Final answer:
Arguments against net neutrality include the fairness of higher fees for companies with data-heavy content and the potential for network improvements, while opponents believe it threatens the open Internet and could lead to content discrimination.
Step-by-step explanation:
An argument opposed to net neutrality is that broadband network providers should be able to charge higher fees to data-heavy content providers in return for getting their content to consumers faster.
This principle is based on the idea that those who place a greater demand on network infrastructure (such as companies streaming large volumes of video content) should pay more, as this would account for the higher costs associated with delivering high-bandwidth content.
Providers argue that this is fair and would lead to necessary investment and improvements in network infrastructure.
Opponents of net neutrality argue that a tiered Internet, with "fast lanes" for those who can afford to pay, would undermine the principles of openness and fairness.
They suggest that this system would disadvantage smaller players and startups that cannot afford the high fees, potentially stifling innovation and competition. Furthermore, there is a fear that network providers could censor or block content based on economic or political motives.