freely, etc.) is translated on the Internet via the principles of network neutrality (it can also be called Internet freedom or Internet equality). As in the real world, there are legisla- tions and laws in different fields (e.g. financial or banking sector laws, criminal law, human rights laws) which are obligatory for Internet users (when they are using OTT services/applications) as they are obligatory for citizens in the real world. However, laws can differ from country to country (e.g. online betting is allowed in some coun- tries while it is forbidden in others) and hence such rules are mapped into the Inter- net cyberspace although it is network neutral (it does not mean that it is neutral to law enforcement). Is traffic management by ISPs contrary to network neutrality? The clear answer is that it is not. Traffic management is a tool to provide better IAS, which directly influences all OTT services that are in fact provided on a network neutrality basis. In practice, traffic management not only potentially offers benefits to network operators (i.e. tele- com operators), it provides better QoS and QoE to OTT content and application/service providers (either on the side of their customers or on the side of their servers in data centers connected to the Internet), and also to end-users. Due to network neutrality, OTT service providers cannot establish agreements with network operators (e.g. for provision of a higher level of QoS). If they could, then well established and big global OTT service providers might have higher QoS (e.g. guar- anteed bitrate for certain services or priority over other Internet traffic) and with that they would further be able to monopolize their position in the global market, espe- cially because there are no global laws (including the ICTs) but consensus to support (or not) certain network policies such as the network neutrality approach. That does not forbid service providers from establishing contracts with network providers (e.g. telecom operators) for delivery of services over 