End-to-End, Net Neutrality and Human Rights

  • Luca BelliEmail author


The network neutrality (NN) debate focuses on the effects that Internet Traffic Management (ITM) practices, implemented by network operators, may deploy on Internet users’ rights and particularly, on their capability to freely seek, receive and impart information and ideas. Certain ITM techniques are indeed aimed at discriminating against specific content, applications and services and, therefore, have the potential to substantially interfere with the end-user’s Internet experience. Over the past 15 years, NN discussions have been scrutinising the extent to which ITM techniques may be deemed as reasonable, trying to find a delicate balance between the interests of the operators, which have the technical possibility to manage Internet traffic; the interests of the Content and Application Providers (CAPs) that rely on non-discriminatory Internet connectivity in order compete on a level playing field; and the interests of Internet users, who rely on non-discriminatory Internet connectivity in order to fully enjoy their fundamental rights while, as customers, have a legitimate expectations to enjoy the quality levels for which they pay.


Data Packet Internet User Federal Communication Commission Traffic Management Network Neutrality 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alvestrand, H. T. (2004, October). A Mission Statement for the IETF. Request for Comments: 3935. BCP: 95.
  2. ARCEP. (2012, September). Report to Parliament and the Government on Net Neutrality.
  3. Balkin, J. M. (2004). Digital speech and democratic culture: A theory of freedom of expression for the information society. New York University Law Review, 79(1).Google Scholar
  4. Bastian, C., Klieber, T., Livingood, J., Mills, J., & Woundy, R. (2010, December). An ISP Congestion Management System. RFC 6057.
  5. Belli, L. (2015, June 8) From Internet Standards to Regulatory Standards? A Net Neutrality Experiment. Presented to Conferência Internacional sobre a Elaboração de Regras de Neutralidade de Rede, FGV Rio de Janeiro.
  6. Belli, L., & van Bergen, M. (2013). Protecting Human Rights through Network Neutrality: Furthering Internet Users’ Interest, Modernising Human Rights and Safeguarding the Open Internet. Council of Europe. CDMSI(2013)Misc19.Google Scholar
  7. BEREC. (2012a, May 29). A view of traffic management and other practices resulting in restrictions to the open Internet in Europe, Findings from BEREC’s and the European Commission’s joint investigation. BoR (12) 30.
  8. BEREC. (2012b, November 27). Overview of BEREC’s approach to net neutrality. BoR (12) 140
  9. BEREC. (2012c, December 3). Summary of BEREC positions on net neutrality. BoR (12) 146.
  10. BITAG. (2013, August). Port Blocking. A Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group Technical Working Group Report.
  11. Cappuccini, A., & Craggs, G. (2012, February 15). Orange UK blocking La Quadrature du Net. Open Rights Group.
  12. Carpenter, B. (1996). Architectural Principles of the Internet. Request for Comments: 1958.
  13. Cooper, M. (2000). Open Access to the Broadband Internet: Technical and Economic Discrimination in Closed, Proprietary Networks, 71 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1011.Google Scholar
  14. Council of Europe. (2010). Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on Network Neutrality. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 29 September 2010 at the 1094th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies.
  15. DCNN. (2013). Model Framework on Network Neutrality. Presented at meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Network Neutrality held during the 8th Internet Governance Forum. Bali 2013.
  16. Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009.Google Scholar
  17. ECtHR. (1990, May 22). Autronic AG v. Switzerland, 22 May 1990. Application no. 12726/87.
  18. ECtHR. (2012, December 18). Case of Ahmet Yıldırım v. Turkey. Application no. 3111/10.
  19. EDPS. (2011, October 7). Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on net neutrality, traffic management and the protection of privacy and personal data.
  20. EDPS. (2013, November 14). Opinion of the Europe on Data Protection Supervisor on the Proposal for a Regulation of the Europe on Parliament and of the Council laying down measures concerning the Europe an single market for electronic communications and to achieve a Connected Continent.Google Scholar
  21. FCC. (2005a). Madison River Communications, LLC and affiliated companies, Acct. No. FRN: 0004334082.
  22. FCC. (2005b). Policy Statement. 20 FCC Rcd 14986, 14987–88. Retrieved from
  23. FCC. (2008, August 1). Commission Orders Comcast to End Discriminatory Network Management Practices. News Media Information 202/418-0500.
  24. FCC. (2010). Preserving the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52, Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 17905, 17911.Google Scholar
  25. FCC. (2015). Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet. GN Docket No. 14-28.Google Scholar
  26. IACHR. (2008). Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177. Para. 57.Google Scholar
  27. IACHR. (2011). Case of Fontevecchia y D’Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C No. 238. Para. 45.Google Scholar
  28. Lee, R. S., & Wu, T. (2009). Subsidizing creativity through network design: zero pricing and net neutrality. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 23(3).Google Scholar
  29. Lemley, M., & Lessig, L. (2000, October 1). The end of end-to-end: preserving the architecture of the Internet in the broadband era. UCLA Law Review, 48, 925, 2001, available at:
  30. Marsden, C. (1999). Pluralism in the multi-channel market. Suggestions for regulatory scrutiny. Council of Europe MM-S-PL(1999)012
  31. Saltzer, J. H., Reed, D. P., & Clark, D. D. (1984). End-to-end arguments in system design. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, (2).
  32. SSAC. (2012, October 9). SSAC Advisory on Impacts of Content Blocking via the Domain Name System. SAC 056.
  33. Tor Project. (2012, January 17). A tale of new censors – Vodafone UK, T-Mobile UK, O2 UK, and T-Mobile USA.
  34. UNESCO. (2012). Liberté de connexion Liberté d'expression – Ecologie dynamique des lois et règlements qui façonnent l’Internet.
  35. United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information. (2011). Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and the Internet.Google Scholar
  36. Van Schewick, B. (2010). Internet architecture and innovation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Williamson, B., Black, D., & Punton, T. (2011, October). The open internet – A platform for growth. A report for the BBC, Blinkbox, Channel 4, Skype and Yahoo!Google Scholar
  38. Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, 2.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fundação Getúlio Vargas Law SchoolRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations