Net neutrality certainly sounds like a good thing – and in fact, advocates of an open internet would argue that net neutrality is the cornerstone of an online environment that works for everyone. Simply put, net neutrality is the idea that “all data is created equal”, that all data transmitted should be treated equally. Put more cynically, net neutrality mandates that internet service providers (ISPs), the “gatekeepers” of the internet, should not have the power over what internet users can access or how they should behave online.

At the dawn of the internet, net neutrality was enabled by default, as there was simply no technology to allow ISPs to discriminate between different types of data traffic. Following the development of deep packet inspection, the technological tool designed to create firewalls and filter malware, it quickly became apparent that new and powerful tools for analysing and managing data traffic would allow the creation of a non-neutral internet. Companies would be able to create fast and slow lanes for different sorts of internet traffic.

Internet service providers, in particular American cable companies, have since become notorious for repeated net neutrality violations. This led to ongoing legal battles in the US and worldwide. ISPs typically argue that they are simply carrying out essential traffic management procedures - a euphemism for slowing some (more intensive) data traffic and speeding up other traffic. However, often these procedures favour the ISPs’ own content over that of their competitors (e.g. speeding up video from US cable company Comcast but slowing down that originating from Netflix).

Actions like these have led to regulation, either to maintain or discard net neutrality as a guiding principle of the internet. This means that the current situation is one in which ISPs are typically creating new and innovative ways of getting round net neutrality provisions, while regulators seek to prevent abuses of the gatekeepers’ power. This is true for all countries, and they have all responded in differing ways.

In the UK, we have no specific net neutrality regulations – instead, we are subject to the wider European Union regulations (for now!) set by European telecoms regulator BEREC. These were updated recently (early September) and are relatively strict toward ISPs.

Previously, ISPs were able to charge content providers in order to ensure that their services would not be transmitted at a slower rate (also called throttling), blocked at times of high traffic or otherwise de-prioritised. However, under the new rules, these practices have been banned. This is largely seen as a win for internet users, who will now be able to use online facilities without worrying too much about inconsistent service. It will also reduce the burden on smaller ISPs and content providers entering the market, because of the reduced need to negotiate deals for good access.

It is worth noting, however, that there are a few exceptions to these rules, with “specialised services” such as high-quality mobile voice calls, real-time health services (such as livestreams for remote surgery) and live internet TV able to be de-prioritised - if the rest of the ISP’s services would suffer as a result of maintaining quality on these services.

The Netherlands is an unusual case for net neutrality. It was the first European nation (in 2012) to pass a law expressly ordering net neutrality, in a surprisingly short space of time.
This rush to net neutrality was set off by telecoms company KPN’s declaration that it intended to start blocking services such as VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol, the way Skype connects calls) which used significant bandwidth on its networks. This was followed by Vodafone’s slightly guilty statement that it was in fact already doing this. Public and political outcry then pushed through this law enshrining net neutrality as a guiding principle.

The Dutch law is a very strict one, and has faced substantial criticism based on its restrictive nature. Opponents argue that the law prevents ISPs from innovating, as all operators have to offer very similar services. This means that some consumers (e.g. the elderly) with different internet service demands are not able to access discounted offers (which might only have a partial internet service included) – in other words, the Dutch “one size fits all” model doesn’t work for everyone.

The USA, with its “sue first, talk later” approach, has been a battleground for net neutrality, featuring cable companies fighting regulators in the courts almost continuously for a decade. The situation has recently (apparently) become a little more set in stone, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s 2015 net neutrality rules reclassifying broadband access as a “common carrier” service. This essentially enforces net neutrality on ISPs, whereas previously they were able to act with less oversight.

Since then, cable companies and mobile operators have sought to be more creative in how they don’t quite violate net neutrality rules. Zero-rating programs in which data usage is exempted from any limits on a mobile plan have become more common. For example, T-Mobile’s Binge On, in which video content from a number of providers was throttled to standard definition, with the data cost of streaming the video not counted, was praised by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler as an innovative and competitive new offering. New sponsored data programs from Verizon and AT&T also seem to tread a fine line between innovation and anti-net neutrality.

It is new products such as these that will continue to shape the net neutrality debate. Issues such as access to the internet conflicting with net neutrality will become increasingly complicated, and different approaches to net neutrality will bring different results. The restrictive Dutch model contrasts heavily with the perhaps too unhindered approach in the USA, and in both cases it is the users of the internet who suffer – so it will certainly be interesting to watch the new developments in net neutrality unfold.