The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided on Thursday to introduce rules on internet neutrality and allow broadband to be governed like an utility. This decision to treat the net as an utility has sparked debates across Latin America on how legislation considers and controls access to the net.

The premises that the US expects in its net neutrality law include equality of all content, no interference from ISPs except in the case of illegal procedures or security threats, and no prioritization of traffic from operators to specific websites in exchange for payment.

These guidelines have been followed in Chile, the first country in the world to introduce net neutrality laws, since 2010, but this is not the case for Latin America's second largest economy, Mexico.

The telecom reform, which introduced changes to regulations ranging from free competition to government programs, also included new rules on public access to the internet, which were viewed by the public and activists as a threat to freedom of speech and the right to information.

The law was too vague and open to interpretation, activists argued, which could lead to ISPs taking the matter into their own hands. According to InternetLibre.org, the law stated that ISPs could be considered responsible for the content uploaded to the net by their subscribers, which would lead to providers controlling what users do.

The regulation goes as far as to allowing providers to "block access to certain content, applications or services, when authorities have a warrant or they violate the law." However, there are no guidelines on what would constitute a breach of regulations or in which instances an authorized warrant could be granted.

The law also establishes that any website or content could be taken down by the government itself if it poses a threat to national security, but again, there is no specification as to what would constitute a threat. Therefore, as argued by activists, the interpretation of the law lies with the authorities, including regulator IFT, and not the users. The government assures this is purely to combat illegal activity on the net, such as child pornography, but those opposed to the law argue that it is still too vague to ensure it does not promote institutional censorship.

A national movement emerged in March 2014, with significant presence on social media under hashtags #InternetLibreMx and #NoMásPoderalPoder. The protests reached the government, where senator Armando Ríos held a conference to announce that the concerns had been heard by the authorities.

Not everybody is against the reform, though. Mexican internet association Amipci considers the new legislation to be a positive reform, and has stated that it is pleased that interventions to online content may only be made with a judicial warrant.

A year later, the debate has subsided somewhat, but a decision is yet to appear.