A net neutrality myth?

For most of us, "net neutrality" boils down to whether we get to stream videos, online games and other broadband-intensive content without our Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charging a premium for the pleasure.

But that's the least of it.

In technical terms, net neutrality is the idea that all Internet traffic should be treated equally. That's everything we do online - emailing, reading, messaging, sharing photos and video, streaming music, playing games, shopping, studying, campaigning - it should all be equal in terms of speed of access, quality of connection and the price we pay.

Some say protecting net neutrality is about protecting "the Internet as we know it."

But is it a basic right?

"In a modern society that is based on the Internet, it is difficult to imagine that this is not a basic right," says Roberto Viola, deputy director general of DG Connect, which oversees Europe's Digital Agenda. "Having Internet access everywhere and having a right to a neutral Internet is a basic right of our modern society."

In a statement and video address, US President Barack Obama recently reiterated a similar position. An open Internet, he says, is "essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. "And, as such, it needs to be protected.

But Obama's address avoids the dicey fact that net neutrality is merely an aspiration - it has yet to be achieved.

And it faces many opponents.

Basic principles aside, some opponents even disagree with the very notion that the Internet is a basic right - or human right - as others suggest.

"The Internet is a mechanism through which we can introduce efficiencies to our lives, we can have access to information more quickly and easily," says Milo Yiannopoulos, a British tech entrepreneur and writer. "But no, it doesn't even approach a human right, and it's a little disrespectful to the notion of human rights to call a broadband connection similar to a right to clean water."

Those aims and aspirations

Though, at the very least, we are encouraged to think of the Internet as a basic provision.

So what should it entail?

Obama's vision, and that of the European Commission, includes aspirations such as a ban on "throttling" to stop ISPs intentionally slowing down or speeding up content delivery - a fast-lane for those who pay, and a slow-lane for those who don't.

There should also be a ban on "blocking" - so you can use "Voice over IP" (VoIP) to make calls on Skype, for instance, using cellular data on your phone.

And online "gatekeepers" should be banished, too.

The problem is all these things are happening now.

In Germany, for instance, Vodafone and T-Mobile block VoIP on some plans, and GEMA, a royalty collection society, blocks the streaming of music videos (even official videos posted by record companies) on YouTube.

"I don't think net neutrality exists fully," says Jan Philipp Albrecht, a German Greens Party MEP. "It's just a common understanding that there should be neutrality. But it's undermined, because ISPs are already making contracts with companies that provide broadband-intensive services and they treat these services with priority."

The music streaming service, Spotify, for instance, has been bundled with T-Mobile contracts.

So, say you urgently need directions to your local hospital but a majority of people in your area are streaming music, or video via a service like Netflix - you may struggle to get the information you need, as quickly as you need it.

"That's exactly what we're talking about," says Albrecht.

Clearly, Albrecht supports the notion of net neutrality, and he wants the European Union's new Digital Agenda tsars, Andrus Ansip and Günther Oettinger, to "guide us very clearly to a regulative environment where the neutrality of services and content on the Internet is assured."

But when we talk about preserving net neutrality, or "the Internet as we know it," what do we actually mean? Hasn't the Internet already changed beyond recognition?

"Web browsing habits have changed," says Yiannopoulos. "We don't just load text pages …we've progressed way beyond that. And if there are people who want their Internet connection to deliver HD movies, perhaps they'd be better served by more flexible arrangements that don't preserve this strict equality and instead prioritize video, and they may well want to pay more for that."

Call for regulation

So far, the fast-lane option has been a hard sell. And the US President knows it. That's why Obama wants the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to introduce tough regulation to ensure the spirit of net neutrality, while at the same time allowing for "specialized services" - the fast-lane option.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler hasn't exactly jumped at the idea.

And in Europe, it seems no one likes regulation either.

"The choice in the US is in many ways very similar to the choice we face in Europe," says David Stewart, a European regulatory lawyer at the Towerhouse law firm in London. "Do we see a problem that calls for this kind of intervention? Do we see a need to have formal rules for net neutrality?"

And as things stand, says Stewart, the answer is no. Consumer experience is good, and the market offers lots of choice.

Even those who support the idea of an open Internet, such as Daniel Pataki, the director of the European Telecommunications Network Operators' Association (ETNO), is sensitive to overregulation.

"Talk about slow lanes and fast lanes is pure speculation," says Pataki, a former regulator. "We've never heard it exists. But addressing it with harsh regulation, there we don't agree."

Similarly, DG Connect's Roberto Viola recommends a "light touch" when it comes to regulation.

But he says the debate is more than speculation.

"There are problems which are real and exist today for 200 million [European] citizens. Your preferred IP application blocked on the mobile phone, for instance, Voice over IP, or video or whatever. This problem needs to be solved, and it can be solved right now," Viola says.

They can indeed. But "now" can be a long time in European politics.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler declined our offer to comment.