The neutrality of the Internet is one of its most defended characteristics. It consists of the companies that give users access to the Internet not filtering the traffic to give greater access capacity to certain pages, that is, the requests are resolved in strict order of arrival, whether they intend to visit any blog or the front page. from YouTube.
This neutrality has a large number of defenders, especially among users and civil rights groups. His opinion is that access to the Internet is a universal right and that no interest, whether commercial or governmental, should prevail over another: for the Internet to be free it must be neutral.
Opposite, many of the Internet operators, as well as some of the companies that work for and through the Internet. They defend that neutrality is a very nice concept but that, in the long run, it can cause a collapse since the vast majority of Internet users' requests target the same pages: the most visited.
Both have been found for some time now in the streets, squares, restaurants and official buildings of Brussels, according to a report in The New York Times. The European Union is in the process of defining the rules of the Internet game and in the United States they are very attentive to what happens: Europe has become the great global regulator in recent years and what happens in the Old Continent will affect to everyone sooner or later.
Each company has sent its own lobbies to the bureaucratic capital of Europe. Thus, while AT&T or Verizon defend that Internet traffic must be regulated, content producers (Google or Yahoo) seek just the opposite.
The legislator's decision seems imminent in Europe and it will be during the spring when the plans begin to turn white on black: on April 22 the European Parliament could have to accept, or not, the Commission's plans.