Network Neutrality is a complicated issue with many stakeholders and angles of concern. A majority of the United States population has some form of Internet access and currently this access is generally not filtered for content that the consumer is requesting. Filtering the content of the data being transmitted between consumer and network resource is what some parties would like to implement. Net (Network) Neutrality defined implies that there should be no filtering or limitations set on transmitted content and applications, that Internet connectivity should be treated like a raw public resource. In other words, “Network neutrality is an umbrella term for the debate over whether the FCC or Congress needs to spell out what broadband networks — essentially, an entity like Comcast.net that provides an Internet connection to customers — can and can’t do in managing Internet traffic to their customers”. The filtering model would be more akin to cable television, where the consumer would get charged extra if the wanted unrestricted access to a specific Internet site like Google. This issue is of concern for many parties including the movie industry, music industry, websites, mass media, Internet service providers and most importantly the consumer. While the media has coved this issue extensively, the general public does not seem engaged in this debate. This is a complex issue that deserves a serious review as the U.S. government considers implementing legislation to weigh in on one side or the other of this issue.

The parties that have concerns in the Network Neutrality debate vary but they can generally be divided into two constituents consumer and corporate interests. Internet service providers (ISP) are one group of the corporate stakeholders in the hot seat. One ISP, Comcast has been accused of restricting peer-to-peer traffic. When first accused on November 1, 2007, Comcast denied the accusations but later after being publicly outed, it admitted and tried to justify there actions. They were found to be degrading peer-to-peer Internet traffic on their network which violates the FCC 2005 Internet policy statement which states that consumer are entitled to all Internet access. Many articles were written concerning Comcast’s actions which can be found with a quick Internet search, but it has come to a resolution. On August 1, 2008, the FCC ruled against Comcast and provided the following conclusion in a press release:

The Commission also concluded that the anticompetitive harms caused by Comcast’s conduct have been compounded by the company’s unacceptable failure to disclose its practices to consumers. Because Comcast did not provide its customers with notice of the fact that it interfered with customers’ use of peer-to-peer applications, customers had no way of knowing when Comcast was interfering with their connections. As a result, the Commission found that many consumers experiencing difficulty using only certain applications would not place blame on Comcast, where it belonged, but rather on the applications themselves, thus further disadvantaging those applications in the competitive marketplace. (FCC.gov, Aug 1, 2008)

Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing applications can be used for distributed network file exchange between participants computers. While many ISPs assume that the files being exchanged are illegal content such as pirated television programs, movies, and music; many legitimate content providers are using this method to streamline distribution and defray bandwidth costs. For example, media company Revison3 uses P2P to distribute original video content to consumers. Many other companies such as the major television networks have also experimented with P2P network distribution for media content because of the large file size of media content. This is just one case where an Internet application service has been restricted because it was assumed that the P2P application were negative as apposed to the actions of a limited number users. There are many reasons that ISPs could justify restrictions in the name of the greater good of consumers but it is ultimately just PR spin. So, should cars be outlawed because they can transport stolen goods? This approach to network management is not logical or consumer friendly.