[1][2] The principle of equal treatment of traffic, called "Net Neutrality" by proponents, is not enshrined in law in the United States but is supported by some regulations.
Most of the debate around the issue has centered on tentative plans, now postponed, by large Internet carriers to offer preferential treatment of traffic from certain content providers for a fee.
[4][8][9] Moreover, ISPs argue that existing flat-rate plans do not enable them to cover the additional cost required to manage heavier network traffic.
[citation needed] This metering scheme not only satisfies ISPs in terms of recovering cost, but also enables users to rethink their usage patterns with a price signal.
After Comcast's actions were exposed, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ordered the company to stop throttling on a large scale.
[16] In particular, this form of net bias frequently targets heavy mobile users who consume large amounts of content (packets), like unlimited data plans.
[17] Mobile companies such as AT&T and Verizon have their own throttling policy because they are sometimes required to limit users' traffic to maintain the quality of the entire network.
[8][10] Likewise, some researchers argue that these strategies could work, emphasizing that ISPs should have unregulated pricing freedom, which may lead to promoted innovation, risk tasking, and diverse services and features.
Some proponents of net bias argue that ISPs do not have legal obligation to operate as common carriers and that the network's interconnection arrangements result from commercial necessity.
[5][23] Consequently, some experts contend that the option of offering network flexibility provides a means for consumers and carriers to utilize premium services.
[citation needed] For example, China[33] and Saudi Arabia[34] both filter content on the Internet, preventing access to certain types of websites.
The network filters also block sites and material relating to women's health, gay and lesbian rights groups, and sexual education for teenagers.
[6] In other words, unreasonable net bias occurs when an ISP conducts a discrimination strategy against a specific type of packet without a reasonable and fair financial or operational justification.
[8] Users can also obtain attractive content subsidized by advertisers who employ the flat-rate subscription option by adding to the downloaded packet payload.
[40] In the Internet, interlinking hundreds and thousands of networks reduces transaction costs and brings a flood of free information to subscribers.
[40] However, if major ISPs can freely block and degrade specific traffic streams, there would be societal losses as the Internet becomes more expensive and less productive.
Proponents of net bias contend that market-based Internet access achieves efficient outcomes, such as creating innovation incentives for ISPs to invest in building and expanding networks.
Nevertheless, opponents of net bias claim that allowing price and service discrimination may ruin the value of the Internet and enable ISPs to shut out competitors or other stakeholders who are unwilling or unable to pay surcharges.
Free Press cautions that specialized services will result in unbalanced and unparalleled economic growth, which is utterly against the public interest.
To some observers, this strategy constitutes harmful discrimination that violates a tradition of network neutrality in the switching, routing, and transmission of Internet traffic.
"Instead of promoting competition, such picking of winners and losers will stifle the investment needed to perpetuate the Internet's phenomenal growth, hurting the economy.
In addition, existing peering and transit agreements between stakeholders such as small and large ISPs may lack a specific prohibition of deliberate packet loss.
AT&T, one of the major ISPs, stated that the current standard procedure for Internet pricing and interconnection has left the company burdened with having to create, maintain, and frequently upgrade an expensive bit transport infrastructure whereas content providers do not have to do the same.
As a result, those integrated companies have discrimination incentives such that they may try port blocking or unfair throttling to enhance the marketplace attractiveness of corporate affiliates.
[57] During a hearing held by Rep. Greg Walden, one of the speakers put forth a question that needs to be addressed by the FCC, as well as other groups that are in support of Net Neutrality.
"[43] During the same hearing, a different member spoke up and quoted Section 230 of the Communications Act saying, "...preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulations."
[43] In 2005, a small North Carolina telecom company, Madison River Communications, blocked their DSL customers from using the Vonage VoIP service.
Service was restored after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intervened and entered into a consent decree that had Madison River pay a fine of $15,000.
[60] In this case, the FCC investigated allegations that Madison River violated nondiscriminatory obligations contained in the Communications Act, but the redefinition of broadband as an information service dramatically reduces the authority of regulators to deter this kind of competitive misconduct.
[65] Save The Internet, an advocacy organization led by Free Press, is documenting situations in which ISPs have engaged in data discrimination.