Because I've yet to see the anti-net neutrality side here, I figured I'd share my limited understanding of why those against net neutrality are against it.
1. Net neutrality solved a problem that didn't exist. There were basically 0 examples of anti-competitive behavior before net neutrality was signed into law
2. Some level of impingement on free market. Gives FCC a ton of power over ISPs and it introduces a whole slew of hurdles for companies to churn out new tech or a new business plan
1. No, net neutrality codified a convention that was already in place but only contractually enforced on an ad-hoc basis. It was codified as regulation because network players in the market were making noises about moving away from neutral passage and content players asked for federal standards so as to enforce a level playing field. In 2005, under the Bush, Jr., Administration, the FCC first opened the cracks to go away from net neutrality by ruling that broadband network services were NOT 'common carrier', though they still published guidelines
that advocated net-neutrality. Your thought that no one was violating this concept was immediately challenged when in 2008 the FCC had to order Comcast to stop alleged violating net-neutrality guidelines. So it WAS a problem that DID exist.
The next step in the story was that, since so far these were only guidelines and not actual regulations, the federal appeals courts ruled in Comcast's favor against the FCC's attempt to enforce net-neutrality. So, in December of 2010, the FCC first formalized net neutrality with the "Open Internet Order". Unfortunately, this was also challenged and in 2014, the courts ruled the FCC couldn't enforce this because of the 2005 ruling that failed to identify ISPs as "common carriers". The rest of that year was spent wrangling between whether new regulations needed to be issued or if the ISPs could be reclassified (something the Obama administration recommended) finally culminating in the publication of the current rules reclassifying ISPs from being information providers to being telecommunications providers and setting net neutrality formally in place. This is what the Trump administration now wants to dismantle.
2. This seems vague. This is tantamount to saying that standardizing the width and dimensions of rail lines impinged on a free market. The only 'market' that is helped by removing neutral passage is the market for selling access.
Imagine if all roads around the entire country were variously owned by a few powerful corporations and in order to drive on any of them you had to pay tolls and further, depending on how much you paid, the speed limits were different.
Now, try getting your product to market quickly in competition with someone far richer than you.
Does that sound like a "free market"? That is what we will gravitate towards if the net-neutrality rules are gutted.
Most actual roads are owned by the public and provide neutral passage because that supports and enables 'free markets'.
I'm sure there are other compelling reasons to be against Net neutrality.
I'm not educated enough on the issue but I will attempt to learn more in the next few days.
As a general rule, if you see an issue like this and think that there is 0 merit to one side or the other than I'd say it's very likely that you are not educated enough on the issue.
Almost nothing is that black and white.
Actually, so far, literally the only "compelling reason" to remove net-neutrality is profit opportunity for network access providers. That is it. There has been no compelling reason offered. Most arguments offered by folks such as the Heritage Foundation are based on a poor understanding of what the technology means and how removing neutrality would work against true "free markets".
The basic issue is that in order for the internet to function as a medium for a free market, the transport of IP packets does indeed have to be consider a "common carrier" level foundational service. The Bush FCC should not have ruled the way it did in 2005.