The issue of Network Neutrality has suffered from confusing arguments in part due to incompatible definitions of what neutrality is. Some people point to the original philosophy of the Internet as being purely a mechanism for connecting end points (for example, your computer as one endpoint of a connection and Google as the other). Others see neutrality as freedom from regulation.

Those in this second camp are accused by the others of wanting to control what you the end-user can see on the Internet, by giving preferential treatment to sites which pay them extra fees for access to their audience (that's you, their customers). They argue that Google for example should have to pay extra to get access to you, even though Google is already paying for their own access to the net. And also possibly by preventing access entirely to those who don't pay (because perhaps they can't afford to). When accused they want an example where this has happened and perhaps until now it hasn't.

Nicole sends in a link to Consumer groups want Comcast fined for thwarting the Bible

A number of consumer groups are petitioning the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every customer affected by their BitTorrent-throttling practices.

Comcast has been denying accusations that they are systematically interfering with BitTorrent connections until recently, when the Associated Press uncovered evidence to the contrary, which was confirmed independently by the EFF):

TorrentFreak: Comcast Throttles BitTorrent Traffic, Seeding Impossible

C|NET: Comcast denies monkeying with BitTorrent traffic

C|NET: Is Comcast's BitTorrent filtering violating the law?

Ars Technica: Evidence mounts that Comcast is targeting BitTorrent traffic

AP Tests Comcast's File-Sharing Filter

EFF: Comcast is also Jamming Gnutella (and Lotus Notes?)