"...Network neutrality, a term coined by Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu in 2003 is the idea that an internet service provider (ISP) should treat all the data that travels through its network equally, regardless of the source, destination, or content of that data. In practice, this means that the data packets that make up streaming video, images from a digital archive, massively multiplayer online games, and class material in a course management system are all delivered from server to user indiscriminately, with minor modifications for network optimization...."— ACRL Keeping up with net neutrality
Network neutrality refers to maintaining a neutral, non-competitive playing field for everyone on the web without discrimination or ability to pay for access (especially with respect to bandwidth availability). Net neutrality, as it is often shortened to, is rooted in the democratization of information access. Simply, the idea is to treat all forms of access, content, services and platforms on the Internet equally; further, it stands on principle against two-tiered access to web content (or, to use a metaphor, no slow and fast lanes, or separate costs for access). Advocates of net neutrality argue that networks should carry all kinds of information and support all applications equally, and must therefore not charge Internet users for access based on the amount of bandwidth they use.
A central principle among advocates of net neutrality is the idea that the Internet is a public utility, and is similar in that sense to electricity, the telephone, television and radio. Further, its open architecture is an essential part of market innovation, economic growth, social discourse and the flow of ideas across nations. As an important source and platform for information dissemination, the web should therefore be protected against all forms of censorship and discrimination (including discriminating based on one's ability to pay for access). For many Internet users, open access to information on the web is a basic human right. In other words, net neutrality is a critical component of democracy, a free and open civil society and lifelong learning.
In Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio, Television, Telecommunications Commission) ruled in 2011 that usage-based billing would now be introduced. Prime Minister Harper said that "...we're very concerned about CRTC's decision on usage-based billing and its impact on consumers. I've asked for a review of the decision". Some have suggested that this adversely affects net neutrality, since it discriminates against media that relies on files of information that are larger in size, such as audio and video. The new ruling significantly throttles the availability of access by small business owners as they would have to pay for services.
"....Net neutrality in Canada is a hotly debated issue. In Canada, Internet service providers (ISPs) generally provide Internet service in a neutral manner, some notable exceptions being Bell Canada's, Eastlink's, Shaw, and Rogers Hi-Speed Internet's throttling of certain protocols and Telus' censorship of a specific website critical of the company."(Wikipedia. "Net neutrality in Canada". August 2014.)
"...Under the heading of “net neutrality” lies a whole range of questions affecting consumers and service providers. Fundamental issues of technology, economics, competition, access and freedom of speech are all involved . . . it is one of the polarizing issues of the day. It will have to be addressed and debated by all of us. (CRTC, 2008)
The laws that govern Canadian telecommunications prohibit “unjust discrimination” and interference with content by telecommunications carriers. However, they do not enforce net neutrality or prevent ISPs from offering tiered services to content providers. Should they do so, it would turn the internet into a two-tiered network on which corporate content is given priority over all other content. In the end, those with deep pockets will get the “fast lane”, while everyone else will get slower lanes.
Another problem is ISP “traffic-shaping”: a practice in which providers slow down certain types of traffic (such as peer-to-peer file sharing) to make space for other traffic on congested networks. This is seen by many as “unjust discrimination” under the Telecommunications Act and a violation of network neutrality, but providers continue to defend the practice.