oviders such as Netflix and Amazon may pass on these fees they incur to customers. For many ISPs, competition for their wired broadband services has been non-existent or in a minority of locations; they have one competitor or at the most two competitors. This means they can demand concessions from Netflix and Amazon and their competitors without losing broadband customers. This makes it easy for them to make whichever policies are advantageous to them and to block content from providers that won't pay a premium for faster transmission. Customers in these locations have no or limited options for ISPs to use. Prioritizing certain applications over others has the potential to increase congestion and slow down traffic that is not prioritized. It additionally has raises the possibility of a slowdown innovation and competition by making it costly for start-ups to pay for specialized treatment for the traffic they generate. Owners of smaller web sites as well as start-ups may not have the money to pay broadband networks for not slowing down their traffic. Attempts to Overturn the Repeal of Network Neutrality www.TechnicalPDF.com Opponents of the FCC's cancellation of network neutrality are currently pursuing two options for overturning this ruling. A coalition of 21 states' Attorney Generals plus Washington DC are suing the FCC over its cancellation of network neutrality. In addition to the states' efforts, Internet activists have also initiated suits to overturn the FCC's ruling. These include Mozilla Corp. (the producer of Firefox), the Open Technology Institute (part of the New America Foundation), Public Knowledge, the Free Press, and The Internet Association whose members include Google, Facebook, and Amazon. There are additionally legislative efforts in the Senate to overturn the FCC's cancellation of network neutrality. However, even if the Senate succeeds, there is the hurdle of passing the bill in the House of Representatives. And, the president has the power to veto the legislation if it passes both houses. Mo