Net neutrality: two words that might sound like old tech jargon but still carry the weight of our digital future. Imagine a world where your internet provider decides what you can see online, where startups can’t compete with tech giants, and where free speech is throttled at the whim of corporations. This isn’t a dystopian fiction, as it already sounds pretty familiar… In this deep dive, I’ll explore how a principle born in the early days of the internet has become a flashpoint in global politics and why its fate matters to everyone who logs online.

Article originally prepared in Italian for my personal podcast Disruptive Talks (read it here).
This content is also available as Livestream video, here, and in audio podcast, here.

The concept of net neutrality, once considered a cornerstone of internet regulation, particularly in Europe since 2015, remains a subject of intense debate and scrutiny. Far from being a settled issue, it continues to evolve, adapting to new technological landscapes and geopolitical realities. The recent discussions in the European Union underscore its ongoing relevance and the need for continuous reassessment.

At its core, net neutrality advocates for the equal treatment of all internet data by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This principle prohibits the prioritization, blocking, or throttling of specific content or services, ensuring a level playing field for all online entities, from tech giants to emerging startups. It’s a safeguard against the creation of internet “fast lanes” that could potentially stifle innovation and free expression.

This implies that they cannot prioritize certain content or services – through what is commonly described with the analogy of “fast lanes” – nor can they voluntarily block or slow down specific data or applications. This policy is fundamental to ensuring free and open access to the Internet, allowing users to enjoy services like Skype, Netflix, Hulu, or any other type of online content without discrimination.

This principle of fairness and non-discrimination in data treatment is crucial to maintaining the dynamism and innovation that characterize the Internet. Net neutrality promotes a level playing field, where even startups or small content providers can compete on equal footing with large companies.

In an era where dependence on digital connectivity is more pronounced than ever, the debate on net neutrality takes on increasingly relevant contours. Discussing this principle doesn’t just mean talking about regulations and technical infrastructures; it means addressing broader issues related to freedom of expression, innovation, market competitiveness, and the rights of Internet users.

In fact, the global implementation of net neutrality is far from uniform. While some nations have enshrined it in law, others have actively resisted or dismantled such protections. Authoritarian regimes often view unrestricted internet access as a threat, implementing varying degrees of control and censorship. This disparity in approach highlights the complex interplay between technology, governance, and civil liberties in the digital age.

The stakes in this debate extend far beyond technical considerations. Net neutrality touches on fundamental issues of free speech, market competition, and democratic access to information. This piece aims to delve into this multifaceted nature, exploring its evolution, current challenges, and future implications. By examining this critical issue, we can gain insights into the broader dynamics shaping our digital future and the ongoing struggle to maintain an open, innovative, and equitable internet for all.

🌐 Net Neutrality around the world

Its application and legislative reception vary significantly from one nation to another, reflecting a complex range of political, economic, and social approaches towards the open Internet.

🇪🇺 In Europe

Since 2015, the European Union has enshrined the fundamental principles of net neutrality in law, ensuring that all Internet traffic is treated fairly and non-discriminatorily. This legislation represented a milestone in protecting the digital rights of European citizens, ensuring that ISPs cannot block, slow down, or prioritize certain online services or content.

However, in 2023, the debate on net neutrality in Europe took a significant turn with the proposal of the “fair share“. This initiative aimed to make large digital platforms, such as Google, Facebook, and Netflix, pay a share of the network infrastructure costs incurred by telecom operators to manage the enormous traffic generated by these services.

Supporters of the “fair share” argued that large platforms, while benefiting enormously from telecommunication networks, did not contribute proportionately to the costs of maintaining and enhancing infrastructures. This imbalance, according to them, risked hindering investments in the network and ultimately compromising the quality of services for end users.

The “fair share” proposal met significant resistance from consumer advocacy groups, digital rights organizations, and some European legislators. These opponents argued that such a measure could undermine the fundamental principles of net neutrality, essentially creating a “toll” for access to online content and opening the door to potential discrimination or prioritization of traffic.

Following intense debate and strong mobilization against the proposal, the European Parliament ended up rejecting the “fair share” initiative in 2023. This decision was welcomed as a victory for net neutrality defenders and those who believe in an open and accessible Internet for all.

Despite this outcome, the debate on net neutrality in Europe is far from over. Pressures from telecom operators, seeking ways to monetize growing data traffic and finance investments in next-generation networks, remain strong. Moreover, technological evolution, such as the emergence of 5G and the Internet of Things (IoT), poses new challenges for network traffic management and maintaining a level playing field for all online services.

Finally, the influence of net neutrality policies adopted in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States, could have repercussions on the European context as well. With the Biden administration having reinstated net neutrality rules previously repealed under Trump, we could see a renewed global momentum towards protecting an open and non-discriminatory Internet.

Portugal and other european loopholes

Portugal, an EU member state, is often cited in net neutrality discussions due to its unique approach to mobile data plans. Some Portuguese mobile operators offer tariff plans that seem to challenge the principle of an open and impartial internet by favoring access to certain services over others.

For instance, MEO, a prominent Portuguese telecom, offers data plans that include unlimited data for specific apps or categories of apps (like social media, messaging, or video streaming) while maintaining data caps for general internet use. This practice, known as “zero-rating,” technically complies with EU regulations but raises concerns about creating a tiered internet experience.

Portugal isn’t alone in this practice. Across Europe, telecom operators have been pushing the boundaries of net neutrality through zero-rating offers:

1. In Germany, Vodafone offers a “Vodafone Pass” that doesn’t count data from certain apps towards users’ data caps.
2. In the UK (pre-Brexit), Three offered plans with unlimited streaming from Netflix and other services.
3. In Sweden, Telia faced legal challenges for its “Free Surf Social” offer, which zero-rated social media apps.

Finally, a new challenge to net neutrality has emerged as 5G networks roll out across Europe: network slicing. This technology allows operators to create virtual network segments with different performance characteristics, potentially enabling preferential treatment for certain types of traffic or customers.

While proponents argue that network slicing is necessary for managing diverse 5G use cases (like autonomous vehicles or remote surgery), critics warn that it could be used to circumvent net neutrality principles by creating de facto fast lanes.

United States: a battle rediscovered

Recently, in the United States, we’ve witnessed a renewed commitment to net neutrality. Under the Trump administration in 2017, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had eliminated net neutrality protections established during the Obama presidency in 2015. These rules prohibited Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from blocking or slowing traffic to certain websites, or creating “fast lanes” for those willing to pay more.

The recent decision by the FCC to reinstate net neutrality rules marks an important step back towards a more equitable and open internet. This reinstatement is seen as a crucial moment in protecting the digital rights of American citizens, ensuring each consumer fast, open, and fair access to the Internet.

Net Neutrality variations (or oppositions)

Many countries in the world have adopted practices that challenge or outright contradict the principles of an open and neutral internet. These divergences highlight the complex interplay between technology, governance, and societal values.

China stands as a prime example of a nation that fundamentally opposes net neutrality. The “Great Firewall of China” represents one of the most sophisticated systems of internet censorship and control in the world. It not only blocks access to numerous foreign websites and services like Google, Facebook, and Twitter but also prioritizes domestic platforms, effectively creating a two-tiered internet. This approach demonstrates how some governments view internet control as a tool for maintaining social stability and protecting national interests, even at the cost of open access to information.

In Russia, the government has implemented what’s known as the “sovereign internet law.” This legislation allows authorities to isolate the Russian internet from the global network in times of crisis or as a defensive measure. While not directly violating net neutrality in terms of speed or access costs, it fundamentally alters the nature of the open internet by potentially cutting off Russian users from the global digital ecosystem. This approach showcases how national security concerns can be used to justify significant departures from net neutrality principles.

Some countries have adopted more subtle approaches that challenge net neutrality. In India, despite having strong net neutrality laws, the practice of “zero-rating” has been contentious. For instance, Facebook’s “Free Basics” program, which provided free access to a limited set of websites, was banned in India for violating net neutrality. This case illustrates the complex balance between expanding internet access in developing nations and maintaining a level digital playing field.

Even in countries with established net neutrality rules, exceptions and loopholes exist. In Canada, which generally supports net neutrality, some mobile plans have offered unlimited streaming for specific video or music services, raising questions about content discrimination.

These global variations demonstrate that net neutrality is not a binary concept but exists on a spectrum. From outright censorship and control to more nuanced practices that prioritize certain services, the challenges to an open internet are diverse and evolving. As technology advances and geopolitical landscapes shift, the global conversation around net neutrality continues to be shaped by a complex interplay of economic interests, political ideologies, and cultural values.

🤔 The Net Neutrality Dilemma: navigating freedom, finance and future challenges

I already said it, it is a complex and debated topic, with valid arguments both for and against. Here’s a business-sized pro and cons of the issue. From the perspective of supporters of a network without neutrality:

• Infrastructure investments: some argue that net neutrality may discourage investments in network infrastructure by ISPs, as it limits their ability to differentiate services and generate additional revenue.
• Traffic management: opponents claim that net neutrality may prevent ISPs from efficiently managing network traffic, making it difficult to ensure quality of service for latency-sensitive applications such as telemedicine or online gaming.
• Market freedom: for them, net neutrality is a form of excessive regulation that interferes with free market dynamics and competition among ISPs.

Let’s be honest: behind many anti-net neutrality arguments, there’s often a not-so-subtle desire to cash in. It’s as if ISPs are saying, “Why have a level playing field when we could have a money playground?”.

While these points are crucial, the net neutrality debate now grapples with complexities that surpass mere business financial interests. Recent global events have highlighted the tension between preserving free speech and combating the spread of misinformation and hate speech online. The rise of sophisticated disinformation campaigns and digital warfare has put pressure on governments and tech companies to regulate online content more strictly.

For instance, during recent political upheavals, social media platforms have found themselves in the crosshairs of debates about content moderation. Should ISPs or governments have the power to throttle or block access to platforms spreading what they deem as harmful content? This scenario presents a genuine dilemma for net neutrality advocates.

Moreover, the global COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the critical nature of internet access, with many arguing that certain essential services (like health information websites or educational platforms) should be prioritized. This challenges the fundamental principle of treating all data equally.

These complex scenarios illustrate that while the profit motive remains a significant factor, the debate around net neutrality has evolved to encompass broader societal issues.

Now, let’s look at the “obvious” arguments in favour of Net Neutrality.

• Consumer choice: with it, consumers have control over the content and services they access, without ISPs prioritizing or penalizing certain sites or applications.
• Innovation: net neutrality ensures that all content and applications are treated equally, fostering innovation and fair competition. It allows startups and independent developers to access the market without barriers.
• Freedom: it protects freedom of expression and prevents ISPs from discriminating against or censoring content based on political opinions, competition, or other considerations.

As a staunch advocate for individual liberties, I place freedom of speech at the pinnacle of all freedoms. The net neutrality debate should never compromise our ability to express ourselves freely. While I acknowledge the need for laws that protect individuals from direct harm, as a classical liberal, I argue that even these protections must be crafted with utmost care and precision.

The right to offend, controversial as it may be, remains a cornerstone of true free speech. We must be wary of overly broad interpretations of “harm” that could stifle legitimate discourse. For instance, the mere expression of differing political opinions should never be construed as offensive or harmful speech requiring regulation.

In this context, net neutrality serves as a vital safeguard for our digital town square. It ensures that ISPs cannot become de facto censors, limiting access to certain viewpoints or platforms based on their content. This principle aligns perfectly with the fundamental tenets of free speech and the open exchange of ideas.

However, I recognize that this is a nuanced and often contentious issue. Balancing the absolute freedom of expression with the need for a civil and functioning society is an ongoing challenge. Yet, I firmly believe that erring on the side of liberty and open discourse, especially in the digital realm, is crucial for the continued growth of human knowledge and understanding.

🚀 My final take: the importance of innovative ecosystems and network effect

Net neutrality fosters the birth of innovative ecosystems, where developers and startups can create new services and applications without entry barriers. This generates a powerful network effect: the more people use these services, the more value is created for all users.

An innovative ecosystem is an environment where various entities, such as companies, developers, users, and institutions, interact and collaborate to create value through innovation. The network effect, on the other hand, refers to the phenomenon where the value of a product or service increases as the number of people using it increases.

Open innovative ecosystems, which share a set of common standards, a free approach, and knowledge sharing, allow anyone to create and share value. A historical example is JVC’s VHS format, which created a shared standard for videocassettes, laying the foundation for the concept of an innovative ecosystem.

Today, the open-source and open world adds to this concept the notion of network effect. In these ecosystems, success is largely due to the possibility for anyone to contribute and freely use shared resources, without discrimination or entry barriers. The more users there are, the more content and innovations are created. The more protocols and platforms are tested and improved by the community, the more robust and attractive they become, attracting even more users and developers in a virtuous circle of growth and continuous improvement.

Similarly, open protocols such as HTTP, SMTP, and BitTorrent have been able to spread and become de facto standards thanks to net neutrality. Without it, ISPs could favor their own proprietary protocols, limiting interoperability and innovation.

Another example of an innovative ecosystem enabled by net neutrality is DeFi (Decentralized Finance). DeFi is often described as “lego money” because its protocols are composable and interoperable, just like Lego bricks. Developers from all over the world can build new financial services by combining these protocols in innovative ways, without asking permission from centralized intermediaries.

Open source ecosystems like Linux or Ethereum are based on a network effect of developers voluntarily contributing to the code. The more developers there are, the more the software improves, attracting even more developers and users.

Without net neutrality, these innovative ecosystems might not exist or be very different. If ISPs could discriminate or favor certain services or applications, bottom-up innovation and free knowledge sharing would be hindered. Only by preserving an open and neutral Internet can we ensure that these powerful network effects continue to generate value for all. The debate on net neutrality is crucial for the future of the Internet. While pressures for a multi-speed internet are strong, especially from telecom operators, it is essential to preserve an open and neutral internet. This does not mean that ISPs should not be remunerated for their investments in infrastructure. However, this should happen through transparent and non-discriminatory business models that do not jeopardize innovation and competition.

For further inquiries or assistance with technologies, feel free to reach out.

---

Notes and further Reading

For those interested in delving deeper into net neutrality, here are some valuable resources:

Internet Society – Net Neutrality: a comprehensive resource on net neutrality principles and global perspectives.

Electronic Frontier Foundation – Net Neutrality: advocacy and analysis on net neutrality from a digital rights perspective.

BEREC – Open Internet: European perspective on net neutrality and open internet regulations.