What is net neutrality? Rules, debate, and current status

What is net neutrality?

Think of net neutrality as a restriction on what your ISP can do with your internet traffic. Under net neutrality, an ISP cannot deliberately slow down selected websites and services or charge large corporations for “fast lanes” that deliver those corporations’ content ahead of everyone else’s. Law professor Tim Wu introduced the term “net neutrality” in 2003, arguing that broadband providers should not discriminate between the websites and applications their customers use.

Consider a simple case where net neutrality does not apply. Your ISP has a paid agreement with Company X but no such agreement with Company Y — you’re interested in both. Because of that agreement, your ISP gives Company X an advantage by sending its traffic through a “fast lane,” so you see Company X’s pages open almost instantly. At the same time, your ISP throttles your connection to Company Y, and Company Y’s pages take many seconds to load or sometimes times out. Eventually, the long waits get annoying enough that you give up on Company Y and settle for Company X.

It may feel like the choice was yours, but what actually happened is your ISP tilted the scales by making one service work better than the other, which pushed you toward the company that paid for preferential treatment.

The three core rules of net neutrality

Net neutrality comes down to three rules, which the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wrote into its 2015 Open Internet Order:

1. 1. No blocking. An ISP cannot block lawful websites, apps, or content.
2. 2. No throttling. An ISP cannot engage in bandwidth throttling — the deliberate slowing of specific services or competitors.
3. 3. No paid prioritization. An ISP cannot create paid “fast lanes,” which load a paying company’s websites faster than a competitor’s.

Under the 2015 order, ISPs could still block or throttle traffic when reasonably necessary to manage their networks. Paid prioritization, however, was banned outright.

The table below shows how much control an ISP has over your traffic with and without net neutrality:

Why is net neutrality important?

Net neutrality is important because it creates room for innovation and healthy competition. It gives smaller players a chance to grow and compete with more established businesses and industry giants. Without net neutrality and the level playing field it creates, websites such as YouTube, Netflix, or Facebook might never have grown into what they are today — internet traffic could have just been dominated by corporations that paid ISPs for “fast lanes” to push smaller competitors out.

Another reason net neutrality is important is that it supports free expression online. With the rules in place, an ISP has no say over which viewpoints its customers can access, since it cannot block or slow a website because of its content. The flip side is that ISPs cannot filter out disinformation or illicit content — but that would have to be dealt with through the law anyway, whether net neutrality is regulated or not.

Limited choice of providers adds to the case for the rules. More than a third of Americans have access to only one provider of high-speed broadband or none at all, according to the FCC’s 2024 Communications Marketplace Report. A household in that position cannot switch to another ISP if its provider blocks, slows, or favors certain websites, which leaves these households with little recourse when no net neutrality rules apply.

What are the pros and cons of net neutrality?

The debate over net neutrality is a debate over how much control ISPs should have over their own networks. The rules stop an ISP from favoring certain companies or blocking content, and the same rules add compliance work and limit how the ISP runs its network.

Arguments for net neutrality:

• Open access to content online. ISPs cannot block specific content or slow it down because they dislike it or because they are paid to do so, so a wider range of opinions and information stays available online.

• More opportunities for startups and small businesses. Large corporations are not allowed to monopolize the market by paying off ISPs, and smaller companies can compete against them in a fair game because of it. 

• A level playing field. No company or service can gain an advantage over its competitors by paying an ISP for preferential treatment.

• Less control for ISPs, more control for internet users. ISPs cannot indirectly pick winners and losers by favoring some websites and services over others, so internet users can decide for themselves which services they want to use without being influenced.

Arguments against net neutrality:

• Heavy-handed regulation. Net neutrality rules put ISPs under FCC oversight and add compliance work that weighs most on small providers. They have also changed with each administration, so ISPs cannot plan far ahead.

• Lower infrastructure investment. ISPs cannot charge companies extra for their services, so they have less revenue for new networks. ISPs say that money could be used to bring high-speed internet to rural areas.

• Prevents tiered service offerings. Net neutrality restricts tiered offerings, such as plans priced by data use or “fast lanes,” which those arguing against net neutrality say would give customers more options.

• Less control over harmful traffic. Dangerous and illegal content is one of the uglier sides of an open internet. Letting ISPs filter it could help, but at the same time it could create a risk of censorship.

History of net neutrality in the US

The FCC, the US agency that regulates interstate and international communications, has shaped net neutrality policy since the idea was first presented to regulators in the early 2000s. For all the back and forth over the past two decades, the central legal question has stayed the same. The question is whether internet access is a telecommunications service, like a phone line, which the FCC can regulate strictly under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, or an information service, which gets light regulation under Title I. The timeline below shows how the answer to that question changed, from the 2003 coining of the term to the January 2025 decision that left the US without federal rules.

2003: The term is coined

The term “net neutrality” was coined in 2003 by law professor Tim Wu in his paper “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination.” At the time, ISPs had started banning users from accessing VPNs or using wireless routers to set up Wi-Fi points. Wu saw this practice as discrimination against new technologies and argued that unchecked restrictions could hold back innovation for years. He called for anti-discrimination rules that would stop broadband providers from favoring some applications and devices over others. VPNs were among the technologies affected by those restrictions, and VPN providers such as NordVPN still depend on ISPs not interfering with their traffic.

2005–2010: The FCC’s early attempts at net neutrality

A document called the Internet Policy Statement, issued in 2005, contained the FCC’s first anti-discrimination principles for ISPs. Consumers, it said, were entitled to access lawful internet content and to connect legal devices to a broadband network. As a policy statement, it gave the FCC no clear power to penalize an ISP that ignored these principles.

Three years later, the FCC tried to enforce those principles. Its 2008 order told Comcast to stop slowing certain types of traffic, namely peer-to-peer connections. The FCC pointed out that the technology had lawful uses and that the slowdown did not count as reasonable network management. Comcast challenged the order in court, and in April 2010 the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruled in Comcast’s favor. The court held that the FCC had not shown it had the authority to enforce such rules on a broadband provider.

2010–2014: Common carriers and court battles

In 2010, the FCC passed a new and more detailed net neutrality order, hoping to close up any legal loopholes. This time, another telecom, Verizon, sued the FCC. In 2014, the same court decided in Verizon v. FCC that the FCC didn’t have the right to impose those rules on ISPs, because the FCC itself had classified them as information services instead of “common carriers” under Title II of the Communications Act.

Common carriers are people or businesses that provide services or products to the general public on equal terms. They normally operate under rules set by a regulatory body that has the right to enforce regulations. Telephone companies and public transportation are two examples.

The Communications Act regulates telecommunications services and information services in different ways, and the outcome of Verizon v. FCC depended on which category broadband falls into. Title II covers telecommunications services that count as common carriers, and it subjects them to strict, utility-style regulation. Title I covers information services, which face light regulation. The FCC had placed broadband under Title I, so the court struck down the blocking and discrimination rules and upheld only the requirement that ISPs disclose how they manage their networks.

2015: ISPs reclassified as common carriers

Tom Wheeler, then chairman of the FCC, reclassified ISPs as common carriers under Title II in 2015, though with fewer obligations than landline operators. The FCC chose not to apply provisions such as rate regulation to broadband. The agency also passed a new Open Internet Order, the Obama-era Title II framework that put the three core rules of net neutrality into federal rules. Telecom companies promptly sued the FCC, again. This time around, the DC Circuit sided with the FCC and upheld the order in June 2016, in United States Telecom Association v. FCC. Telecoms didn’t take it lightly and appealed the decision.

2017–2019: The repeal and its aftermath

The 2015 rules stayed in force for three years. New FCC Chairman Ajit Pai reversed the order in 2017, and the FCC voted in December of that year to reclassify broadband as a Title I information service. That removed the blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization rules and left only a requirement that ISPs disclose their practices. Pai argued that the 2015 rules discouraged network investment and innovation. The decision provoked a backlash, and millions of comments, many of them posted by bots, flooded the FCC’s website. The repeal went into effect on June 11, 2018.

With the FCC’s rules gone, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) became the main federal watchdog over ISPs. The FTC cannot write net neutrality rules. It can only act when an ISP breaks fair-competition or consumer protection laws, and it is unclear whether fast lanes would count.

Mozilla, consumer groups, the District of Columbia, and the attorneys general of 22 states sued the FCC over the repeal. In Mozilla Corp. v. FCC, decided on October 1, 2019, the DC Circuit upheld the FCC’s decision to classify broadband as an information service, which left the FCC free to classify it differently in the future. The court also ruled that the FCC could not bar states from passing their own net neutrality laws.

2024–2025: Restoration and reversal

Net neutrality returned in 2024 and was undone the following January. In April 2024, the FCC under Chair Jessica Rosenworcel voted 3–2 to reclassify broadband as a Title II telecommunications service and restore the three core rules, the same approach the agency took in 2015. Industry groups challenged the order in the Sixth Circuit, and in August 2024 the court paused the rules while it considered the case.

On January 2, 2025, the Sixth Circuit set aside the order in Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC. The court held that broadband is an information service under the Communications Act, so the FCC lacked the authority to impose common carrier rules on ISPs. The court read the statute itself, without deferring to the FCC’s interpretation, after the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Loper Bright ended that deference. Because the ruling rests on the statute’s wording, the FCC cannot restore the rules by reclassifying broadband again. Federal net neutrality rules would now need new legislation from Congress, and individual states remain free to pass their own.

What is the current status of net neutrality in the US?

At the time of writing in October 2026, the US has no enforceable federal net neutrality rules. In January 2025, the Sixth Circuit set aside the FCC’s 2024 order in Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC, and in July 2025 the FCC deleted the now-unenforceable rules from its regulations. Broadband remains classified as a Title I information service. The FCC’s disclosure requirement stays in place, and the FTC can act against deceptive or anticompetitive practices by ISPs.

Several states enforce their own rules. California and Washington require all ISPs in the state to follow them. Oregon, Vermont, Colorado, and Maine tie their rules to state contracts or state funding.

The path forward now rests with Congress and state legislatures. The Sixth Circuit read the Communications Act as placing broadband outside common carrier regulation, so the FCC cannot restore the rules by reclassifying broadband again. Restoring federal rules would require a new law from Congress, and no net neutrality bill has been passed. State legislatures can pass or amend their own laws in the meantime.

US states with their own net neutrality rules:

Information last checked October 2026.

How does net neutrality work in other countries?

Net neutrality has followed a winding path in the US, while the EU has had firm rules in place since 2016. Regulation (EU) 2015/2120, adopted in November 2015 and applying from April 2016, requires ISPs in every member state to treat internet traffic equally. National regulators enforce it, and BEREC, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications, publishes the guidelines they follow. Guidelines were last updated in 2020.

The Court of Justice of the EU has also shaped the net neutrality rules. In 2020 and 2021, the court ruled that “zero-rating” offers, which exempt chosen apps from a customer’s data allowance, conflict with the regulation.

Other countries have written their own rules. Chile, for one, became the first country to legislate net neutrality in 2010. In 2016, India’s telecom regulator, TRAI, banned differential pricing for data services, which blocked Facebook’s Free Basics plan in the country.

What net neutrality means for you

Without federal rules, how your ISP handles your online traffic depends on the provider and on your state. ISPs are free to sell tiered plans and to prioritize or slow traffic from specific services as long as they follow state law and disclose their practices. ISPs in California and Washington remain bound by state laws that bar throttling, blocking, and paid prioritization. Federal rules still require ISPs to publish their network management practices, so the provider’s website is the first place to check.

Some ISPs may reduce the speed of internet traffic after identifying which service or app is sending it. A VPN encrypts online traffic, so the ISP can no longer see what kind it is, which may help prevent that specific form of throttling. NordVPN encrypts traffic with AES-256 on OpenVPN and IKEv2/IPsec, and with ChaCha20 on NordLynx, its implementation of WireGuard®. Now, a VPN cannot lift an overall bandwidth cap, cannot fix general network congestion, and does not restore net neutrality or change any regulation.

What your ISP can see when you use a VPN is limited to the fact that you are connected to one, not the websites you visit or what you do on them. Privacy is a right, and NordVPN encourages you to exercise it.

If you suspect that your ISP is throttling your connection, a speed test with and without a VPN can help you find out:

1. 1. Run a speed test on your usual connection and note the download and upload speeds.
2. 2. Connect to a VPN server.
3. 3. Run the same speed test again.
4. 4. Compare the two results.

If the speeds are obviously higher with the VPN on, your ISP may be throttling certain traffic. Speeds that hover around the same number or drop just slightly are normal, because a VPN adds encryption overhead. Repeat the test at different times of day, since network congestion and test server load can also skew the results you see.

References

¹ Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388863 opens in a new tab

² U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. (2025). Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC (No. 24-3449). Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/24-3449/24-3449-2025-01-02.html opens in a new tab

³ Congressional Research Service. (2025). No more deference: Sixth Circuit relies on Loper Bright to strike down net neutrality rules (LSB11264). Congress.gov. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11264 opens in a new tab

⁴ Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Net neutrality responses by state. Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Net_neutrality_responses_by_state opens in a new tab

⁵ Court of Justice of the European Union. (2026). Magyar Telekom (Case C-514/24), press release on the judgment of 12 March 2026. Curia. https://curia.europa.eu/site/upload/docs/application/pdf/2026-03/cp260034en.pdf opens in a new tab