Wikipedia defines net neutrality as

(...) a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers and governments on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed.

Other definitions exist, but the general consensus is that the term should ensure that 

• all Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network,
• the owners of the Internet's infrastructure are not allowed to discriminate
• Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet

In the summer 2006 Google posted a public letter to its users:

The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There's a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called "net neutrality" – and it's a debate that's so important Google is asking you to get involved. We're asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.

In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.

Only four years ago!

9 August this year a joint proposal from Alan Davidson, Google director of public policy and Tom Tauke, Verizon executive vice president of public affairs, policy, and communications was made (the emphasizing below is mine):

(...) Broadband Internet access service providers are permitted to engage in reasonable network management. Reasonable network management includes any technically sound practice: to reduce or mitigate the effects of congestion on its network; to ensure network security or integrity; to address traffic that is unwanted by or harmful to users, the provider’s network, or the Internet; to ensure service quality to a subscriber; to provide services or capabilities consistent with a consumer’s choices; that is consistent with the technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by an independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization; to prioritize general classes or types of Internet traffic, based on latency; or otherwise to manage the daily operation of its network.

A provider that offers a broadband Internet access service complying with the above principles could offer any other additional or differentiated services. Such other services would have to be distinguishable in scope and purpose from broadband Internet access service, but could make use of or access Internet content, applications or services and could include traffic prioritization. (..)

Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time. (...)

The complete joint proposal is available as a PDF document. See also Google Public Policy Blog for further explaination.

This proposal has resulted in an outcry from several commentators, consumer groups and representatives from various institutions around the world. The reason why is that one perceives that the proposal allows differentiating Internet traffic. Those who are able to pay the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will ensure that their content is prioritized over other Internet content. The statement's view on wireless broadband in particular received harsh comments.

Obviously new organizations with new types of Internet content will not be able to compete with well-established, wealthy organizations like ... Google (to name a not-so-random company as the example) when they want to make their content available to the Internet community.

Initiatives have been taken to run campaigns to stop this Google-Verizon initiative. The one that has received most attention is probably Save the Internet, which has set up a mailing system where one can send a message to USA's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman, Julius Genachowski. Another initiative has set up a system to send protests directly to Google.

If the regulators of the Internet allow a system approximating the Google-Verizon suggestion, it will be a fundamental change in the way the Internet functions. Not only for citizens in the United States of America, but for Internet users around the world.

It will be very interesting to follow this debate and its final outcome.