Hacker News Reader

Well, they didn’t sacrifice net neutrality. They created net neutrality, but ISPs can still zero-rate some sites.

It’s intended to avoid the Netflix-Verizon issue, but it still allows for unfair competition, although the ECJ already mentioned they would consider that an antitrust violation.

So we might end up with a fair result.

View on HN

Some people, and also the inventor of the WWW, do not agree.

Yes. Zero-Rating is bad.

But you can’t say they "banned" or gave a "heavy blow to" Net Neutrality.

They created a very limited law, that provides some of the protections of Net Neutrality, but most importantly, it creates more competition between ISPs.

But, as most of the other protections of Net Neutrality are anti-monopoly laws, the ECJ might end up ruling that, if one combines this law with antitrust laws, these protections are implied.

To which extend Net Neutrality was damaged, is debatable -- and likely we will only see in the future what the net-result is. I can only see for now, that they left dangerous holes in the Net Neutrality case here, which the providers where longing for very much, because they want to use these holes to draw money from it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com