Digital Single Market: Net Neutrality

This essay examines the ethical implications of the EU's net neutrality rules, specifically focusing on the non-discrimination of internet services. It analyzes the issue through the lenses of deontological and consequentialist ethical theories. Deontology, emphasizing duty and rules, suggests that adherence to EU regulations ensuring equal treatment of internet traffic is ethically sound. Consequentialism, focusing on outcomes, argues that non-discrimination is morally right because it benefits end-users. The essay concludes that non-discrimination is ethically justifiable under both frameworks, highlighting the importance of upholding end-user rights and the responsibilities of internet service providers in maintaining a fair and open internet.

Digital Single Market (Open Internet)
Our commitment to net neutrality
The current highlights of the EU rules on net neutrality which was applied as of 30 April 2016
has been considered. The development of the EU rules is considered as a big achievement for the
digital single market. EU rules contain no blocking and throttling of online content services and
applications. The main motive behind building the EU rules can be ethical or unethical as well.
Moreover, the discrimination of internet services is not allowed in the EU rules apart from three
exceptions like the integrity of the network, compliance with legal obligations, and management
of congestion in temporary and exceptional situation (Open Internet, 2015). The main question
arises here is that whether non-discrimination of internet services is ethical or unethical or could
it fulfill any meaningful purpose at the end?
This situation like any other situations can be seen in different manners depending on what are
the desires of one to look at it. Let us measure this situation from the perspective of deontology
and consequentialist ethical theories. It is one’s own preference what decision he is going to
make regardless of the wrongness or rightness of it. As per my views non-discrimination of
internet services is ethical. As an ethical decision, it requires that all electronic communication
should pass through an internet service provider network. It is right for the end users to use all
the internet services as per their demands and choices. In relation to it as per views of the
Immanuel Kant ethical or moral values are considered the guiding posts in day to day decision
making. On the other hand, the deontological approach is required for the ethics of rule-based
because the rules determine the responsibility of a person toward their duty. Implementing EU
law and non-discrimination obligation on the internet service provider ensure that all the internet
1

service is treated equally to all traffics of the internet in such a way that save the rights of the
end-users. From this, the internet service providers ensure that the non-discrimination of
information is done in an effective manner without causes any problem to the end-user. In
addition to it, ISP also plays an important role in the healthy implementation of non-
discrimination obligation and reasonable traffic management measures (Chen, 2013). However,
the action of non-discrimination of internet services is considered effective because the law of
EU it is the right of end users to open internet access for their own benefits. Using the technical
equipment of their choices helps them in accessing and collecting required information and
performing day to day activities efficiently. As we know, according to Kant, rightness and
wrongness mostly based upon the obligation toward duty on the consequences of the actions.
Kant further goes on to suggest that if the EU rules are formulated for benefits of others than it is
the responsibility of internet service providers to follow it without raising any difficulty and it is
also very crucial to what would the end users requires from them (EU Law Analysis, 2016). If the
internet service providers do not follow rules then, they are abiding by its losses to the end-users.
If something good outcomes obtained, that action would still justify the unconventionality from
the path of ethics if it was performed as per the EU rules. So, in the ambit of deontological
morality, internet service providers always like to take the decision formulated as per the EU
rules. If the internet service providers not follow the EU rules and blocking or throttling the
internet services will be considered unethical, and they become liable for all the poor
consequences of this step. It may prove beneficial for some end users, but the fact is that it has
not been done by the internet service providers. So, it is necessary for the internet service
provider to enhance non-discrimination of services which ultimately prove very beneficial for the
end users.
2

The other theory with which the necessity of non-discrimination of information could be
understood in diverse viewpoint is the consequentialist theory of the morality. As per the
consequentialist theory, any action is ethical or moral on the basis of the consequences and result
of that action (Sverdlik, 2016). It is the consequences which help in determining the clear
decision about the wrongness and rightness of an action. In other words, we can say that the end
of the situation determines the means. As per the situation of the consequentialism, non-
discrimination is something regardless of whether it is guided by the guidelines of EU rules or
not. It is considered right because it is done for the benefit of the end users and it does not
prevent internet service providers to conduct sound traffic management measures in order to
utilize their prevailing network efficiently. Creation of non-discrimination obligation is assured
that all the internet networks are treated equally that mainly safeguards the rights of the end
users. So as per the consequentialist theory of the ethics, it is necessary to be aware about the
reality and must have benefited by it, that is, the consequences for the ultimate end-users of the
rules. Therefore, in this case, discrimination is not morally right, on the other hand, the non-
discrimination is considered morally right because it benefited the end user in large context. If
the discrimination is followed then, it is also necessary to plan for saving the end-users from the
negative consequences of that action. After studying all this, it can be safely concluded that non-
discrimination act was morally right.
However, it defines all the basic consequences of the action being performed by the end users.
Ethics and Morality are bound to one's own creation. As per the difference in views, it mostly
depends on the individual thinking on how its thinking is applicable to the action in that
situation.
3

References
Open Internet. Digital Single Market. Retrieved 2016, from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-
market/en/eu-actions-net-neutrality
The EU rules on network neutrality: key provisions, remaining concerns. (2015). Retrieved from
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2015/571318/EPRS_BRI(2015)571318_E
N.pdf
EU Law Analysis. (2016). Retrieved from http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.in/2016/06/net-
neutrality-new-eu-regulatory.html
Chen, D. L., & Schonger, M. (2013). Social preferences or sacred values? theory and evidence
of deontological motivations. Working paper, ETH Zurich, Mimeo.
Sverdlik, S. (2016). Consequentialism, Moral Motivation, and the Deontic Relevance of
Motives. Moral Motivation: A History, 259.
4