In October 2007, the Associated Press confirmed that Comcast, the nations largest cable company, was interfering with the file sharing of some of its subscribers. The actions of Comcast were viewed as the clearest example of data discrimination up until that point. Spokesman Charlie Douglas explained that Comcast had special technology to assure the smoothness of its connections, but denied that they blocked any particular applications. However, the technology used by Comcast aversely affected file-sharing services such as BitTorrent, eDonkey, and Gnutella. When a user attempted to share complete files with another user, Comcast disrupted the communication by sending a message to each PC. The message would tell the user to stop the connection, and, since the message was disguised to look like it came from the other user, communication would stop.

The actions of Comcast were looked upon unfavorably by supporters of Net Neutrality. Though legal at the time, Comcast's discrimination hurt both customers trying to file share and also companies who provided the service. Seeing the negative effects of the lack of Net Neutrality initiated much discussion and support of the idea. In fact, it is this particular event that made the concept of Net Neutrality into the well-known topic of debate it is today.

Netflix vs. Comcast

In November 2010, Comcast made another case for the necessity of Net Neutrality when they threatened to block Level 3 Communications, the backend provider of Netflix. Comcast demanded that Level 3 pay a recurring fee to stream media over its network. With Level 3 signing a deal to make Comcast its primary provider in the same month of the incident, they had no choice but to agree to pay the outrageous fee. Because of the nature of this agreement, Level 3 Communications felt that Comcast's actions were similar to extortion. Also, customers feared that the incident would lead to increased costs for Netflix, Comcast, or both.

With the FCC due to make a decision about Net Neutrality a few weeks after the event, the situation gave the FCC further motivation to pass a movement towards Net Neutrality. In a news release, Level 3 stated, “This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.” The reoccurring abuse of Comcast is an example of the threat of a completely unregulated Internet, and thus provides concrete support for the case of Net Neutrality.

Verizon vs. Google

In 2006, Verizon accused Google of freeloading off of their highly invested high-speed network lines. After spending billions of dollars to build a fiber-optic network to provide high-speed Internet to users around the world, Verizon felt that they deserved to be compensated by Google. Without monetary incentives to innovate and research better products, Verizon felt as though their efforts were unjustified.

Verizon Chief Executive Ivan Seidenberg argued that it would be better to charge companies like Google to get the funding they needed instead of charging consumers, "I don't think anybody in the room would want us to put all the costs [of building fiber networks] into DSL rates, nor do I think that would be economically efficient." Additionally, John Thorne, a Verizon senior vice president and deputy general counsel, said, "The only way we are going to attract the truly huge amounts of capital needed to build out these networks is to strike down governmental entry barriers and allow providers to realize profits." Since Net Neutrality would prohibit Verizon from receiving the profits he spoke of, he referred to the concept as a barrier to build high-speed networks to accommodate the growing rate of Internet traffic. He spoke just as the Senate Commerce Committee was due to hold a hearing on Net Neutrality. The statements of Seidenberg and Thorne introduced a compelling case against the proposal of Net Neutrality.

Google/Verizon vs. Facebook

In 2010, concerns about Net Neutrality appeared again with the conflicts Facebook had with Google/Verizon's Net Neutrality proposal. The proposal sets up a set of rules to ensure neutrality over Verizon's wired networks. But, since the only suggestion in the policy to mention wireless networks is the clause about transparency of network management, critics view the proposal as a way for Verizon to trade neutrality on wired networks for the freedom to control wireless networks however they want.

In particular, Facebook feared that the Google/Verizon proposal would threaten their service. As mentioned in their proposal, Google/Verizon would, "Allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today." As rumors of Google Me, Google's attempt at a competitor to Facebook, arose, Facebook worried that the proposal would increase the costs of their data accessing and give an unfair advantage to Google. Additionally, the proposal would serve as a marketing tool for Google's new project. Though the proposal was meant to support Net Neutrality, it may allow the creation of an Internet fast lane and give Google a dominating advantage in wireless networks. Facebook argues that, "Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators — regardless of their size or wealth — will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content and services delivered through their Internet connections." In order to encourage competition, Facebook wants all forms of the Internet to remain open and neutral.