INTRODUCTION

The conceptualization of neutrality on the Internet has different definitions and many authors point to this lack of a definition as the main difficulty towards its discussion.Exempt of multiple meanings attributed to the Internet，it can initially be considered that this debate is hampered around the ability of the infrastructure’s operators that support it（network operators，service providers，etc）.Interfering，controlling，or even altering the flow of information through unilateral decisions or decisions based on personal，corporate or governmental interests.There are already various examples^[1] of how companies and corporations use traffic inspection mechanisms to exercise control of information promoting censorship，vigilance，illegal content control or favours for economic gains.A relative consensus can also be seen on the direct effect that the concentration of high speed Internet access^[2] imposes on the assurance of neutrality on the Internet.The possibilities that network providers can benefit from discriminatory traffic practices are greater when there is no competition for Internet access and few alternatives for other service providers.Especially in the case of an established monopoly or duopoly in access where it raises the risk of vertical integration and，consequently，the risk of service distinction based on content，origin or application.

In the United States，Europe，and Scandinavian countries，among others，the debate has quickly put supporters of and opponents to neutrality on opposite sides.The increase in user privacy，the possibility of maintaining an equal environment（ex aequo）open to innovation，the strengthening of trust in Internet transactions，and the adoption of simple and comprehensive user rules，among others，all oppose the risks of reduction in network security to the inflexibility that stunts the growth of confidence in new business models.Due to good arguments for both sides，one just can’t seem to knockout the other.In Brazil，discussions on network neutrality regulation（previously restricted）have garnered more attention with the development of a Civil Boundary for the Internet.An impasse between supporters and opponents settles in and the project under review in the National Congress is impeded from proceeding towards a statement of rights for Internet users in Brazil.

The objective of this study is to assess whether there are conditions for a balanced solution that ensures support for the principle of network neutrality in Brazil.

UNITY，DIVERSITY，NEUTRALITY

In order to understand the strong relationship that network neutrality has with consumers and Internet providers，it is important to highlight two mechanisms that are components of the Internet ecosystem：end-to-end principles and Internet exchange points.

Originally，the Internet experimented with an innovative form of adopting a kind of architecture to create ability and resiliency in communication between computers.The experimental network that created this，called Arpanet，was built in 1969 for a research project and brought the end-to-end principle as a requirement.This means that the intelligence should be decentralized；not present in the network but in the interconnected computers in its borders.Contrary to common sense nowadays，the existing communication networks consist of centralized and specialized systems（telecommunications，image/radio diffusion，or central computer systems/data）which all reside in just one mainframe.Along these lines，any new function or application would not be included in a centralized network without previous discussion with the network provider.For example，new applications such as data transmission or unauthorized terminals were discouraged or even prohibited in public telephone systems.Therefore，the networks would not allow for a variety of applications to flourish.

Going back to Arpanet，the functions once attributed to the central node were now distributed to all the nodes in the network which became responsible for identifying and transporting information.These nodes simply deal with forwarding packet information（packet-forwarding）based on address data of the issuer and the recipient.All other more complex functions or decisions about what to do with these packets，such as application types，identity management or display forms were delegated to users and computers interconnected to each network point（Bendrath，2011）.At the beginning of the 1970s，new software developments built a great amount of flexibility for integration among diverse networks（TCP/IP protocol rooms-Internet Protocol）.Thanks to this mechanism，Internet protocol networks became indifferent in relation to the physical forms of telecommunication they utilize（ex：copper/wires，glass/fibre optics，air/waves）.The Internet automatically becomes an efficient option for joint operation of different networks（internet w