The term describes the belief that Internet service providers (ISPs) and governments should treat data transmitted on the Internet equally regardless of the kind, or size, being transmitted. Net Neutrality advocates are opposed to ISPs throttling connection speeds based on the kind of data being transmitted, or the servers transmitting. Net Neutrality advocates are also opposed to the creation of "fast lanes," or faster/higher bandwidth connections, for exclusive content providers (e.g. Netflix, Youtube, etc.) who often pay, or may be required to pay, an additional fee to ISPs for these fast lanes. A "neutral" net would have ISPs charge users equally regardless of content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. Net Neutrality does NOT refer to censorship of the internet by the Federal Government. Primarily, again, Net Neutrality is the position which states that ISPs should not limit service, or provide exclusive services, to those sending traffic along their network based on content (music, movies, etc.), site (e.g. political websites, websites owned by their competitors, etc.), company/customer, application, equipment, or mode/type of communication (peer to peer).
Many fear that if currently proposed net neutrality laws are passed the FCC will be given unlimited control of the internet, and that private ISPs will influence the FCC to pass regulations that will push their competitors out of business.
Comcast isn't treating traffic neutrally, and thus we must pass Net Neutrality legislation, regulate the internet, and hope that the government, and the Net, won't end up in Comcast's pocket through the revolving door that is Washington DC.
September 15, 2014