[5]

Counter arguments

Net neutrality may promote competition in some industries, but it does the opposite in the telecommunications sector. With all internet service providers forced to adopt a hands-off approach, there is no room to roll out new features and pricing models. The telecommunications industry, thanks to government interference, is among the least competitive industries. Fifty-six million households in the US alone have no choice over their broadband service provider.[6] Additionally, Antitrust regulations already provide a pretense for the competitive process, and therefore, extra legislation and regulations on top of this are unnecessary.[7]



Competition is always good. Monopolies are always bad. Policies that promote competition are therefore good.


[P1] Competition is good. [P2] Net neutrality promotes competition. [P3] Therefore, net neutrality is good.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Net neutrality doesn't promote competition in every sector.


This page was last edited on Thursday, 29 Oct 2020 at 20:55 UTC

Explore related arguments