 legal debate has focused on a collection of present US federal and state laws intended to regulate business practices which may restrict competition. These laws include the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. The main objec- tives of these laws are to restrict cartel formation, as well as stop collusion between companies which may undermine fair competition. The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in February 2015 voted to enforce neutrality rules as perceived by the Communications Act of 1934 to 'prevent Internet providers - including cellular carriers - from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment'. Further legislative action in the US Congress to allow infrastructure owners greater control on how they stream traffic is underway, as well as legal action by the companies concerned [23]. Net neutrality discussion also concerns issues such as what content may be legally blocked. For example should an internet service provider block access to sites with child pornography content or those which promote racial hatred and SO on. Conversely, can an ISP be sued for not blocking such content? Furthermore, peer-to-peer traffic may pose a great burden on an ISP's quality of service: can these streams be delivered at a lower priority? The net neutrality debate is complex and is yet far from resolved. In particular, the legal fight in the US has been highly politicised. For example, in April 2011 the Republican US House of Representatives passed a resolution mandating FCC to back off from a plan to impose 'net neutrality' rules that would prevent service providers from deliberately slowing or blocking internet traffic. However, the Democratic Senate and President Content Delivery and Net Neutrality Obama blocked it [25]. Deregulation of the telecommunications industry and the high degree of competition has made net neutrality less of an issue in many countries including Australia. While the net neutrality discussion has be