Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) deliver all content requested by customers equally and do not give preferential treatment to content from companies which pay them.
Under the new Dutch laws ISPs will generally be prohibited from hindering or slowing down applications and services on the internet subject to certain exceptions.
Hindering or slowing down measures could legitimately be used "to minimise the effect of congestion" providing " equal types of traffic should be treated equally", one exception allows for, according to an unofficial translation of the new law published by privacy campaign group Bits of Freedom.
If it is "necessary to give effect to a legislative provision or court order", ISPs can also hinder or slow down services.
Another exception that would allow Dutch ISPs to hinder or slow down services include if it is "necessary to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the enduser". However, the ISPs would not be justified in altogether disconnecting users from their service in those circumstance.
Under the law ISPs could wholly or partially terminate or suspend their delivery of internet services under certain conditions, including to comply with court orders or in order to prevent deception, although the burden of proof would be on the provider to show that subscribers were providing false details or engaging in other fraudulent activity.
The new laws also generally require providers of public electronic communications network or services to "ensure the confidentiality of the communication and the related data via their network or their services".
Those providers will generally have to "refrain from the tapping, listening, or other kinds of interception or surveillance of communications" unless they have subscribers' "explicit consent" to do so, or unless other exceptions to that rule apply. That consent must be obtained after the network or service providers provide subscribers with a range of information about the "type of data" being monitored, what the purposes of the data monitoring is and how long it will go on for.
Other exceptions where the interception or surveillance measures could be legitimately imposed without consent is where they are "necessary to ensure the integrity and security of the networks and services of the provider in question; necessary to ensure the transmission of information via the networks and services of the provider in question; or necessary to comply with a legislative provision or a court order".
Controversy over net neutrality has been most prevalent in the US where some telecoms companies have said that content producers should share the cost of network building and maintenance. Opponents of that view claim that subscribers' fees to ISPs should buy them access to all information equally, not to a service in which some content is prioritised because of deals between ISPs and content producers.
The Dutch laws on net neutrality were developed following a controversial plan by state-owned telecoms firm KPN to charge customers extra for using rival services provided by Skype and WhatsApp, a text messaging service. The lower house of the Dutch Parliament passed the law last summer.
However, the law has only just been ratified after the upper house of the Dutch Parliament approved the measures, according to a report by technology news website ZDNet.
"[Bits of Freedom] considers this a historical moment for internet freedom in The Netherlands and calls on other countries to follow the Dutch example," the campaign group said in a blog.
In the UK Ofcom has threatened to impose minimum quality standards but has so far decided they are not required. In November last year Ofcom said it accepted that some 'traffic management' techniques are necessarily used by ISPs to ensure an efficient service, but said that ISPs must leave enough spare network capacity to deliver a 'best efforts' service, where access is generally "open" and "equal" for users.
ISPs sometimes deploy traffic management techniques to block or slow down users' access to some content during busy periods on their networks. This is to ensure that one user's heavy use of a network for downloading material does not prevent another user of that network from being able to perform basic tasks such as sending or receiving email or looking at web pages.
However, ISPs can also benefit from this kind of traffic management by charging content providers who are willing to pay for preferential access to their subscribers or by charging users more for fewer restrictions.
In its report on its approach to net neutrality Ofcom said that it is happy to rely on the market to ensure that traffic management is legitimate and not discriminatory or anti-competitive. However, it said that strategy was dependent on ISPs being transparent with consumers "as to the nature of the services they offer".
The regulator said that ISPs are not currently providing users with enough information about their service and the traffic management they carry out. ISPs should provide consumers with information containing details about the average speed of their service, how traffic management may impact upon "specific types of services" and be up front about what "specific services" are blocked "resulting in consumers being unable to run the services and applications of their choice," Ofcom said.