Net neutrality by country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Net neutrality is the principle that governments should mandate Internet service providers to treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate or charge differently by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or method of communication.[1] For instance, under these principles, internet service providers are unable to intentionally block, slow down or charge money for specific websites and online content.


Country Status on net neutrality Year
 Argentina Enforced 2014
 Australia Not enforced
 Belgium Enforced
 Brazil Enforced 2014
 Canada Enforced
 Chile Enforced 2010
 China Not enforced
 India Enforced 2018
 Israel Enforced 2014
 Japan Enforced
 Mexico Enforced
 Netherlands Enforced 2012
 Russia Enforced 2016
 Slovenia Enforced 2013
 South Korea Enforced
 United States Not enforced
 Uruguay Not enforced

By country[edit]


The Law 27,078, of 2014, under the Article 56 establishes the right of users to access, use, send, receive or offer any content, application, service or protocol through the Internet without any restriction, discrimination, distinction or blocking. Article 57 forbids “ICT service providers” from blocking, interfering, or restricting any content, application, service, or protocol; price discrimination by virtue of its contents. Article 57 also establishes an exception allowing blocking or restrictions solely under a judicial order or by the user of the service.[2]


In Belgium, net neutrality was discussed in the parliament in June 2011. Three parties (CD&V, N-VA & PS) jointly proposed a text to introduce the concept of net neutrality in the telecom law.[3]


In 2014, the Brazilian government passed a law which expressly upholds net neutrality, "guaranteeing equal access to the Internet and protecting the privacy of its users in the wake of U.S. spying revelations".[4]

The Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (in Portuguese: Marco Civil da Internet, officially Law No 12.965) became law on April 23, 2014 at the Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance. It governs the use of the Internet in Brazil, through forecasting principles, guarantees, rights and duties to those who use the network as well as the determination of guidelines for state action. The legislation was used as basis to block the popular WhatsApp application in Brazilian territory, a decision lifted soon afterwards, experts claiming that it was, in actuality, against the Framework, which was misinterpreted by the judiciary.[5][6][7][8][9]


In a January 25, 2011 decision, the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) ruled that usage-based billing could be introduced.[10] Prime Minister Harper signaled that the government may be looking into the ruling: "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."[11] Some have suggested that the ruling adversely affects net neutrality, since it discriminates against media that is larger in size, such as audio and video.[12]

In 2005, Canada's second-largest telecommunications company, Telus, began blocking access to a server that hosted a website supporting a labor strike against the company.[13]


On 13 June 2010, the National Congress of Chile amended the country's telecommunications law in order to preserve network neutrality, becoming the first country in the world to do so.[14][15][16] This came after an intensive campaign on blogs, Twitter, and other social networks.[17] The law, published on 26 August 2010, added three articles to the General Law of Telecommunications, forbidding ISPs from arbitrarily blocking, interfering with, discriminating, hindering or restricting an Internet user's right to use, send, receive or offer any legal content, application, service or any other type of legal activity or use through the Internet. ISPs must offer Internet access in which content is not arbitrarily treated differently based on its source or ownership.[18]


The People's Republic of China’s approach to internet policy does not account for Net Neutrality as the government uses ISPs to inspect and regulate the content that is available to their citizens. They typically block both foreign and domestic sites that the government wishes to censor in their country, using software and hardware that together are known as the "Great Firewall." Many of the sites that are on the Great Firewall’s blacklist are there because they provide information that the government cannot effectively alter permanently, such as large social media IPs or information sites such as Wikipedia.[19]

According to Thomas Lum, a specialist in Asian Affairs: "Since its founding in 1949, the People's Republic of China (PRC) has exerted great effort in manipulating the flow of information and prohibiting the dissemination of viewpoints that criticize the government or stray from the official Communist party view. The introduction of Internet technology in the mid-1990s presented a challenge to government control over news sources, and by extension, over public opinion. While the Internet has developed rapidly, broadened access to news, and facilitated mass communications in China, many forms of expression online, as in other mass media, are still significantly stifled. Empirical studies have found that China has one of the most sophisticated content-filtering Internet regimes in the world. The Chinese government employs increasingly sophisticated methods to limit content online, including a combination of legal regulation, surveillance, and punishment to promote self-censorship, as well as technical controls."[20]

European Union[edit]

When the European Commission consulted on the EU's 2002 regulatory framework for electronic communications in November 2007, it examined the possible need for legislation to mandate network neutrality, countering the potential damage, if any, caused by non-neutral broadband access. The European Commission stated that prioritisation "is generally considered to be beneficial for the market so long as users have choice to access the transmission capabilities and the services they want" and "consequently, the current EU rules allow operators to offer different services to different customers groups, but not allow those who are in a dominant position to discriminate in an anti-competitive manner between customers in similar circumstances".[21] However, the European Commission highlighted that Europe's current legal framework cannot effectively prevent network operators from degrading their customers' services. Therefore, the European Commission proposed that it should be empowered to impose a minimum quality of services requirements.[22] In addition, an obligation of transparency was proposed to limit network operators' ability to set up restrictions on end-users' choice of lawful content and applications.[23]

On 19 December 2009, the so-called "Telecoms Package" came into force and EU member states were required to implement the Directive by May 2011.[24][25] According to the European Commission the new transparency requirements in the Telecoms Package would mean that "consumers will be informed—even before signing a contract—about the nature of the service to which they are subscribing, including traffic management techniques and their impact on service quality, as well as any other limitations (such as bandwidth caps or available connection speed)".[25] Regulation (EC) No 1211/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 established the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) and the Office[26] Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications. BEREC's main purpose is to promote cooperation between national regulatory authorities, ensuring a consistent application of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications.[27]

The European Parliament voted the EU Commission's September 2013 proposal on its first reading in April 2014 and the Council adopted a mandate to negotiate in March 2015. Following the adoption of the Digital Single Market Strategy by the Commission on 6 May, Heads of State and Government agreed on the need to strengthen the EU telecoms single market. After 18 months of negotiations, the European Parliament, Council and Commission reached two agreements on the end to roaming charges and on the first EU-wide rules on net neutrality on 30 June 2015,[28] to be completed by an overhaul of EU telecoms rules in 2016. Specifically, article 3 of EU Regulation 2015/2120[29] sets the basic framework for ensuring net neutrality across the entire European Union. However, the regulation's text has been criticized as offering loopholes that can undermine the regulation's effectiveness.[30] Some EU member states, such as Slovenia and the Netherlands, have stronger net neutrality laws.

Article 3 of EU Regulation 2015/2120[31] sets the basic framework for ensuring net neutrality across the entire European Union. However, the regulation's text has been criticized as offering loopholes that can undermine the regulation's effectiveness.[32] Some EU member states, such as Slovenia and the Netherlands, have stronger net neutrality laws. In Germany mobile device ISP's like Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone are offering services that might be seen as undermining net neutrality. The government agency overseeing the market (Bundesnetzagentur) stated, in general these plans are in alignment with net neutrality but forced the companies to adapt some changes.[33][34]


In France, on 12 April 2011, the Commission for economic affairs of the French parliament approved the report of MP Laure de La Raudière (UMP). The report contains[35] 9 proposals. Propositions n°1 & 2 act on net neutrality.


Indihome, a subsidiary of Telkom Indonesia, is deliberately blocking Netflix and claimed that it is due to censorship and pornographic contents. On the other hand, it promotes Iflix, a Malaysian-based company that provides similar service as Netflix. Ironically the M-17 rated contents are also available on Iflix without further censorship from the provider.


On 8 February 2016, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) banned differential pricing of data services.[36][37] As per TRAI's press release, the regulator had multiple responses soliciting different opinions with respect to its consultation paper. Considering all the responses, the regulator decided to have an ex ante regulation instead of a case by case tariff investigation regime. According to the TRAI this decision was reached in order to give the industry participants the much needed certainty and in view of the high costs of regulation in terms of time and resources that will be required for investigating each case of tariff discrimination. Ruling prohibits any service provider from offering or charging discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content and also prohibits any agreement or contract which might have effect of discriminatory tariffs for data services or may assist the service provider in any manner to evade the regulation. It also specifies financial disincentives for contravention of regulation. However, the ruling does not prescribe a blanket ban on differential pricing and provides an exception in case of public emergency or for providing emergency services. Discriminatory tariffs are allowed in the case of an emergency. Lastly, according to TRAI this ruling should not be considered the end of the net neutrality debate. The regulator has promised to keep a close view on the developments in the market and may undertake a review after two years or at an earlier date, as it may deem fit.[38]

In March 2015, the TRAI released a formal consultation paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTT) services, seeking comments from the public. The consultation paper was criticised for being one-sided and having confusing statements. It was condemned by various politicians and Internet users.[39][40][41] By 24 April 2015, over a million emails had been sent to TRAI demanding net neutrality.[41][42][43][44] The consultation period ended on January 7, 2016.

Ultimately, in the year 2018, the Indian Government unanimously approved new regulations supporting net neutrality. The regulations are considered to be the "world's strongest" net neutrality rules, guaranteeing free and open internet for nearly half a billion people,[45] and are expected to help the culture of startups and innovation. The only exceptions to the rules are new and emerging services like autonomous driving and tele-medicine, which may require prioritised internet lanes and faster than normal speeds.[46]

Violations of net neutrality have been common in India. Examples beyond Facebook's include Aircel's Wikipedia Zero along with Aircel's free access to Facebook and WhatsApp, Airtel's free access to Google, and Reliance's free access to Twitter.[47][48]

Facebook's Free Basics program is seen by activists as a net neutrality violation, based on its provision of free-of-cost access to dozens of sites, in collaboration with telecom operators. There were protests online and on ground against the Free Basics program. The Free Software Movement of India also held a protest in Hyderabad and parts of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.[49]


In 2011, Israel's parliament passed a law requiring net neutrality in mobile broadband. These requirements were extended to wireline providers in an amendment to the law passed on February 10, 2014. The law contains an exception for reasonable network management, and is vague on a number of issues such as data caps, tiered pricing, paid prioritization and paid peering.[50]


Since March 2009 in Italy, there is a bill called: Proposta di legge dei senatori Vincenzo VITA (PD) e Luigi Vimercati (PD) "Neutralità Delle Reti, Free Software E Societa' Dell'informazione".[51] Senator Vimercati in an interview said that he wants "to do something for the network neutrality" and that he was inspired by Lawrence Lessig, Professor at the Stanford Law School. Vimercati said that the topic is very hard, but in the article 3 there is a reference to the concept of neutrality regard the contents. It is also a problem of transparency and for the mobile connections: we need the minimum bandwidth to guarantee the service. We need some principle to defend the consumers. It's important that the consumer has been informed if he could not access all the Internet. The bill refuses all the discrimination: related by the content, the service and the device. The bill is generally about Internet ("a statute for the Internet") and treat different topics like network neutrality, free software, giving an Internet access to everyone.


Net neutrality in the common carrier sense has been instantiated into law in many countries, including Japan. In Japan, the nation's largest phone company, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone, operates a service called Flet's Square over their FTTH high speed Internet connections.


In June 2011, the majority of the Dutch lower house voted for new net neutrality laws which prohibits the blocking of Internet services, usage of deep packet inspection to track customer behaviour and otherwise filtering or manipulating network traffic.[52] The legislation applies to any telecommunications provider and was formally ratified by the Dutch senate on 8 May 2012.[53][54]


As part of the European Union, Portugal is bound to the laws protecting net neutrality established by the EU in 2002. However, the Portuguese government still allows for certain kinds of pricing models which are banned under most net neutrality rules. They allow for broadband providers to offer special pricing packages in which customers can pay for extra data that is only designated for the use of specific websites. For example, one package allows customers to pay extra for more data that can be used for social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter. However, many supporters of net neutrality in Portugal have objected to this pricing model on the grounds that it creates another barrier to entry for all internet companies that are not included in the special data packages.[55] These kinds of pricing packages are not specifically addressed in the EU net neutrality rules, so they have been allowed to continue. However, on February 28, 2018, Anacom, the telecommunications regulatory agency in Portugal, accused the country's main broadband providers, MEO, NOS, and Vodafone, of violating the EU rules on net neutrality with their extra data packages. They granted the providers up to forty days to change their pricing packages.[56] However, the law does not specify what sanctions are appropriate, leading to an unclear future in this ongoing battle.

On June 4, 2012, the Netherlands became the first country in Europe and the second in the world, after Chile, to enact a network neutrality law.[57][58][59] The main provision of the law requires that "Providers of public electronic communication networks used to provide Internet access services as well as providers of Internet access services will not hinder or slow down services or applications on the Internet".[60]

European Union struck down roaming charges by creating a law in which companies cannot slow down services. There are exceptions to services being slowed down which include court order, security, or congestion on a website.[61] Because Portugal is a member of the European Union, it must follow all guidelines set by their Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC).[62] Anacom reported that majority of the complaints it received in the first half of 2018 involving the communications sector were related to billing, service failure, and cancellation of service.[63]


After almost 4 years of discussion, in early 2016 Federal Antimonopoly Service approved a regulation blocking ISPs from throttling or otherwise blocking any websites apart from those blocked at the request of the Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology and Mass Media, thus protecting net neutrality in Russia.[64][65]

In September 2007, the Russian government's Resolution No 575 introduced regulation rules of telematics services. Network operators (ISPs) could legally limit individual actions of the subscriber's network activity, if such actions threatened the normal functioning of the network. ISPs were obliged to exclude the possibility of access to information systems, network addresses, or uniform pointers which a subscriber informs the operator of communication in the form specified in the contract. The subscriber was obliged to take actions to protect the subscriber terminal from the impact of malicious software and to prevent the spread of spam and malicious software to its subscriber terminal. In reality, most Russian ISPs shaped the traffic of P2P protocols (like BitTorrent) with lower priority (P2P was about of 80% of traffic there). Also, there was popular method, called retracker,[66][67] for redirecting some BitTorrent traffic to the ISP's cache servers and other subscribers inside of a metropolitan area network (MAN). Access to MANs is usually with greater speed (2x–1000x or more, specified in the contract) and better quality than the rest of the Internet.


In 2014 and 2015, there were efforts to charge over-the-top content (OTT) providers (companies that provide streaming video). Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) has a Policy Framework for net neutrality that did not allow a surcharge. Consumers also argued that they already pay for their service and that they shouldn't have to pay more to access the sites they want to.


At the end of 2012, Slovenia legislated a law of electronic communication implementing a strong principle of net neutrality.[68] Slovenia thus became the second country in Europe to enact a net neutrality law. The Government Agency for Communications, Networks and Services (AKOS) is enforcing the law and executes inspections. In January 2015 it found zero-rating infringements at the two largest mobile network providers, Telekom Slovenije and Si.mobil (now A1),[69] which were respectively "zero-rating the Deezer music service and the 'Hangar mapa' cloud storage service."[70] In response, AKOS banned zero rating for all services except three owned by the state incumbent.[citation needed] For this, AKOS was sued by Slovenia's telecom operators for violating their own net neutrality rules. A month later the agency found similar infringements at Amis[71] (now Simobil) and Tušmobil[72] (now Telemach). In July 2016 the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia annulled the January 2015 AKOS decisions regarding price discrimination, stating that since it does not "restrict, delay or slow down Internet traffic at the level of individual services or applications" it does not violate net neutrality. The court also said that the Slovenian Electronic Communications Act "does not prohibit zero rating outright."[73] This ruling was in accordance with the Competition Protection Agency (CPA), who felt that the "prohibition of zero-rated services may have been detrimental rather than beneficial for consumers."[74] Four months after the ruling of the Administrative Court, in November 2016, AKOS found Telekom Slovenije and Si.mobil in violation of net neutrality laws for discriminating against non-zero-rated traffic for customers who exceeded their monthly data limits.[73]


In Slovenia, with 1 January 2013 there is a new telecommunication law in effect which explicitly defines and requires net neutrality from telecommunication operators. Net neutrality is defined as a principle that every Internet traffic on a public communication network is dealt with equally, independent of content, applications, services, devices, source and destination of the communication.[75]

South Africa[edit]

As of 2016, there is no law on net neutrality in South Africa. A White Paper was to be published by the South African government in March, 2015,[76] but it has not been published yet. However, the telecommunications regulator ICASA, and the Department of Telecommunications and Postal Services has been engaged in this debate. In March 2014, ICASA invited comments to its "Notice of Public Inquiry into the State of Competition in the Information and Communications Technology Sector",[77] in which net neutrality was brought up, and comments were invited on the stakeholders' views on enforcement of net neutrality in South Africa.

Simultaneously, DTPS was in the process of providing an integrated ICT policy review, to provide recommendations on various issues of ICT policy in South Africa. They published a Green Paper and invited comments to the same. The Green Paper did not venture into the debate of net neutrality in detail and simply stated that it is an issue that must be taken into consideration. Following the Green Paper, a Discussion Paper was published in November, 2014, which also invited comments. Lastly, a Final Report was published in June, 2015 by DTPS providing its policy recommendations. DTPS recommended that the broad tenets of net neutrality be adopted, with principles such as transparency, no blocking of lawful content, and no unreasonable discrimination in mind. They urged the government to set appropriate exceptions to the application of network neutrality principles, such as emergency services, blocking of unlawful content, etc.

South Korea[edit]

In South Korea, VoIP is blocked on high-speed FTTH networks except where the network operator is the service provider.[78]

United Kingdom[edit]

In comparison to the United States, the debate concerning Net Neutrality is one that has not received much attention in the United Kingdom. The officials merely refer to such a concept as an open internet, as net neutrality is a term used originally in American politics. While it does seem to be a non-issue in the UK, there is indeed a defining characteristic in the neutrality debate there, as the arguments are often shaped by regulators. Also, these arguments are often influenced by the discourse of other countries in Europe, so much of the discussions that the UK has about open internet will be linked with those of other European countries listed on this page.[79]

In 2007, Plusnet was using deep packet inspection to implement limits and differential charges for peer-to-peer, file transfer protocol, and online game traffic.[80] However, their network management philosophy was made clear for each package they sold, and was consistent between different websites.[81]

United States[edit]

In 2005, under Republican Chair Abernathy, the FCC adopted policies and rules establishing principles of "network neutrality" in order to carry out the policy of the United States "to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet" and "to promote the continued development of the Internet," "encourag[ing] the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability" – broadband – "to all Americans.".[82] The FCC noted that Congress had cited the Internet's educational and informational importance, and the fact that "[t]he Internet also represents "a forum for a true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity," as well as "play[ing] an important role in the economy, as an engine for productivity growth and cost savings."

One article on Net Neutrality detailed not only what it means for educators, but also described what would happen if it were to be taken away. The author, Chad Sansing, goes on to say that "...Without net neutrality, regardless of how much bandwidth any particular user has, Internet service providers can “throttle” the speed of delivery to privilege some bits of information over others, effectively slowing down some websites and services while speeding up others."[83]

In order "to ensure that providers of telecommunications for Internet access or Internet Protocol-enabled (IP-enabled) services are operated in a neutral manner," and noting that its "Enforcement Bureau recently entered into a consent decree to resolve an investigation with respect to the blocking of ports used for voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)," the Commission adopted network neutrality principles "to preserve and promote the vibrant and open character of the Internet as the telecommunications marketplace enters the broadband age." The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said, however, that because the FCC had previously said broadband Internet access services were not common carrier services, the common carrier network neutrality regulations exceeded the authority the FCC had imposed on itself. Therefore, in 2015, the FCC changed its analysis, reclassified retail providers of BIAS as common carriers, and adopted revised open Internet requirements.

Following the ruling in Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC (2014), between July 15 and September 15, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received 3.7 million comments to change the Internet to a telecommunications service, which would allow the FCC to uphold net neutrality.[84] On 26 February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service, thus applying common carrier protections under Title II of the Communications Act and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to Internet service providers.[85][86][87] On 12 March 2015, the FCC released the specific details of its new net neutrality rule.[88][89] And on 13 April 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new regulations.[90][91] The rule took effect on June 12, 2015.[92]

In 2015, the United States Telecom Association, which represents large telecom companies, filed a lawsuit against the FCC challenging the net neutrality rule.[93] The Association argued that the FCC's classification of broadband carriers as "common carriers" was a form of administrative overreach.[94] In June 2016, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the FCC's net neutrality rules and the FCC's determination that broadband access is a public utility, rather than a luxury.

In January 2017, the Trump administration took office and Ajit Varadaraj Pai was appointed as FCC commissioner. On April 29, 2017, Pai released a proposal suggesting reclassification of broadband access as an information service and a decrease in legal regulations on Internet service providers.[95][96] In his proposal, Pai also suggested redirecting oversight authority for privacy practices from the FCC to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which is a smaller agency without rulemaking authority.[97] Lastly, Pai pushed for a reevaluation of whether to maintain, modify, or eliminate the Title II Order bright-line rules[98] that prevent ISPs from blocking, throttling, or prioritizing certain websites.[99]

Advocates for an open Internet argued that the policies that Pai intended to dismantle help maintain the Internet's role in economic growth, innovation, civic empowerment, and free speech.[100]

On November 21, 2017, FCC chairman Ajit Pai unveiled plans to repeal the United States' net neutrality policy.[101] Twenty internet pioneers, including the inventor of the worldwide web, Tim Berners Lee, wrote an open letter to the pertinent House and Senate subcommittees, asking that they urge the FCC to cancel its vote to repeal net neutrality.[102] That vote took place on December 14, 2017 where the tally was 3 for and 2 against repealing net neutrality rules. The two dissenting commissioners, Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel (both Democrats), released a dissenting statement.[103] Less than an hour after the results were declared, Attorney Generals for the states of Washington and New York announced that they intended to sue the FCC over its decision.[104]

On February 2, 2018, the FCC informed the Senate of its plans to repeal net neutrality rules. This gave Congress 60 days to stop the repeal with the Congressional Review Act (CRA) before they can no longer do so. Both the Senate and House must pass the CRA measure for the repeal to succeed.

On June 11, 2018, the FCC's repealing of net neutrality rules went into effect.

There is ongoing legal and political wrangling in the U.S. regarding net neutrality. The United States Federal Communications Commission is in charge of regulating Internet service providers' conduct in the US, though the extent of its jurisdiction is subject to ongoing legal disputes.[105]

US FCC policy (2010-2017)[edit]

Under commission chairman Julius Genachowski, the FCC proposed reclassifying broadband Internet access providers under the provisions of Title 2 of the Communications Act in an effort to force the providers to adhere to the same rules as telephone networks. This adjustment was meant to prevent, "unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities or services".[106] On 21 December 2010, these changes were put into effect by the FCC Open Internet Order 2010, which banned cable television and telephone service providers from preventing access to competitors or certain web sites such as Netflix. The rules also include a more limited set of obligations for wireless providers. The rules would not keep ISPs from charging more for faster access. Republicans in Congress threatened to reverse the rules through legislation.[107]

On 23 September 2011, the FCC released its final rules for Preserving a Free and Open Internet. These rules state that providers must have transparency of network management practices, not block lawful content, nor unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.[108] These rules are effective 20 November 2011.

On 14 January 2014, the DC Circuit Court determined in Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission (2014) that the FCC has no authority to enforce Network Neutrality rules, as service providers are not identified as "common carriers".[109] Since the 14 January ruling, AT&T has submitted several patents [110] that account for specific ways to take advantage of the FCC's limited authority. Verizon is also under a mountain of allegations that they have been slowing access to both Netflix and to the Amazon Cloud services, although the company denies these allegations. Multiple independent sources have performed network speed analysis and do find slower connection times to these sites, although there is currently no proof that Verizon is purposefully causing these slowdowns.

On 29 April 2017, a clearer understanding of the latest proposal to compromise net neutrality has been described.[95][96]

Proposed 2014 US FCC policy[edit]

On 19 February 2014 the FCC announced plans to formulate new rules to enforce net neutrality while complying with the court rulings.[111] On 23 April 2014, in a press statement, the Federal Communications Commission announced their new proposed rules which would allow Broadband Internet service providers, such as Comcast and Verizon, the "right to build special lanes" with faster connection speeds for companies, such as Netflix, Disney or Google, willing to pay a higher price. Their customers would have preferential access.[112][113][114][115] On 15 May the FCC launched a public comment period on how FCC rulemaking could best protect and promote an open Internet,[116] garnering over one million responses—the most the FCC had ever received for rulemaking.[117]

The new proposed rules have received heavy criticisms, with many claiming they are ruining the internet; others have shown significant support. Proponents of the rules declared September 10, 2014 to be the "Internet Slowdown". On it, participating websites were purposely slowed down to show what they feel would happen if the new rules failed to take effect. Websites that participated in the Internet Slowdown include: Netflix, Reddit, Tumblr, Twitter, Vimeo and Kickstarter.[118][119][120][121][122][123][124]

On 26 February 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service and thus applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to internet service providers.[86][87][125][126]

FCC policy in 2017[edit]

In 2017, FCC chairman Ajit Pai expressed sentiments to repeal the actions of former chairman Tom Wheeler. There have been multiple hearings surrounding this policy, including one that occurred with The Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on October 25, 2017.[127] A vote was held on December 14, 2017 that resulted in the repeal of Wheeler's actions.[128]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Gilroy, Angele A. (March 11, 2011). Access to Broadband Networks: The Net Neutrality Debate (Report). DIANE Publishing. p. 1. ISBN 978-1437984545.
  2. ^ "Law 27,078". InfoLEG.
  3. ^ proposition 53 1467/002, 27 August 2011
  4. ^ "Net neutrality wins in Brazil's 'Internet Constitution' - Al Jazeera America". Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  5. ^ "São Paulo Court of Justice - Justiça determina bloqueio do aplicativo WhatsApp" Archived 20 December 2015 at the Wayback Machine., Comunicação Social TJSP, São Paulo Court of Justice, 16 December 2015
  6. ^ "Brazil passes groundbreaking Internet governance Bill" Archived 25 October 2014 at the Wayback Machine., Angelica Mari, ZDNet, 26 March 2014.
  7. ^ "The Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet" Archived 14 May 2015 at the Wayback Machine., Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV), 9 May 2014.
  8. ^ "Bloqueio do WhatsApp fere o Marco Civil da Internet? Veja a posição do CGI". Archived from the original on 23 December 2015.
  9. ^ "Afinal, o bloqueio do Whatsapp está de acordo com o Marco Civil da Internet? - Politize!". 17 December 2015. Archived from the original on 16 April 2016.
  10. ^ "Telecom Decision CRTC 2011-44" Archived 16 March 2015 at the Wayback Machine., Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), File number: 8661-C12-201015975, 25 January 2011.
  11. ^ Chase, Steven; Marlow, Iain (1 February 2011). "Harper steps into Web dispute - The Globe and Mail". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. Archived from the original on 2 December 2011.
  12. ^ Pinto, Lindsey. "What does Usage-Based Billing mean for Net Neutrality?". Archived from the original on 14 November 2010. Retrieved 4 July 2011.
  13. ^ "Fact-Checking Free Press Net Neutrality Violations - High Tech Forum". 27 June 2017.
  14. ^ "Net neutrality enshrined in Dutch law". The Guardian. London. Associated Press. 23 June 2011. Archived from the original on 30 September 2013. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  15. ^ "Chile publica su ley que garantiza la neutralidad de la Red | Navegante". El Mundo. Spain. Archived from the original on 21 August 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  16. ^ "¿Quién quiere acabar con la neutralidad en la Red?". EL PAÍS. Archived from the original on 24 January 2012. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  17. ^ "¿Quién quiere acabar con la neutralidad en la Red?". EL PAÍS. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  18. ^ "Law 20,453". Archived from the original on 16 August 2014. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  19. ^ Hu, Henry L. (2011). "The Political Economy of Governing ISPs in China: Perspectives of Net Neutrality and Vertical Integration". The China Quarterly (207): 523–540. JSTOR 41305255.
  20. ^ Lum, Thomas (10 February 2006). "Internet Development and Information Control in the People's Republic of China" (PDF). CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved 4 March 2009.
  21. ^ European Commission (13 November 2007). "Impact Assessment on the proposals to amend the European regulatory framework (Working Document – SEC(2007) 1472)" (PDF). p. 91. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  22. ^ "Article 22 of the proposed Universal Service Directive" (PDF). Digital Agenda for Europe. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  23. ^ "Article 20(5) of the proposed Universal Service Directive" (PDF). Digital Agenda for Europe. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  24. ^ "". Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  25. ^ a b Meyer, David (7 May 2009). "Europe Votes Sweeping Telecom Reform". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  26. ^ "". Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  27. ^ "". Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  28. ^ "European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Roaming charges and open Internet: questions and answers".
  29. ^ European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (25 November 2015). "Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union". Retrieved 16 February 2016.
  30. ^ Hern, Alex (27 October 2015). "EU net neutrality laws fatally undermined by loopholes, critics say". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
  31. ^ European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (25 November 2015). "Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 laying down measures concerning open internet access and amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services and Regulation (EU) No 531/2012 on roaming on public mobile communications networks within the Union". Retrieved 16 February 2016.
  32. ^ Hern, Alex (27 October 2015). "EU net neutrality laws fatally undermined by loopholes, critics say". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 13 February 2016. Retrieved 16 February 2016.
  33. ^ "Behörde verlangt: Telekom muss "Stream On"-Tarif verändern". 15 December 2017 – via
  34. ^ Hauck, Mirjam; Martin-Jung, Helmut (17 December 2017). "Auch in Deutschland ist die Netzneutralität durchlöchert" – via
  35. ^ rapport de La Raudière, 27 August 2011
  36. ^ "Trai set to bar differential pricing of data services, regulations out today". Archived from the original on 21 August 2016.
  37. ^ "India blocks Zuckerberg's free net app - BBC News". BBC News. Archived from the original on 9 February 2016. Retrieved 9 February 2016.
  38. ^ Archived 8 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine.
  39. ^ Singh, Saurabh (8 April 2015). "Politicos slam TRAI's stance on net neutrality". India Today. Archived from the original on 12 April 2015. Retrieved 12 April 2015.
  40. ^ Gandhi, Rajat (8 April 2015). "Net neutrality: Why Internet is in danger of being shackled". The Economic Times. Retrieved 12 April 2015.
  41. ^ a b "Indians rally for Internet freedom, send over 1 lakh emails to TRAI for net neutrality". IBNLive. 13 April 2015. Archived from the original on 15 April 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  42. ^ "India fights for #NetNeutrality". Cyber World Mirror. Archived from the original on 3 May 2015. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
  43. ^ Roy, Prasanto (18 April 2015). "India's fight for net neutrality". India: BBC. Archived from the original on 20 April 2015. Retrieved 18 April 2015.
  44. ^ "Over 3 lakh emails sent to Trai in support of Net Neutrality, so far". FirstPort. 14 April 2015. Archived from the original on 14 April 2015. Retrieved 14 April 2015.
  45. ^ Iyengar, Rishi (12 July 2018). "India now has the 'world's strongest' net neutrality rules". CNN tech. Retrieved 31 August 2018.
  46. ^ Doval, Pankaj (12 July 2018). "Web stays neutral for all as govt clears net neutrality". The Times of India. Retrieved 31 August 2018.
  47. ^ "Not just Airtel Zero: Facebook to WhatsApp, everyone has violated Net Neutrality in India". Indian Express. 18 April 2015. Archived from the original on 4 May 2015. Retrieved 4 May 2015.
  48. ^ Amrita Madhukalya (19 April 2015). "Net Neutrality: Whose internet is it anyway?". DNA India. Archived from the original on 19 April 2015. Retrieved 20 April 2015.
  49. ^ "Net Neutrality: And the vigil continues". 8 January 2016. Archived from the original on 9 January 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2016 – via The Times of India.
  50. ^ "Net Neutrality II". Israel Technology Law Blog. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  51. ^ "PI: Ci vuole una legge per la Rete". 7 February 1996. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  52. ^ "Tweede Kamer neemt Telecomwet met netneutraliteit en cookieregels aan". Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  53. ^ "Frequentiebeleid; Motie; Motie Braakhuis c.s. over netneutraliteit". Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  54. ^ "Nieuwe Telecomwet aangenomen door Eerste Kamer". NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved 8 May 2012.
  55. ^ De Oliva, Ana (December 29, 2017). "The truth about Portugal's net neutrality, told by an expert". Euronews. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
  56. ^ Bugge, Axel (February 28, 2018). "Portugal telecoms in breach of net neutrality rules, regulator says". Reuters. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
  57. ^ "Wet van 10 mei 2012 tot wijziging van de Telecommunicatiewet ter implementatie van de herziene telecommunicatierichtlijnen" [Act of 10 May 2012 for the amendment of the Telecomminications Act for the implementation of the revised telecommunications directives]. Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden (in Dutch). 2012 (235). 4 June 2012. Archived from the original on 13 April 2014. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
  58. ^ "Net neutrality enshrined in Dutch law" Archived 30 September 2013 at the Wayback Machine.. The Guardian (London). Associated Press. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 3 April 2014.
  59. ^ "The Netherlands Passes Net Neutrality Legislation". Electronic Frontier Foundation. 21 May 2012. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
  60. ^ " - Wet- en regelgeving - Telecommunicatiewet - BWBR0009950" [ - Laws and policies - Telecommunications Act - BWBR0009950] (in Dutch). Article 7.4a. Archived from the original on 15 March 2015. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
  61. ^ "citation".
  62. ^ "Contribution by Portugal Telecom to the public consultation on BEREC Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules". Retrieved 2018-10-29.
  63. ^ ANACOM. "Reclamações relativas ao sector das comunicações aumentaram 25% no 1.º semestre de 2018". (in Portuguese). Retrieved 2018-10-29.
  64. ^ "В России начали действовать принципы сетевой нейтральности | Все новости мира компьютеров и связи | OSP News | Издательство "Открытые системы"". Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2017.
  65. ^ "Определены основы управления интернет-трафиком". Archived from the original on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 22 November 2017.
  66. ^ "Local Retracker method of caching p2p traffic".
  67. ^ CARMA Based MST Approximation for Multicast Provision in P2P Networks doi:10.1109/ICNS.2010.25 quote:"Recently there have been some advances in the locality awareness for BitTorrent networks. Popular nationwide trackers (, for instance) have introduced so-called "retrackers" – dedicated secondary servers. These servers are optionally connected to primary database but mainly supposed to only return peer list local to specific network scope."
  68. ^ "Uradni list Republike Slovenije". Archived from the original on 6 October 2015. Retrieved 10 October 2015.
  69. ^ "AKOS: Telekom Slovenije in Simobil kršila nevtralnost interneta @ Slo-Tech". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 14 January 2016.
  70. ^ Conradi, Mike (January 29, 2015). "Net neutrality, zero-rating and today's news from the Netherlands and Slovenia". DLA Piper.
  71. ^ "AKOS's decision no. 06101-1412/2014/4 of 20 February 2014". Archived from the original on 18 September 2016. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  72. ^ "AKOS's decision no. 06101-1413/2014/4 of 20 February 2014". Archived from the original on 18 September 2016. Retrieved 19 July 2016.
  73. ^ a b Conradi, Mike (July 26, 2017). "Zero-rating and net neutrality – decisions (so far) in the EU". DLA Piper.
  74. ^ DotEcon Ltd (February 2017). "Zero-rating practices in broadband markets" (PDF). European Commission.
  75. ^ "Wlan slovenija unofficial translation". Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  76. ^ "ICT Policy Review recommendations and implementation plan: briefing by Minister of Telecommunications and Postal Services & panel members | PMG". Archived from the original on 12 August 2016. Retrieved 17 June 2016.
  77. ^ "Request Rejected" (PDF). Retrieved 2016-06-17.
  78. ^ Toth, Martin (30 June 2006). "Service Blocked Korea". Vonage VOIP forum. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  79. ^ Powell, Alison1, and Alissa2 Cooper. "Net Neutrality Discourses: Comparing Advocacy and Regulatory Arguments in the United States and the United Kingdom." Information Society, vol. 27, no. 5, Oct-Dec2011, pp. 311-325. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/01972243.2011.607034.
  80. ^ Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). "Deep packet inspection meets 'Net neutrality, CALEA". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 19 April 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  81. ^ "Broadband All about traffic management". PlusNet. Archived from the original on 29 November 2014.
  82. ^ "Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 23 February 2018.
  83. ^ Florida, University of South. "USF NetID Single-SignOn | University of South Florida". Retrieved 2018-04-25.
  84. ^ "D.C. Circuit Affirms FCC's Open Internet Rules, Protects Net Neutrality for Consumers - Public Knowledge". Public Knowledge. Archived from the original on 16 April 2017. Retrieved 28 February 2017.
  85. ^ "Open Internet | Federal Communications Commission". Archived from the original on 28 August 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016. accessdate=4 August 2016
  86. ^ a b Staff (26 February 2015). "FCC Adopts Strong, Sustainable Rules To Protect The Open Internet" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 February 2015. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
  87. ^ a b Ruiz, Rebecca R.; Lohr, Steve (26 February 2015). "In Net Neutrality Victory, F.C.C. Classifies Broadband Internet Service as a Public Utility". New York Times. Archived from the original on 26 February 2015. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
  88. ^ Sommer, Jeff (12 March 2015). "What the Net Neutrality Rules Say". New York Times. Archived from the original on 13 March 2015. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  89. ^ FCC Staff (12 March 2015). "Federal Communications Commission - FCC 15-24 - In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet - GN Docket No. 14-28 - Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order" (PDF). Federal Communications Commission. Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 March 2015. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  90. ^ Reisinger, Don (13 April 2015). "Net neutrality rules get published -- let the lawsuits begin". CNET. Archived from the original on 14 April 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  91. ^ Federal Communications Commission (13 April 2015). "Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet - A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/13/2015". Federal Register. Archived from the original on 2 May 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
  92. ^ "Net neutrality takes effect today. Here's how it affects you". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2 November 2016. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
  93. ^ "Telecom Lawsuits Aim to Kill FCC Net Neutrality". US News & World Report. Archived from the original on 21 June 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
  94. ^ "A year after the FCC's order to treat ISPs like phone companies, net neutrality is still in danger". WIRED. Archived from the original on 28 May 2016. Retrieved 24 May 2016.
  95. ^ a b The Editorial Board (29 April 2017). "F.C.C. Invokes Internet Freedom While Trying to Kill It". New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 April 2017. Retrieved 29 April 2017.
  96. ^ a b Reardon, Marguerite (2 May 2017). "Net neutrality redux: The battle for an open net continues - The Republican-led FCC is starting to roll back net neutrality rules. Here's what you need to know". CNET. Archived from the original on 2 May 2017. Retrieved 2 May 2017.
  97. ^ Breland, Ali (28 April 2017). "What killing net neutrality means for the internet". TheHill. Archived from the original on 4 September 2017. Retrieved 10 November 2017.
  98. ^ "Open Internet". Federal Communications Commission. Archived from the original on 26 May 2017. Retrieved 26 May 2017.
  99. ^ "Restoring Internet Freedom". Federal Communications Commission. 27 April 2017. Archived from the original on 15 May 2017. Retrieved 26 May 2017.
  100. ^ Gustin, Sam (27 April 2017). "Open Internet Advocates Vow to Fight Trump FCC's Plan to Kill Net Neutrality". Vice. Archived from the original on 6 June 2017. Retrieved 26 May 2017.
  101. ^ "FCC chief plans to ditch U.S. 'net neutrality' rules". 22 November 2017. Archived from the original on 1 December 2017 – via Reuters.
  102. ^ "Vint Cerf, Tim Berners-Lee, and 19 other technologists pen letter asking FCC to save net neutrality". Archived from the original on 12 December 2017. Retrieved 12 December 2017.
  103. ^ "Read the dissenting statements of the Democratic FCC commissioners slamming net neutrality repeal". The Verge. Archived from the original on 14 December 2017. Retrieved 14 December 2017.
  104. ^ News, ABC. "The Latest: States warming up net-neutrality lawsuits". ABC News. Archived from the original on 14 December 2017. Retrieved 14 December 2017.
  105. ^ The Supreme Court declared that the FCC did not have jurisdiction under Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 in Comcast Corp. v. FCC. The FCC's rules claim authority under a wide-range of other provisions of the Communications Act of 1934
  106. ^ "FCC on net neutrality: yes we can". Retrieved 6 May 2010.
  107. ^ Bartash, Jeffry (22 December 2010). "FCC adopts web rules". MarketWatch. Archived from the original on 17 July 2011. Retrieved 22 December 2010.
  108. ^ "Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 185" (PDF). September 23, 2011.
  109. ^ Robertson, Adi. "Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules". The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  110. ^ "Patent US20140010082 - Prevention Of Bandwidth Abuse Of A Communications System - Google Patents". Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  111. ^ Nancy Weil (19 February 2014). "FCC will set new net neutrality rules". Computerworld. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  112. ^ Wyatt, Edward (23 April 2014). "F.C.C., in 'Net Neutrality' Turnaround, Plans to Allow Fast Lane". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-04-23.
  113. ^ Staff (24 April 2014). "Creating a Two-Speed Internet". New York Times. Retrieved 2014-04-25.
  114. ^ Wyatt, Edward (23 April 2014), In Policy Shift, F.C.C. Will Allow a Web Fast Lane, Washington, DC, retrieved 23 April 2014
  115. ^ Nagesh, Gautham (23 April 2014), FCC to Propose New 'Net Neutrality' Rules: Proposal Would Allow Broadband Providers to Give Preferential Treatment to Some Traffic, Washington, DC: Wall Street Journal, retrieved 23 April 2014
  116. ^ "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". Federal Communications Commission. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  117. ^ Hu, Elise (21 July 2014). "1 Million Net Neutrality Comments Filed, But Will They Matter?". National Public Radio. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
  118. ^ "Join the Battle for Net Neutrality". Battle For The Net. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  119. ^ Samuel Gibbs. "Battle for the net: why is my internet slow today? - Technology -". the Guardian. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  120. ^ "Net neutrality: Faux go-slow - The Economist". The Economist. 10 September 2014. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  121. ^ "Internet Slowdown Day: Why websites feel sluggish today (+video)". The Christian Science Monitor. 10 September 2014. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  122. ^ Sharon Gaudin (10 September 2014). "Internet Slowdown Day becomes an online picket protest". Computerworld. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  123. ^ "Why Netflix Is 'Slowing Down' Its Website Today - The Atlantic". The Atlantic. 10 September 2014. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  124. ^ "Internet slowdown day seeks to bring 'battle for the Net' to the FCC's door". Yahoo Finance. 10 September 2014. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  125. ^ Flaherty, Anne (25 February 2015). "FACT CHECK: Talking heads skew 'net neutrality' debate". AP News. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
  126. ^ Fung, Brian (February 26, 2015). "The FCC approves strong net neutrality rules". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 26, 2015.
  127. ^ Release, Press. "NEXT WEEK: #SubCommTech To Hold Oversight Hearing with FCC Commisioners".
  128. ^ "F.C.C. Repeals Net Neutrality Rules". Retrieved 2017-12-14.