Editing Net neutrality (section)

==Issues==
===Discrimination by protocol===
Discrimination by protocol is the favoring or blocking of information based on aspects of the [[communications protocol]] that the computers are using.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/technology/02fcc.html?_r=1|title=F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage|work=[[The New York Times]]|first=Saul|last=Hansell|date=2 August 2008|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170919212820/http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/technology/02fcc.html?_r=1|archive-date=19 September 2017}}</ref> In the US, a complaint was filed with the [[Federal Communications Commission]] against the cable provider [[Comcast]] alleging they had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using the popular file-sharing software [[BitTorrent]].<ref>{{cite news|work=Center for Internet and Society|url=https://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|title=Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051141/http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|archive-date=4 March 2016|access-date=27 June 2016}}</ref> Comcast admitted no wrongdoing<ref>{{cite news|author=Duncan, Geoff|title=Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications|url=http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/comcast-to-pay-16-million-for-blocking-p2p-applications/|date=23 December 2009|work=Digital Trends|access-date=23 December 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091225191525/http://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/comcast-to-pay-16-million-for-blocking-p2p-applications/|archive-date=25 December 2009}}</ref> in its proposed settlement of up to {{USD|16}} per share in December 2009.<ref>{{cite news|author=Cheng, Jacqui|title=Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement.ars|date=22 December 2009|publisher=Condé Nast|work=Ars Technica|access-date=23 December 2009|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100102030632/http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/comcast-throws-16-million-at-p2p-throttling-settlement.ars|archive-date=2 January 2010}}</ref> However, a U.S. appeals court ruled in April 2010 that the FCC exceeded its authority when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008. However, the FCC spokeswoman Jen Howard responded, "The court in no way disagreed with the importance of preserving a free and open Internet, nor did it close the door to other methods for achieving this important end."<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303411604575167782845712768|title=Court Backs Comcast Over FCC|author=Amy Schatz|date=7 April 2010|work=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312150343/https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303411604575167782845712768/|archive-date=12 March 2017}}</ref> Despite the ruling in favor of Comcast, a study by ''Measurement Lab'' in October 2011 verified that Comcast had virtually stopped its BitTorrent throttling practices.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=https://www.wired.com/2011/10/bittorrent-throttling-comcast/|title=Comcast No Longer Choking File Sharers' Connections, Study Says|magazine=WIRED|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170427100906/https://www.wired.com/2011/10/bittorrent-throttling-comcast/|archive-date=27 April 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-throttling-internet-providers-exposed-111020/|title=BitTorrent Throttling Internet Providers Exposed|work=TorrentFreak|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170808193441/https://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-throttling-internet-providers-exposed-111020/|archive-date=8 August 2017}}</ref>

===Discrimination by Internet Protocol (IP) address===
{{See also|IP address blocking}}

During the 1990s, creating a non-neutral Internet was technically infeasible.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|title=Deep Packet Inspection: The end of the Internet as we know it?|website=Center for Internet and Society|author1=M. Chris Riley|author2=Ben Scott, Free Press|name-list-style=amp|date=Mar 2009|access-date=29 May 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140909081342/http://www.freepress.net/sites/default/files/fp-legacy/Deep_Packet_Inspection_The_End_of_the_Internet_As_We_Know_It.pdf|archive-date=9 September 2014}}</ref> Originally developed to filter harmful [[malware]], the Internet security company [[NetScreen Technologies]] released network [[firewall (computing)|firewalls]] in 2003 with so-called [[deep packet inspection]] capabilities. Deep packet inspection helped make real-time discrimination between different kinds of data possible,<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.networkworld.com/news/2003/1020netscannou.html|title=NetScreen announces deep inspection firewall|work=Network World|author=Paul Roberts, IDG News Service|date=20 October 2003|access-date=29 May 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081207184318/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2003/1020netscannou.html|archive-date=7 December 2008}}</ref> and is often used for [[Internet censorship]]. 

One criticism regarding discrimination is that the system set up by ISPs for this purpose is capable of not only discriminating but also scrutinizing the full-packet content of communications. For instance, deep packet inspection technology installs intelligence within the lower layers of the network to discover and identify the source, type, and destination of packets, revealing information about packets traveling in the physical infrastructure so it can dictate the quality of transport such packets will receive.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Handbook of Research on Telecommunications Planning and Management for Business|url=https://archive.org/details/handbookresearch00leei_023|url-access=limited|last=Lee|first=In|publisher=Information Science Reference|year=2009|isbn=9781605661940|location=Hershey, PA|pages=[https://archive.org/details/handbookresearch00leei_023/page/n189 135]}}</ref> This is seen as an architecture of [[surveillance]], one that can be shared with [[intelligence agencies]], copyrighted content owners, and civil litigants, exposing the users' secrets in the process.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Law, Policy, and Technology: Cyberterrorism, Information Warfare, and Internet Immobilization: Cyberterrorism, Information Warfare, and Internet Immobilization|last1=Reich|first1=Pauline|last2=Gelbstein|first2=Eduardo|publisher=IGI Global|year=2012|isbn=9781615208319|location=Hershey, PA|pages=229}}</ref>

In a practice called [[zero-rating]], companies will not invoice data use related to certain IP addresses, favoring the use of those services. Examples include [[Facebook Zero]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/t-mobile-prepaid-free-facebook/|title=T-Mobile prepaid offering free data... but only to access Facebook|website=Engadget|author=Ben Gilbert|date=23 December 2013|access-date=18 November 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129023841/http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/23/t-mobile-prepaid-free-facebook/|archive-date=29 November 2014}}</ref> [[Wikipedia Zero]], and [[Google Free Zone]]. These zero-rating practices are especially common in the [[developing world]].<ref>{{cite web|website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/21/net_neutrality_internet_access_is_already_in_trouble_in_the_developing_world.html|title=Net Neutrality Is Already in Trouble in the Developing World|author=Hay Newman, Lily|date=21 January 2014|access-date=18 November 2014|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141116134940/http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/21/net_neutrality_internet_access_is_already_in_trouble_in_the_developing_world.html|archive-date=16 November 2014}}</ref> Aside from the zero-rating method, ISPs will also use certain strategies to reduce the costs of pricing plans such as the use of sponsored data. In a scenario where a sponsored data plan is used, a third party will step in and pay for all the content that it (or the carrier or consumer) does not want around. This is generally used as a way for ISPs to remove [[out-of-pocket]] costs from subscribers.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1016/j.telpol.2016.10.002 | volume=41 | title=Grey nuances in the black and white debate over subsidized Internet access | year=2017 | journal=Telecommunications Policy | pages=1017–1026 | last1 = Frieden | first1 = Rob| issue=10 | s2cid=157404487 }}</ref>

Sometimes ISPs will charge some companies, but not others, for the traffic they cause on the ISP's network. French telecom operator Orange, complaining that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites consist of roughly 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, made a deal with Google, in which they charge Google for the traffic incurred on the Orange network.<ref>{{cite web |last=Robertson |first=Adi |url=https://www.theverge.com/2013/1/19/3894182/french-isp-orange-says-google-pays-to-send-traffic |title=French ISP Orange says it's making Google pay to send traffic over its network |website=[[The Verge]] |date=19 January 2013 |access-date=14 January 2014 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140116074203/http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/19/3894182/french-isp-orange-says-google-pays-to-send-traffic |archive-date=16 January 2014}}</ref> Some also thought that Orange's rival ISP [[Free (ISP)|Free]] throttled YouTube traffic. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=1&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Buid%5D=1619&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bannee%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Btheme%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bmotscle%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5BbackID%5D=26&cHash=8d42d6993c018a12924d83cf72e3bd36|website=arcep.fr|title=ARCEP closes the administrative inquiry involving several companies, including Free and Google, on the technical and financial terms governing IP traffic routing.|date=19 July 2013|access-date=18 January 2014|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140201162548/http://www.arcep.fr/index.php?id=8571&L=1&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Buid%5D=1619&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bannee%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Btheme%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5Bmotscle%5D=&tx_gsactualite_pi1%5BbackID%5D=26&cHash=8d42d6993c018a12924d83cf72e3bd36|archive-date=1 February 2014}}</ref>

===Favoring private networks===
Proponents of net neutrality argue that without new regulations, Internet service providers would be able to profit from and favor their own private networks and that ISPs would be able to pick and choose who they offer a greater bandwidth to. If one website or company is able to afford more, they will go with them. This especially stifles private up-and-coming businesses.

ISPs are able to encourage the use of specific services by using private networks to discriminate what data is counted against bandwidth caps. For example, Comcast struck a deal with Microsoft that allowed users to stream television through the Xfinity app on their [[Xbox 360]]s without it affecting their bandwidth limit. However, using other television [[streaming]] apps, such as [[Netflix]], [[HBO Go]], and [[Hulu]], counted towards the limit. Comcast denied that this infringed on net neutrality principles since "it runs its Xfinity for Xbox service on its own, private Internet protocol network."<ref>{{cite news|url= http://fortune.com/2012/05/16/is-comcast-violating-net-neutrality-rules/|author= Mitchell, Dan|title= Is Comcast violating net-neutrality rules?|work=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]]|date= May 2012|url-status= live|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20151115140002/http://fortune.com/2012/05/16/is-comcast-violating-net-neutrality-rules/|archive-date= 15 November 2015}}</ref> In 2009, when [[AT&T]] was bundling [[iPhone 3G]] with its 3G network service, the company placed restrictions on which iPhone applications could run on its network.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=PRASAD|first1=ROHIT|last2=SRIDHAR|first2=V|date=2014|title=The Economics of Net Neutrality|journal=Economic and Political Weekly|volume=49|issue=16|pages=52–58|jstor=24480155|issn=0012-9976}}</ref> 

According to net neutrality proponents, this capitalization on which content producers ISPs can favor would ultimately lead to fragmentation, where some ISPs would have certain content that is not necessarily present in the networks offered by other ISPs. The danger behind fragmentation, as viewed by proponents of net neutrality, is the concept that there could be ''multiple Internets'', where some ISPs offer exclusive Internet applications or services or make it more difficult to gain access to Internet content that may be more easily viewable through other Internet service providers. An example of a fragmented service would be television, where some cable providers offer exclusive media from certain content providers.<ref name=":02">{{Cite journal|last1=Lee|first1=Robin S|last2=Wu|first2=Tim|date=1 August 2009|title=Subsidizing Creativity through Network Design: Zero-Pricing and Net Neutrality|journal=Journal of Economic Perspectives|volume=23|issue=3|pages=61–76|doi=10.1257/jep.23.3.61|issn=0895-3309|url=https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1601|access-date=26 August 2020|archive-date=20 September 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200920075859/https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/1601/|url-status=live|doi-access=free}}</ref> 

However, in theory, allowing ISPs to favor certain content and private networks would overall improve Internet services since they would be able to recognize packets of information that are more time-sensitive and prioritize that over packets that are not as sensitive to latency. The issue, as explained by Robin S. Lee and Tim Wu, is that there are literally too many ISPs and Internet content providers around the world to reach an agreement on how to standardize that prioritization. A proposed solution would be to allow all online content to be accessed and transferred freely, while simultaneously offering a ''fast lane'' for a preferred service that does not discriminate on the content provider.<ref name=":02" />

===Peering discrimination===
There is disagreement about whether [[peering]] is a net neutrality issue.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-24/netflixs-deal-with-comcast-isnt-about-net-neutrality-except-that-it-is|title=Netflix's Deal With Comcast Isn't About Net Neutrality—Except That It Is|publisher=[[Bloomberg News|Bloomberg]]|author=Joshua Brustein|date=24 February 2014|access-date=18 November 2014|work=BusinessWeek|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140915030202/http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-24/netflixs-deal-with-comcast-isnt-about-net-neutrality-except-that-it-is|archive-date=15 September 2014}}</ref> In the first quarter of 2014, streaming website Netflix reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its service to Netflix clients with a peering agreement whereby Netflix delivered data directly to the Comcast network.<ref>{{cite news|author=Waniata, Ryan|url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/comcast-jumps-netflix-speed-rankings-payola-style-agreement|title=Comcast Jumps up in Netflix Speed Rankings after Payola-style Agreement|work=Digital Trends|date=14 April 2014|access-date=1 February 2023|archive-date=1 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230201031744/https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/comcast-jumps-netflix-speed-rankings-payola-style-agreement/|url-status=live}}</ref> This arrangement was made in response to increasingly slow connection speeds through Comcast over the course of 2013, where average speeds dropped by over 25% of their values a year before to an all-time low. After the deal was struck in January 2014, the Netflix speed index recorded a 66% increase. Netflix agreed to a similar deal with [[Verizon]] in 2014, after Verizon [[DSL]] customers' connection speed dropped to less than 1&nbsp;Mbit/s early in the year. Netflix spoke out against this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds, using the Netflix client.<ref>{{cite news|author=Waniata, Ryan|url=https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/netflix-calls-verizon-right-big-red-screen|title=Netflix Calls Verizon out on the Big Red Screen [Update: Netflix Backs Off]|work=Digital Trends|date=9 June 2014|access-date=1 February 2023|archive-date=1 February 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230201031743/https://www.digitaltrends.com/home-theater/netflix-calls-verizon-right-big-red-screen/|url-status=live}}</ref> This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that led to Verizon's obtaining a [[cease and desist]] order on 5 June 2014, that forced Netflix to stop displaying this message.<!--[[User:Kvng/RTH]]-->

===Favoring fast-loading websites===
Pro-net neutrality arguments have also noted that regulations are necessary due to research showing low tolerance to slow-loading content providers. In a 2009 research study conducted by Forrester Research, online shoppers expected the web pages they visited to download content instantly.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/technology/impatient-web-users-flee-slow-loading-sites.html|title=Impatient Web Users Flee Slow-Loading Sites|last=Lohr|first=Steve|date=29 February 2012|work=[[The New York Times]]|access-date=2017-03-04|issn=0362-4331|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304193720/http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/technology/impatient-web-users-flee-slow-loading-sites.html|archive-date=4 March 2017}}</ref> When a page fails to load at the expected speed, many of them simply click out. A study found that even a one-second delay could lead to "11% fewer page views, a 16% decrease in customer satisfaction, and 7% loss in conversions."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2012/12/04/fast-sites/#14be9e3353cf|title=Don't Let a Slow Website Kill Your Bottom Line|last=Dooley|first=Roger|work=[[Forbes]]|access-date=2017-03-04|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170304195437/https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2012/12/04/fast-sites/#14be9e3353cf|archive-date=4 March 2017}}</ref> This delay can cause a severe problem to small innovators who have created new technology. If a website is slow by default, the general public will lose interest and favor a website that runs faster. This helps large corporate companies maintain power because they have the means to fund faster Internet speeds.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality|title=Net Neutrality|last=Feld|first=Harold|date=14 December 2017|website=Public Knowledge|access-date=2018-05-23|archive-date=14 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180714011143/https://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/net-neutrality|url-status=live}}</ref> On the other hand, smaller competitors have less financial capabilities making it harder for them to succeed in the online world.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.inverse.com/article/38735-net-neutrality-timeline-fcc-meeting|title=Net Neutrality Timeline: 10 Events That Led to Dec. 14|last=Leskin|first=P.|date=27 November 2017|website=Inverse|access-date=2018-05-15|archive-date=29 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180929000438/https://www.inverse.com/article/38735-net-neutrality-timeline-fcc-meeting|url-status=live}}</ref>