Actually "net neutrality" is a philosophy. Just a philosophy. The only aspect of it that is currently a law refer to "content of [the end-users'] choice" as lon

Actually "net neutrality" is a philosophy. Just a philosophy. The only aspect of it that is currently a law refer to "content of [the end-users'] choice" as long as it does not "harm the network". However, as rickmb pointed out earlier [1]: "[...] virtually all display ads violate European privacy laws because of cross-site user tracking without explicit permission." Which rightfully points that ads may "harm the network" by breaking the secrecy of correspondence ("harm" is not restricted in any sense, and anyway the higher Europen Convention on Human Rights talks about that required respect secrecy), and that they may not be the result of "end-users' choice" (did you ever asked for a specific ad to be displayed?). Net neutrality versus secrecy of correspondence. Round 2 probably... well, not far from now. :) [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006887 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5006887 or just scroll up to the first comment ;)