Argument: Net neutrality protects consumers under near monopolies
"Consumers Deserve Protection". Open Internet Coalition on Opposing Views.com: "In a more perfect network, the telephone and cable companies would be investing in more capacity in order to render these issues moot. In a more perfect marketplace, there would be 4 or 5 high-speed broadband competitors offering consumers ample choice and providing a market-based check on violations of Net Neutrality – so consumers could pick a provider that respected the open Internet and didn’t interfere with open access. [...] But we all live in an imperfect world with a gross lack of capacity and competition. As a result, we need a referee to ensure networks remain open and the incentives to innovate and invest will continue to exist. Ceding this role completely to the network operators to decide will result in a different, more closed, and less useful kind of Internet."
"There Isn't Enough Broadband Market Choice to Prevent Bad Actors." Save the Internet on Opposing Views.com: "The network owners have argued that Network Neutrality is unnecessary because there is sufficient competition in the broadband market to deter bad behavior. They argue that if Verizon degraded access to a site or discriminated against the use of one service in favor of another, they would anger customers who would move to another network operators in the area. [...] Consumers must have robust competition and multiple choices for this theory to work. But such competition does not exist, and it isn’t likely to exist in the foreseeable future."
"Openness is a Fundamental Principle of the Internet." Open Internet Coalition: "The large phone and cable companies who provide access to the Internet have the incentive and ability to create a special fast lane for big companies that can afford to pay steep tolls, while everyone else is left in a digital dirt road. With a lack of choices in broadband providers, consumers lack the ability to check bad behavior."