COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The open internet and net neutrality in Europe
Date: 2011-04-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: competition law, electronic mail, single market, supervisory power, telecommunications, transmission network

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.4.2011 
COM(2011) 222 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

The open internet and net neutrality in Europe 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

The open internet and net neutrality in Europe 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, 
THE COUNCIL, THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The open internet and net neutrality in Europe ................ 1 

1. 

2. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 2 

The net neutrality debate.............................................................................................. 2 

Net neutrality provisions of the EU regulatory framework ......................................... 4 

The principles of competition ...................................................................................... 4 

The amended Telecommunications framework ........................................................... 4 

Findings to date ............................................................................................................ 5 

Blocking ....................................................................................................................... 5 

Traffic management ..................................................................................................... 6 

Consumers and quality of service ................................................................................ 7 

The international context.............................................................................................. 8 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 8 

EN 

1 

   EN 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

When concluding the 2009 EU telecoms reform package, the European Commission set out in 
a  declaration1  its  commitment  to  "preserving  the  open  and  neutral  character  of  the  internet, 
taking full account of the will of the co-legislators now to enshrine net neutrality as a policy 
objective  and  regulatory  principle  to  be  promoted  by  national  regulatory  authorities". 
According  to  this  declaration,  in  addition  to  monitoring  implementation  of  the  relevant 
provisions relating to net freedoms, the Commission would "monitor the impact of market and 
technological  developments  on  net  freedoms  reporting  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council  before  the  end  of  2010  on  whether  additional  guidance  is  required".  This 
Communication  hereby  seeks  to  fulfil  this  commitment,  which  was  recalled  in  the  Digital 
Agenda for Europe Communication2, setting out what the Commission has learned as a result 
of its consultation and fact-finding processes and drawing the appropriate conclusions.  

Process 

In  order  to  provide  an  evidence  base  for  its  Communication,  the  Commission  launched  a 
public consultation on "The open internet and net  neutrality in Europe", conducted between 
30 June and 30 September 2010. The consultation attracted over 300 responses from a wide 
range  of  stakeholders,  including  network  operators,  internet  content  providers,  Member 
States, consumer and civil society organisations as well as a number of individuals. The full 
list  of  respondents  together  with  the  non-confidential  responses  was  published  on  the 
Commission's  dedicated  website,3  accompanied  by  a  report  providing  a  concise,  non-
exhaustive  overview.  In  addition,  the  Commission  and  the  Parliament  organised  a  joint 
summit on 11 November 20104, which gave a wide range of stakeholders the opportunity to 
present and discuss their views on net neutrality in an open and public forum. 

2. 

THE NET NEUTRALITY DEBATE 

Evolution of the internet 

The internet has assumed the dimensions of a global phenomenon at an exceptional pace. In 
15 years, the internet connectivity market has grown from almost zero to a multi-billion euro 
business.  The  blossoming  of  the  internet  has  facilitated  cross-border  trade  through  e-
commerce, helping to further develop  the internal market and  contributing to the  erosion of 
barriers between Member States. The internet is at the core of the global economy. It has been 
responsible for an unprecedented level of innovation.  

The internet owes much of its success to the fact that it is open and easily accessible, provided 
that the user has an internet connection. In order to provide content or services, save for some 
basic technical requirements, an individual or a company does not currently face high entry 
costs  or  other  barriers  that  are  characteristic  of  many  other  entrenched  network  industries. 

1 
2 
3 

4

OJ L 337, 18 December 2009. 
COM(2010)245 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult/ 
net_neutrality/index_en.htm 

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/library/public_consult/net_neutrality/in

dex_en.htm 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
 
Indeed  it  is  the  absence  of  these  barriers  that  has  enabled  many  of  the  applications  that  are 
now household names to take off.  

At its inception, access to the internet was achieved through dial-up on the telephone, but with 
the  proliferation  of  attractive  applications  –  made  accessible  through  ever-increasing  speeds 
of broadband connections – the internet has become much more than a mere telephone line. It 
is the "network of networks" that has transformed the way we communicate and do business, 
the way we work, opening up great opportunities in education, culture, communication, social 
interaction,  as  well  as  enabling  advancements  in  science  and  technology  and  more  broadly 
encouraging freedom of expression and media plurality.  

Billions of Euros have been invested in upgrading the infrastructure to provide better services 
to  consumers  at  lower  prices.  This,  in  combination  with  the  EU  model  of  pro-competitive 
wholesale  access  regulation  and  the  application  of  EU  competition  rules,  has  spurred 
downstream competition, giving rise to a competitive offering of broadband access packages 
which, combined with an enticing array of content and services, has driven consumer demand. 
More investment will be required to keep up with the explosion of data traffic. According to 
some traffic projections, traffic is set to increase by 35% year on year for fixed networks and 
by 107% year on year  for  mobile.  The internet has become a very precious good in  today's 
society. Its full potential remains untapped. 

Parameters of the net neutrality debate 

Although  there  is  no  set  definition  of  'net  neutrality',  Article  8  (§4)  (g)  of  the  Framework 
Directive5  requires  national  regulatory  authorities  to  promote  the  interests  of  the 
citizens  of  the  European  Union  by  promoting  the  ability  of  end-users  to  access  and 
distribute  information  or  run  applications  and  services  of  their  choice.  This  is  naturally 
subject  to  applicable  law  and  thus  without  prejudice  to  EU  or  national  measures  taken  to 
counter illegal activities, notably the fight against crime.  

The  essence  of  net  neutrality  and  the  issues  underpinning  the  debate  concern  first  and 
foremost how best to preserve the openness of this platform and to ensure that it can continue 
to provide high-quality services to all and to allow innovation to flourish, while contributing 
to  enjoyment  of  and  respect  for  fundamental  rights,  such  as  freedom  of  expression  and 
freedom to conduct business.  

Much  of  the  net  neutrality  debate  centers  around  traffic  management  and  what  constitutes 
reasonable  traffic  management.  It  is  widely  accepted  that  network  operators  need  to  adopt 
some traffic management practices to ensure an efficient use of their networks and that certain 
IP services, such as for instance real-time IPTV and video conferencing, may require special 
traffic  management  to  ensure  a  predefined  high  quality  of  service.  However,  the  fact  that 
some  operators,  for  reasons  unrelated  to  traffic  management,  may  block  or  degrade  legal 
services (in particular Voice over IP services) which compete with their own services can be 
considered to run against the open character of the Internet. Transparency is also an essential 
part  of  the  net  neutrality  debate.  Obtaining  adequate  information  on  possible  limitations  or 
traffic  management  enables  consumers  to  make  informed  choices.  These  issues  of  traffic 
management,  blocking  and  degradation,  quality  of  service  and  transparency  need  to  be 
addressed. 

5 

Directive  2002/21/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  7  March  2002  (Framework 
Directive). 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
3. 

NET NEUTRALITY PROVISIONS OF THE EU REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 

3.1. 

The principles of competition 

The EU regulatory framework aims at promoting effective competition, which is considered 
the best way to deliver high-quality goods and services at affordable prices to consumers. For 
competition  to  work,  consumers  must  be  able  to  choose  between  a  variety  of  competing 
offerings  on  the  basis  of  clear  and  meaningful  information.  Consumers  must  also  be 
effectively able to switch to a new provider where a better quality of service and/or a lower 
price is offered, or where they are not satisfied with the service they are receiving, e.g. where 
their  current  provider  imposes  restrictions  on  particular  services  or  applications.  In  a 
competitive environment this acts as a stimulus to operators to adapt their pricing and abstain 
from restrictions on applications that prove popular with users, as is the case with voice over 
IP (VoIP) services. 

The  significance  of  the  types  of  problems  arising  in  the  net-neutrality  debate  is  therefore 
correlated to the degree of competition existing in the market.  

In  Europe,  the  regulatory  framework  has  facilitated  competition  by  requiring  network 
operators  with  significant  market  power  to  provide  wholesale  access  and  by  allocating 
spectrum  in  a  pro-competitive  manner.  Wholesale  access  to  mobile  networks  has  been 
[largely?]  deregulated  on  the  basis  of  evidence  that  such  access  is  offered  on  commercial 
terms  to  mobile  virtual  network  operators,  who  add  to  the  range  of  offerings  at  retail  level. 
Enforced in parallel to the ex ante regulatory framework, competition law has contributed to 
efficient  market  entry  by  tackling  abuses  of  dominant  position  by  regulated  operators.  As  a 
result,  retail  pricing  of  fixed  and  wireless  internet  access  is  not  regulated  in  the  EU  and 
consumers  benefit  from  a  variety  of  services  at  different  price  points  adapted  to  their  needs 
(e.g. in terms of volume, bandwidth).  

At the same time, the adequacy of the competitive environment as a guarantor of the openness 
of  the  internet  can  be  affected  by  the  possible  existence  of  market  failures,  of  oligopolistic 
practices,  of  bottlenecks  to  the  provision  of  high  quality  services  to  consumers  and  of 
information asymmetry. 

3.2. 

The amended Telecommunications framework 

The amended telecoms framework adopted in 2009 favours the preservation of the open and 
neutral  character  of  the  internet.  Under  the  revised  rules,  national  telecoms  regulatory 
authorities  are  required  to  promote  'the  ability  of  end  users  to  access  and  distribute 
information or run applications and services of their choice' (Article 8(4)(g) of the Framework 
Directive).  

This  is  supported  by  new  transparency  requirements  vis-à-vis  consumers  (Article  21  of  the 
Universal Service Directive). More specifically, when subscribing to a service and in case of 
any changes thereafter, consumers will be informed about: 

–  conditions  limiting  access  to  and/or  use  of  services  and  applications,  in  conformity  with 

Union law; and 

–  procedures put in place by the provider in order to measure and shape traffic so as to avoid 

filling or overfilling a network link, and how these may impact on service quality. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

These  transparency  requirements  are  necessary  to  inform  consumers  of  the  service  quality 
they can expect. 

As  regards  switching,  consumers  will  be  able  to  switch  operators  and  keep  their  numbers 
within one working day. Moreover, operators must offer users the possibility to subscribe to a 
contract  with  a  maximum  duration  of  12  months.  The  new  rules  also  make  sure  that 
conditions  and  procedures  for  contract  termination  do  not  act  as  a  disincentive  against 
changing service provider (Article 30(6) of the Universal Service Directive). 

In  addition,  national  regulators  –  after  consulting  the  Commission  -  have  the  power  to 
intervene  by  setting  minimum  quality  of  service  requirements  for  network  transmission 
services (Article 22(3) of the Universal Service Directive) and so guarantee a robust level of 
quality of service.  

All  these  provisions,  contained  in  the  revised  EU  regulatory  framework,  will  have  to  be 
transposed by the Member States by 25 May 2011. 

Moreover. EU law6 offers protection to individuals regarding the processing of personal data, 
including  when  decisions  significantly  affecting  individuals  are  taken  on  the  basis  of 
automated processing of their personal data. Any activity related to blocking or management 
of traffic on such a basis will therefore have to comply with the data protection requirements. 

Finally, Member States must comply with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU when 
implementing  EU  law  and  this  also  applies  to  the  implementation  of  the  revised 
telecommunications framework, which could affect the exercise of a number of such rights.  

4. 

FINDINGS TO DATE 

4.1. 

Blocking  

Blocking  or  throttling  of  lawful  traffic  was  one  of  the  main  issues  raised  during  the  public 
consultation  and  net  neutrality  summit.  Blocking  can  take  the  form  of  either  making  it 
difficult to access or outright restricting certain services or websites on the internet. A classic 
example  of  this  would  be  mobile  internet  operators,  blocking  voice  over  internet  protocol 
(VoIP).  Throttling,  which  is  a  technique  employed  to  manage  traffic  and  minimize 
congestion, may be used to degrade (e.g. slow down) certain type of traffic and so affect the 
quality of content, such as video streaming provided to consumers by a competitor.  

At  European  level,  the  Body  of  European  Regulators  for  Electronic  Communications 
(BEREC) conducted a survey among its members in early 2010 to assess the state of play in 
the  different  Member  States.  In  addition,  at  national  level,  prior  to  the  launch  of  the 
Commission’s public consultation, both ARCEP7 and OFCOM8 , respectively the French and 
United Kingdom national regulatory authorities, launched their own consultations. 

In  its  response  to  the  public  consultation,  BEREC  noted  that  there  have  been  instances  of 
unequal  treatment  of  data  by  certain  operators.  Indeed,  BEREC  reported  some  concerns 
voiced by both users and content providers: 

6 
7 
8 

For example, the Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) and the e-Privacy Directive (2002/58/EC) 
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/net-neutrality/?showResponses=true 
http://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/net-neutralite-orientations-sept2010-eng.pdf 

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
–  Limits on the speed ('throttling') of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing or video streaming by 
certain providers in France, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and the United Kingdom; 

–  Blocking or charging extra for the provision of voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services 
in  mobile  networks  by  certain  mobile  operators  in  Austria,  Germany,  Italy,  the 
Netherlands, Portugal and Romania. 

BEREC  however,  did  not  distinguish  the  instances  of  outright  blocking  from  those  where 
operators are offering the service but requiring additional payments, and did not indicate the 
economic significance of these payments. These are essential issues which need to be clarified 
further. It will therefore be important to get a clear view of the situation across the EU in a 
more exhaustive fact-finding exercise. Consumer and civil society organisations also referred 
to a number of alleged instances of blocking or throttling. BEREC findings show that many of 
these  issues  were  solved  voluntarily,  often  through  intervention  by  the  NRA  or  pressure 
created by adverse media coverage.  

Concerns  were  raised  that  blocking,  though  currently  limited  mainly  to  VoIP,  could  be 
extended in the future to other services, such as television broadcasting via the internet. Other 
potential issues highlighted by respondents to the consultation include the risk that charging 
structures  would  favour  big  players  who  may  afford  to  pay  for  prioritisation  while  new 
entrants  would  be  constrained  to  the  slow  lane  and  hence  limiting  the  incentives  for 
innovation.  Reference  has  also  been  made  to  the  risk  that,  if  different  operators  block  or 
degrade different services, consumers could have difficulty in accessing the services of their 
choice through a single internet subscription. 

The Commission does not have evidence to conclude that these concerns are justified at this 
stage but this should be borne in mind in a more exhaustive fact-finding exercise. 

4.2. 

Traffic management 

The  growing  demands  placed  on  broadband  networks  as  well  as  different  services  and 
applications  which  require  continuous  data  exchange  mean  that  traffic  management  is 
required to ensure that the end user’s experience is not disrupted by network congestion. 
There are different types of traffic management techniques:  

–  Packet  differentiation  allows  different  classes  of  traffic  to  be  treated  differently,  for 
example  for  services  which  require  real-time  communication  such  as  live  streaming  of 
audio or video events and VoIP. This differentiation guarantees a certain minimum quality 
of service to end-users.  

–  IP  routing  allows  ISPs  to  route  packets  via  different  communication  paths  to  avoid 
congestion or provide better services. For example, an Internet Service Provider may route 
packets towards a server that contains a copy of the requested information which is located 
either in its network or somewhere close.  

–  Filtering allows an Internet Service Provider to distinguish between “safe” and “harmful” 

traffic and block the latter before it reaches its intended destination. 

A  consumer’s  experience  is  not  affected  if  an  email  reaches  him  a  few  seconds  after  it  has 
been sent, whereas a similar delay to a voice communication would cause it to be significantly 
degraded, if not rendered entirely useless. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

Much  of  the  net  neutrality  debate  centers  around  traffic  management  and  what  constitutes 
reasonable  traffic  management.  Traffic  management  is  considered  necessary  to  ensure  the 
smooth flow of traffic, particularly at times when networks become congested.  

Several respondents to the public consultation agreed that traffic management was not new in 
the  field  of  electronic  communications.  For  example  operators  prioritised  voice  traffic, 
particularly  in  the  case  of  mobile.  Properly  used,  some  respondents  argue  that  such  traffic 
management techniques should enhance consumer experience.Even those respondents in the 
public  consultation  that  alluded  to  blocking  of  peer-to-peer  or  VoIP  services  argued  that 
traffic management was a necessary and essential part of the operation of an efficient internet. 
They  agreed  that  its  use  for  the  purposes  of  addressing  congestion  and  security  issues  was 
entirely legitimate and not contrary to the principles of net neutrality.  

A  number  of  respondents  raised  concerns  about  potential  abuse  of  traffic  management,  for 
example,  for  the  purposes  of  granting  preferential  treatment  to  one  service  over  another,  a 
practice that they would not consider justifiable if the services were similar in nature. 

There was broad consensus that operators and ISPs should be allowed to determine their own 
business  models  and  commercial  arrangements,  subject  to  all  applicable  laws.  Some 
respondents  called  on  National  Regulatory  Authorities  and  operators  to  work  together  to 
ensure  that  transparency  to  consumers  as  regards  traffic  management  practices  was 
meaningful and effective. 

Several  respondents  considered  that  traffic  management  should  apply  to  both  fixed  and 
mobile  networks,  in  line  with  the  principle  of  technology  neutrality  that  underlies  the 
electronic communications framework in the EU.  

The  Commission,  together  with  BEREC,  will  continue  monitoring  this  issue  to  allow  for 
reasonable and transparent traffic  management,  which  will  support the objectives of the EU 
Telecommunication framework. 

4.3. 

Consumers and quality of service 

Transparency  is  a  key  part  of  the  net  neutrality  debate.  Obtaining  adequate  information  on 
possible limitations or traffic management enables consumers to make informed choices.  

According to BEREC, the majority of NRAs received complaints from consumers concerning 
the discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds for an internet connection. 
There  was  consensus  that  transparency  on  the  quality  of  the  service  is  essential.  Given  the 
complexity  and  technical  nature  of  the  multiplicity  of  internet  offerings  from  the  consumer 
perspective, according to many respondents, a balance needs to be struck between simplicity 
and the provision of meaningful and appropriately detailed information.  

Some  stakeholders  pointed  to  the  fact  that  safeguards  for  preserving  the  open  and  neutral 
character of the internet are already provided for in the regulatory framework and that NRAs 
should  avail  themselves  of  the  provisions  under  Article  22(3)  of  the  Universal  Service 
Directive and set appropriate minimum quality of service requirements, where they are made 
aware of degradation of service, hindering or slowing down of traffic over networks. 

In the course of the summit of November 2010, Members of the European Parliament urged 
more work to be done on quality of service indicators and would look to BEREC for the best 
way to proceed. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

4.4. 

The international context 

A  number  of  issues  –  such  as  whether  internet  providers  can  prioritise  one  kind  of  content 
over another, whether mobile and fixed networks should be subject to different rules – have 
generated much discussion and no little controversy in a number of countries outside the EU. 

In the United States, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has regularly declared 
its commitment to preserving the openness of the internet.  To  this  end,  the  FCC  adopted  in 
2005 four key principles allowing internet consumers to use the content, applications, services 
and devices of their choice, and promoting competition among network, service and content 
providers.  These  ideas  correspond  largely  to  the  'open  internet'  principle  enshrined  in  the 
revised EU telecoms framework.  

In December 2010, the FCC issued an order which introduced new rules on transparency as 
well as clarification as to the types of blocking permitted for fixed and mobile broadband. In 
principle,  fixed  broadband  providers  may  not  block  lawful  content,  services,  non-harmful 
devices and applications, including those competing with their own voice or video telephony 
services.  The  approach  to  mobile  broadband  is  incremental,  at  this  time  providers  are  only 
specifically  prevented  from  blocking  lawful  websites  and  VoIP  or  video-telephony 
applications that compete with their own voice or video telephony services. 

Other  countries  have  adopted  non-binding  guidelines  on  net  neutrality.  In  Norway,  the 
Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT), in collaboration with a range of 
stakeholders,  adopted  a  voluntary  agreement  in  February  2009  entitling  users  to  an  internet 
connection (i) with a predefined capacity and quality; (ii) that enables them to use the content, 
services and applications of their choice; and (iii) that is free of discrimination with regard to 
type of application, service or content.  

Meanwhile  in  Canada,  the  Canada  Radio-television  and  Telecommunications  Commission 
(CRTC)  issued  in  October  2009  a  new  framework  on  net  neutrality  that  subjects  internet 
providers  to  increased  transparency  requirements  and  allows  them  to  employ  traffic-
management techniques only as a last resort. 

Chile  appears  to  be  the  first  country  to  address  directly  the  principle  of  net  neutrality  in  its 
legislation.  In  August  2010,  its  parliament  adopted  a  new  law  on  net  neutrality,  which 
essentially  restricts  the  rights  of  internet  providers  to  manage  content,  while  increasing 
protection for content providers and internet users.  

The  Commission  is  following  these  international  developments  closely  and  will  continue  to 
take them into account in its own thinking on possible approaches to net neutrality.  

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The importance of maintaining the open internet, underlined in the Commission Declaration, 
received  large  endorsement  in  the  public  consultation  and  joint  Commission-Parliament 
summit.  The  Commission  remains  committed  to  this  objective,  and  to  ensuring  that  the 
maintenance of a robust best-efforts internet to which everyone has access. 

The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  rules  on  transparency,  switching  and  quality  of 
service  that  form  part  of  the  revised  EU  electronic  communications  framework  should 
contribute to producing competitive outcomes.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

Given  that  Member  States  are  still  transposing  the  revised  EU  electronic  communications 
framework into national law, it is important to allow sufficient time for these provisions to be 
implemented and to see how they will operate in practice.  

Moreover, as stated above the data obtained from the public consultation was incomplete or 
imprecise  in  many  aspects  that  are  essential  to  understand  the  current  state  of  play  in  the 
European Union. For this reason, the Commission, with BEREC, is currently looking into a 
number of issues that surfaced in the course of the consultation process, in particular, barriers 
to switching (for example, after how long, on average, a customer is permitted to break a post-
paid  contract,  and  what  if  any  are  the  penalties),  practices  of  blocking,  throttling  and 
commercial practices with equivalent effect, transparency and quality of service as well as the 
competition  issues  relating  to  net  neutrality  (e.g.  discriminatory  practices  by  a  dominant 
player). 

In this regard, the Commission reserves its right to assess under Articles 101 and 102 of the 
TFEU any behaviour related to traffic management that may restrict or distort competition. 

The way forward 

The  Commission  will  publish,  by  the  end  of  the  year,  the  evidence  that  will  come  to  light 
from BEREC’s investigations, including any instance of blocking or throttling certain types of 
traffic.  

On the basis of the evidence and the implementation of the telecom framework provisions, the 
Commission will decide, as a matter of priority, on the issue of additional guidance on net 
neutrality. 

If  significant  and  persistent  problems  are  substantiated,  and  the  system  as  a  whole  - 
comprising multiple operators - is not ensuring that consumers are easily able to access and 
distribute content, services and applications of their choice via a single internet subscription, 
the  Commission  will  assess  the  need  for  more  stringent  measures  to  achieve  competition 
and the choice consumers deserve. Transparency and ease of switching are key elements for 
consumers when choosing or changing internet service provider but they may not be adequate 
tools to deal with generalised restrictions of lawful services or applications.  

Such  additional  measures  may  take  the  form  of  guidance  or  general  legislative  measures  to 
enhance competition and consumer choice, such as by further facilitating consumer switching, 
or  if  this  should  prove  to  be  insufficient,  by  for  example  imposing  specific  obligations 
regarding unjustified traffic differentiation on the internet applicable to all ISPs irrespective of 
market power. This could include the prohibition of the blocking of lawful services. 

Net  neutrality  touches  on  a  number  of  rights  and  principles  enshrined  in  the  EU  Charter  of 
Fundamental  Rights,  in  particular  the  respect  for  private  and  family  life,  the  protection  of 
personal  data  and  freedom  of  expression  and  information.  For  this  reason,  any  legislative 
proposals in this area will be subject to an in-depth assessment of their impact on fundamental 
rights and of their compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU9. 

9 

In  line  with  the  "Strategy  for  the  effective  implementation  of  the  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights 
COM(2010)573 final of 19.10.2010 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
Any additional regulation should avoid deterring investment, or innovative business models, 
lead  to  a  more  efficient  use  of  the  networks  and  to  creating  new  business  opportunities  at 
different levels of the internet value chain while preserving for consumers the advantages of a 
choice of internet access products tailored to their needs.  

In parallel, the Commission will continue its dialogue with Member States and stakeholders to 
ensure the rapid development of broadband, which would reduce the pressure on data traffic. 

EN 

10 

   EN