Potential Wikipedia Content

We could edit this page:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_discrimination and elaborate on the legal section.  Maybe talk about what reasonable traffic management means and what it isn’t.

^Going off the above:
“Upon reviewing the record, we conclude that the definition of reasonable network management should provide greater clarity regarding the standard used to gauge reasonableness, expressly account for technological differences among networks that may affect reasonable network management, and omit elements that do not relate directly to network management functions and are therefore better handled elsewhere in the rules—for example, measures to prevent the transfer of unlawful content. 255 We therefore adopt the following definition of reasonable network management:

A network management practice is reasonable if it is appropriate and tailored to

achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular

network architecture and technology of the broadband Internet access service.

Legitimate network management purposes include: ensuring network security and integrity,
including by addressing traffic that is harmful to the network; 256 addressing traffic that is
unwanted by end users (including by premise operators), such as by providing services or
capabilities consistent with an end user’s choices regarding parental controls or security
capabilities; 257 and reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion on the network. 258 The term “particular network architecture and technology” refers to the differences across access platforms such as cable, DSL, satellite, and fixed wireless.”
- http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db1223/FCC-10-201A1.pdf
-- Paragraph 82 on page 48.http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fcc.gov%2FDaily_Releases%2FDaily_Business%2F2010%2Fdb1223%2FFCC-10-201A1.pdf&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE5L2SbRBk7aeaPFr7ktDfsOJCj6g

The Controversy

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/11/the-comcast-net-neutrality-controversy-a-discussion

- found using Google
- The Heritage Foundation is a public policy research institution
- privately funded

The controversy regarding net neutrality is that consumers believe that it is in their best interest for the internet to remain neutral while the ISPs want to maximize their profits.  The ISP's claim that they should be free to manage their networks however they want since they are the ones paying to maintain them.  Consumers on the other hand believe that ISP's need to be restricted in what they can and cannot do on their networks so that they are not unfairly discriminating against certain traffic.

This came to a head when Comcast was caught throttling bit torrent traffic and was told to stop by the FCC.  This eventually lead to a legal battle in which the FCC was told that they do not have the authority to regulate what Comcast can do.

Social Controversy

"Net neutrality or network neutrality means that Internet service providers (ISPs) such as cable and telephone companies must treat all traffic equally that travels across their networks. That means that your broadband service provider couldn't block you from seeing a particular site or using a high-bandwidth service arbitrarily.

While most Net users would want that freedom preserved, the ISPs believe that legislation or regulation would inhibit their ability to maintain speedy service for everyone and they have fought various bills before Congress that would enshrine Net neutrality. The ISPs point to a small percentage of bandwidth hogs who use file-sharing, video and gaming sites that slow down networks for everyone else." - Mark Glaser (http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/04/your-guide-to-net-neutrality107.html)

 In a summary of what net neutrality means, Mark Glaser sums up what each side's position is on the topic and why.  In the article, he lists the major players on each side (some changes have occurred since this was written in 2008):

For: Groups like freepress.net, the ACLU, and companies like eBay and Craigslist

Against: Every major ISP, most Hollywood production studios

The advocacy groups fro net neutrality base their argument on the grounds of consumers' rights and the freedom of speech and press.  If ISP's were allowed to filter the traffic on their networks, then they would be able to prevent access to whatever information that they chose.  The companies that are for net neutrality take that side because they have a lot to lose business wise.  For example, Comcast could decide that it wants to open its own version of eBay, and in order to make it profitable, they could prevent anyone on Comcast's network from accessing eBay.

The ISP's are against net neutrality for fairly simple reasons.  If they were allowed to filter their traffic, they would be able to make far more money.  They could charge more for access to the content that they filter out, and by placing a limit on a user's bandwidth, they can reduce the strain on their network, and not have to invest in expanding and improving it.  The hollywood studios have similar goals.  Without net neutrality, they could team up with an ISP of their choosing and then make all of their content exclusive to them, forcing consumers to pay more money to access it.

All information comes from pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2008/04/your-guide-to-net-neutrality107.html)

PBS is a non-profit public broadcasting service that is funded by viewer's donations as well as federal grants through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Information has some specifics incorrect as it was published in 2008, but it still provides an accurate overview of the issue.

I used Bing to find this.

Net Neutrality

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2010/pop17.9-constructive_alternative.pdf

This article published by The Progress and Freedom Foundation is an overview and criticism of the FCC's recent action regarding Net Neutrality.  It argues that the plans the FCC has laid out are really just the same thing we have now, but in disguise.  It also mentions the court decision between the FCC and Comcast, in which the court ruled that the FCC did not have the authority to punish Comcast for its anti net neutrality actions, which is a problematic precedent if the FCC is ever going to protect net neutrality.

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/EA10373FA9C20DEA85257807005BD63F/$file/08-1291-1238302.pdf

This is the DC Court of Appeals decision of Comcast v. FCC.  It describes the issue that the Court is considering and the decision they reach.  In 2007, a few Comcast users noticed that their bandwidth was being throttled while using peer to peer file sharing programs, most prominently in this case, Bit torrent.  They discovered that Comcast was intentionally slowing their internet connection down because they were using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth on the Comcast network.  This practice is fundamentally against the idea of net neutrality because Comcast was discriminating against specific internet traffic that it did not want on its network.  In response, complaints were filed with the FCC, who told Comcast to stop.  Comcast filed an appeal and the court ruled in their favor.

Both of these sources were found through Google Advance Search.  The search term was "net neutrality" and the results were limited to show only .pdf results.