Although net neutrality is mostly seen as an obvious asset to society, there are still several persuasive arguments against it that revolve around the largely libertarian view that the vast majority of regulations are unnecessary and that the free market would be a better option.

In most cases, more regulation means less investment. As compliance costs increased and the regulatory climate became unpredictable after the start of net neutrality, investment in internet infrastructure has been in a historic nosedive over the last three years. Many experts point to Europe, which has more regulations and less infrastructure investment than America, as an example of this inverse relationship. It would be futile to invest in capacity upgrades if the government will essentially nationalize it anyway. Managing the Internet using a Title II framework created in the 1930s to deal with a telephone monopoly has led to less investment and innovation.

It is also easy to understand that different pricing models stimulate competition. Novel business models and products invariably result in competition, causing prices to decrease and quality to increase. This works out in favor of the consumer. The process is far more superior at creating better and inexpensive services than arbitrary decisions by bureaucrats. Government regulation of business models is not a good idea, especially in developing technology fields such as the Internet. Competing models must be allowed to survive or fail independently in order for the best to be created. An example of the government interfering in this process would be the first investigations under the net neutrality regulations, which were against free data offerings.

The solution for markets that don’t have a sufficient amount of competition is to not treat them as if they were monopolies, as net neutrality does. Small ISPs (Internet Service Providers) that could compete aren’t able to as they don’t have the resources to comply with these burdensome regulations. The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small, rural companies, discovered that more than 80 percent of its companies “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.” Other similar ISPs have been forced to delay new features because they couldn’t determine whether or not their business models would be allowed.

In addition to showing how regulations favor incumbents, the previous example highlights the fact that net neutrality is a solution in search of an issue. The problem with net neutrality is that, instead of letting different practices develop and interfering when an abuse occurs, it is prescriptive and therefore likely to favor incumbents in sustaining the existing state of affairs. The status quo is in stark contrast with the last two decades, in which lenient regulations encouraged the type of innovation that had worked so effectively since the beginning of the internet. During this period, the average speed and quantity of internet connections increased as the percentage of people without “advanced telecommunications capability” halved from 20 percent to 10 percent. Services had been enhanced and options had been increasing while companies invested over $1.5 trillion to create networks. However, in 2015, despite the lack of systemic traffic throttling and site blocking that net neutrality proponents fear, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) created net neutrality. Repealing these regulations would not generate throttling and blocking because ISPs are aware that it will benefit them to keep a level playing field. For example, Comcast, an owner of Hulu, won’t slow down Netflix because it doesn’t want to risk losing consumers. The FCC will still expect complete transparency from ISPs regarding information such as traffic and data caps while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which can take action even in the absence of discovering harm, will still be able to punish deceptive practices.

These three reasons clearly show why the free market is superior to market micromanagement. Increased investment will create jobs and competition which will inevitably allow for better internet access and price discrimination, expand innovation and increase investment incentives. It is easy to forget that new, indispensable services such as Skype are only possible because of deregulation.