The “net neutrality principle”, intended as the opportunity to preserve Internet’s open character, represents an hot topic in the field of Web regulation. It means that the central importance concerning the equal treatment of online transmitted data traffic has to be supported, in order to prevent any discrimination based on the content of the transmitted data, by avoiding the arrangement of preferential channels. By this way, a broadband network is defined “neutral” as far as its connected devices result to be unrestricted, also with reference to the manner by which contents and services are provided to the user. This particularly means that Internet service provider would not be permitted to make commercial offers, as built on assigning priorities to different service packages of the information, blocking or slowing access to certain sites or services. It is the so-called mechanism of paid prioritization, which facilitate, upon payment, download content faster than others. Following the theory postulating the need for net neutrality, the success of Internet has been the equal treatment of the contents. 

In fact, if the provider could require payment of an additional fee for internet service providers transmitting streaming video content, because they consume more bandwidth (i.e. network capacity, which for the company is providing a cost), probably only large service companies (like YouTube and Netflix) would have the necessary resources to operate in cyberspace. Such consequence could undermine other, less known, contents, that would both travel more slowly and be less accessible by the web surfer.

On the contrary, the critics on the opportunity of net neutrality believe that the equal treatment of traffic affects the possibility of innovation by the provider. The latter should be able to experiment with new business solutions, not necessarily contrary to the interests of its clients. Applying strictly the rules of net neutrality,  the providers would be limited to develop new services, limiting new investment opportunities. Last February, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued the Open Internet Order, the document that lays down new rules on neutrality, declaring itself as a guarantee of freedom of expression, to defend of consumers’ interests and caring at the same time to preserve the possibilities of technological progress of electronic means. The document rejects the idea of two-speed network and reclassifies the internet provider as traditional telephone carriers, namely as public utilities, entering the broadband services in the category of Telecommunications Services under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. The regulation wants to hit some discriminatory practice, such as the block of access to data packets from certain categories of communications (such as P2P and streaming video), the throlling of broadband network provided to users and the providing a payment network service consumer of lanes of preferential access to resources of wider connectivity.

Against the regulations established by the FCC were hurled companies providing connection service, AT&T and Verizon in the forefront. The Court of Appeal on June 12^th 2015 dismissed the appeal of the Us Telecom, the trade association of the US internet service provider, sanctioning the entry into force of the scheme established by the FCC.

Looking back to the European scene, the situation currently stands on a line of difficult political impasse, working hard to assert an autonomous position. At the time of writing, in fact, the debate rages in Brussels. Next to the so-called lane "Best Effort", it believes should therefore be allowed a preferential channel to guaranteed quality or higher, for access to which is necessary to recognize its economic value in order to justify and legitimize a payment that is appropriate to the use itself.