http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html


So google has decided to back stab net neutrality, and side with the big isp corporations to carve up the internet. Very disappointing to hear.

What truly boggles the mind is the number of people who are completely enthralled with Google, and believe it is a source of pure good in the world, fighting those evil companies on behalf of the little guy. (In fact, they've returned to China after their "pulling out" gimmick.)

Google exists to make money. If surrendering to the telecoms makes money then that's what they'll do.

“There is no business arrangement [between Google and Verizon] and reports that there was a business arrangement are false, misleading, and not correct,” said Schmidt in response to the query of a Reuters reporter. “I hope that that is a very clear answer to your business arrangement question.”

Crap reporting by the NYT (shocker) led to a hyperbolic opinion piece on Huffington, which was then followed up by the one you linked. It's pretty far blown out of proportion at this point.

I'm not sure precisely what Google's motivations are (http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/), but it's pretty clearly not to usher us into the "end of net neutrality".

Shakespeare had it wrong. We should kill all reporters, first thing.

I've been hearing that Google and Verizon made a 'policy change' agreement. Not about giving preferential treatment and bandwith to content (bad!), but that there could be room for policy in the future whereupon people pay for different tiers of content delivery (hmm...) I tried to read through some of the press reports and stopped because it felt pretty labyrinthine.

I also heard (on NPR again) that there was some wording about how they're trying to zero in on wireless networks with whatever it is they're trying to do, since that has become the next big thing for businesses looking to get ahead.

Rybit, I think what's so odd about this, even given that Google is that they've usually been the first to jump in and say "god damn man, we're behind Net Neutrality all the way!" Whether this policy change is a signal of changing times (recession problems hitting them hard, bottomline not being good enough, whatever) or just Google showing their true colors is what I'm curious about.

There's not really a profit motive for Google there. If ISPs went non-neutral, Google would probably have to pay to be the "basic package" search engine, not profit from the deal.

http://gawker.com/5609322/shouting-match-at-google-over-stalkery-ads

That's how just about all online advertising has worked since the 90s. Also, not related at all to net neutrality.

No, but it does add to the character of Google. Which makes me less inclined to believe Google is as holy as many think it is.

Just having the argument/discussion at all puts them ahead of quite a few companies.

There's not really a profit motive for Google there. If ISPs went non-neutral, Google would probably have to pay to be the "basic package" search engine, not profit from the deal.

I'm pretty sure its impossible for any of us to know if there is a profit motive for them or not. The last 10 years have been a giant "wtf?" in many ways when it comes to the internet, telecom, and so forth. Comcast buying NBC Universal was just the first chapter of some radically large changes in the entertainment and content consumption world we live in. Google's interests could shift in an instant to anything really.

I'm hesitant to any corporation's word at face value and regardless of if these are true intentions or not, the end of net neutrality is a very scary thing for everyone without "Chief" at the beginning of our title at work.

So, I guess it's a good thing that Google/Verizon proposal favors net neutrality? It seems like almost everyone (not just here) is basing their opinion of this on sensationalized, but inaccurate, headlines.

It's good to support net neutrality, but don't go all teabagger and freak out anytime the words are uttered. That just turns it into an issue that can't be approached rationally.

Hello all :)

I'll be the first to admit that yesterday's Huffpo article was somewhat hysterical and missed what I, and others, see as some of the key problems/concerns with that joint statement. In my opinion, that statement's primary purpose is to reassure the public while simultaneously marking off territory by way of defining/creating a set of 'special conditions' as exempt (wireless internet, 'additional services') that then allow Verizon/Google and their lobbyists to create enough loopholes to drive a truck through. Note that, in their proposal, while they wax rhapsodic about their proposed 'complaint-driven' regulatory model for the FCC (which is still a reactive, rather than proactive, function), they're suggesting that the FCC be limited to a 'reporting' function in the case of wireless services/special cases - using the cover of 'innovation', the telecoms are expected to be able to regulate themselves in the Wild West of all these 'new' services.

Problematic paragraph here:

Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.

Because that works so well now ;)

The folks at Balkinization (law analysis and policy site), seem most concerned with the move towards 'lobbyization' of the Internet, via vertical integration of service provider/applications/content:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/08/vergoogles-plan-to-lochnerize-internet.html

as well as the ability it will give Google to craft sweetheart deals for itself re carriage at the expense of other application/content providers:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/08/about-verizongoogle-deal-on-net.html

In my opinion (and I've read the whole Google/Verizon joint statement), the document appears to be attempting to reassure the public that they support net neutrality (for the soon-to-be-backwater wireline traffic, anyway) and are just trying to prepare for the future, while somewhat disingenuously employing pretzel logic to make the case that the wireless sector requires a different and more complicated set of rules which the providers themselves should be allowed to design and administer. Color me just a little bit skeptical.

While the issues of loss of transparency, self-regulation, and things telcos generally want like the ability to get at and sell/market to personal data for profit concern me, the portion of the statement that I find potentially most troubling was this one:

Second, we agree that in addition to these existing principles there should be a new, enforceable prohibition against discriminatory practices. This means that for the first time, wireline broadband providers would not be able to discriminate against or prioritize lawful Internet content, applications or services in a way that causes harm to users or competition.

Emphasis mine. You'll note that these 'enforceable prohibitions' would apply only to wireline traffic (wireless traffic having been exempted via the top paragraph above), also of concern are the bits about 'lawful' Internet traffic and 'users or competition'.

I'm thinking, with regard to this statement, about Wikileaks and other forms of unpopular political speech, both here and abroad (politically unpopular blogging, independent journalism currently out of the clutches of the corporate media). As you may recall, Twitter and other social media both wired and wireless have already played a vital role in communication and coordination in democratic movements and uprisings in other countries, notably last year's Green Revolution in Iran - something that has not, I'm sure, been lost on those in power and in the security apparatus in our own government.

*This*, I feel, much more than the lucrative financial opportunities, is the bait that alliances like Google/Verizon are going to use to get Congress to sign on to what they want, the ability to largely let the corporate foxes run the henhouse merely business as usual.

Finally, there was a much more credible analysis of the Google/Verizon statement today on Huffpo, and Google's reasoning behind it (being engineer driven) by James Boyle of Duke University:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyle/is-google-nave-crafty-or_b_677163.html

As Boyle states, engineers generally don't like restrictions on what they can or cannot do (aside from those dictated by physics), and especially in the computer field tend to see rules as things that can and should be gotten around *via* using engineering, based on the hubris that they're 'smarter' than the bean-counting cretins - it's a well-known and encouraged cowboy culture in the industry. In my opinion, this disdain for regulation is being exploited by Verizon to sell the case to Google that this framework based upon 'new and special cases to allow room for innovation' is the way to go, while simultaneously allowing it access to what it desperately wants - access to user data to exploit for profit, the ability to double-dip by charging for this new content, and a way to get around meaningful FCC regulations by substantially altering how we view these services - not as a regulated utility (which in my mind both wired and wireless providing should be), but another consumer product to be 'regulated' by the lobbysphere.

Regards,
Nydia

It's not unreasonable to differentiate between devices. My living room TV/DVR box runs entirely on the same broadband connection that also connects my home phone line and my data network. Its only connectivity is literally a CAT5 cable up to the DSL modem. If we insist net neutrality dictates that they have to provide me every TV movie channel as part of a neutral Internet connection, no ISP will ever agree to any neutrality at all.

It's bizarre that anyone would suddenly be worried about the lobbying efforts today, after the telcos had McCain championing an anti-neutrality bill last year.

I'd personally much rather have companies like Google working toward a reasonable compromise than end up with the neutrality cause marginalized by hardline insistence on a laundry list of demands (see also: The FSF). It is very much in Google's best interests to insure that we continue to have neutral access the entire Internet. In a consolidated, restricted-access situation, you don't need a search engine.

People also seem to misunderstand that wireless and wired access are totally different animals in terms of "last mile" connectivity. While the limits of wired uplinks are largely limited to the speed of light versus how many fiber cables you want to lay, wireless depends upon the EM spectrum's bandwidth within a range of frequencies bounded by effective current at distance, which is not only limited but is something we're going to start running into the hard walls of very, very soon. Not knowing the details of the deal I can't comment on how evil a google/verizon deal to insure google shows up fast on the Verizon 456-whatever-G network is, but the portions of the statement concerning the actual internet seems to be largely unchanged.

Sanchek, I think you're dangling a red herring here, and misreading the basis for my concerns. Most of the folks posting in anything resembling an educated fashion about the Google/Verizon statement don't have anything to say about what content people might want to subscribe to for pay (after all, people pay to subscribe to all sorts of things on the wired Internet now), or take serious issue with the basic right of companies to engage in marketing such and making a profit. The fundamental issues up for debate are whether providers should be required to make sure that all content be treated equally with regard to how it is carried (that is to say, if someone has the basic connection and wants to access not-for profit content, or wishes to pay for content which will not profit the carrier directly), this historically (see: The Communications Act of 1934) being the price exacted by our government in the public interest for granting for profit companies the use of a public communications resource (the wired and wireless Internet) for gain; and who has regulatory/oversight authority.

While there may be very real limitations on EM spectrum bandwidth, I disagree with Google/Verizon's premise that they should be assigned a different (much less restrictive) set of regulatory rules and that they should be the ones to determine them. As wireless becomes the base means of telecommunications for much of the world (I think the latest figures showed that 25% of US households no longer have a landline at all, much higher in the Third World), it is very much in the FCC's interest to ensure that public access to content is maintained and that the government in the public interest be the final arbiter of this resource - not that it's done a fabulous job in setting the conditions that allowed creation of the Media-opoly (speaking of things that entered the lobbying-sphere and didn't work out so well :) ). As telecommunications in the age of handheld wireless devices becomes more and more conflated with content, it becomes more important than ever to make sure that free speech and free access rights be maintained.

With regard to the 'why scream now?' comment, what we're seeing is the first volley in the wireless gold rush that woke up the folks en masse who hadn't put together than this was about more than high cable TV prices, because it involved Google, a company and major cultural arbiter (poster child if you will) for the free Internet, hooking up with a major telco - the shit just became 'real' in other words.

Off to try to sweat some middle-aged spread off, have a good evening everyone :)

A decent debate on the NYT on this issue today, including one contributor who feels that the FCC should stand back and force competition (cough) to work the issue out rather than risk 'regulatory capture' of the FCC by Google/Verizon and its ilk:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web/regulate-todays-rockefellers

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/8/9/who-gets-priority-on-the-web/regulators-make-matters-worse

The smartphone revolution (or fad) is not going to help Net Neutrality one bit. If that isn't the ultimate proprietary match made in heaven than I'll be a monkey's uncle. Verizon sells plenty of Android phones, do they not? Plus, really doesn't this all boil down to who owns the internet? Its not some open global Utopia anymore based upon the enlightened ideals of free access to knowledge and exchange of ideas. The sleepy small town Internet of 20 years back where you can leave your door unlocked, trusted your neighbors and could get by with just your screen door guarding your home against bugs on summer nights has become the ultra-mega metropolis where rents are skyhigh, doors are quadruple deadbolted and global empires are built and crushed every week. Current events lately seem to suggest that all the Internet has become is yet another set of geo-poltical international borders, complete with all the duties, tariffs and horsetrading that goes on. Whats to stop Verizon from bandwith limiting the home server farm of a company in the USA that offends the government of another nation who could completely block company operations on the part of Verizon unless that offending website is throttled? Not saying it happens, but it could. International business is what drives politics. It doesn't even need to be a kiddie porn server. It could be Verizon hosting The Vatican's website and Saudi Arabia or some nation of that caliber telling Verizon to bandwith limit the site or kiss billions of dollars in business goodbye.

Net Neutrality will never exist as long as there is no standard for governance of it across the globe and as long as the biggest players in the game are the huge multinationals. It will truly never happen as long as governments also feel that the Internet represents a risk to national security or infringement upon the morals of that society or group. Like anything else that started out free but got sold out down the road, some kind of blackmarket will emerge to fill the gap but until then, as long as people are happy with their service and devices (Iphone thread is testimony to that) than do not expect any big rallying cry for freedom of the Internet in the near future.

The smartphone revolution (or fad) is not going to help Net Neutrality one bit. If that isn't the ultimate proprietary match made in heaven than I'll be a monkey's uncle. Verizon sells plenty of Android phones, do they not? Plus, really doesn't this all boil down to who owns the internet? Its not some open global Utopia anymore based upon the enlightened ideals of free access to knowledge and exchange of ideas. The sleepy small town Internet of 20 years back where you can leave your door unlocked, trusted your neighbors and could get by with just your screen door guarding your home against bugs on summer nights has become the ultra-mega metropolis where rents are skyhigh, doors are quadruple deadbolted and global empires are built and crushed every week. Current events lately seem to suggest that all the Internet has become is yet another set of geo-poltical international borders, complete with all the duties, tariffs and horsetrading that goes on. Whats to stop Verizon from bandwith limiting the home server farm of a company in the USA that offends the government of another nation who could completely block company operations on the part of Verizon unless that offending website is throttled? Not saying it happens, but it could. International business is what drives politics. It doesn't even need to be a kiddie porn server. It could be Verizon hosting The Vatican's website and Saudi Arabia or some nation of that caliber telling Verizon to bandwith limit the site or kiss billions of dollars in business goodbye.

Net Neutrality will never exist as long as there is no standard for governance of it across the globe and as long as the biggest players in the game are the huge multinationals. It will truly never happen as long as governments also feel that the Internet represents a risk to national security or infringement upon the morals of that society or group. Like anything else that started out free but got sold out down the road, some kind of blackmarket will emerge to fill the gap but until then, as long as people are happy with their service and devices (Iphone thread is testimony to that) than do not expect any big rallying cry for freedom of the Internet in the near future.

You're conflating a lot of issues that aren't relevant to this. Net neutrality doesn't guarantee that every backbone or endpoint will allow you access. It guarantees that your local provider gives you a fair chance to attempt sending your traffic to any of those other networks.

Sanchek, I grasp the concept. AT&T can't throttle down Skype's usage of their infrastructure because they represent a competing product etc blah blah. Packets are first come first served etc and the tolls paid for crossing the bridge for red cars and blue cars are equal even if you own a red car selling business and you could craft a scheme where you could sell many more red cars by charging the blue cars 10x the amount of tolls that are levied on the red cars. Basically turn the Internet into the airwaves but even more broad where the regulation doesn't occur until it hits your computer.

I am at a loss though how it could really be effectively implimented or policed, unless the government became the only entity that can regulate bandwith and thus would require a whole monitoring system be established that monitors traffic of the Internet while its flowing through US infrastructure. Otherwise we have to take companies at their word and hope that they don't up and chose to route traffic offshore and than put the clamp down on that infrastructure that is not obligated to be neutral by law before redirecting it back to the US if that makes any sense. That is from the standpoint of the Internet being plumbing with valves, reserviors and viaducts etc where tweaking valves and redirecting flow upstream has vast effects on those downstream.

Sanchek, I think you're dangling a red herring here, and misreading the basis for my concerns. Most of the folks posting in anything resembling an educated fashion about the Google/Verizon statement don't have anything to say about what content people might want to subscribe to for pay (after all, people pay to subscribe to all sorts of things on the wired Internet now), or take serious issue with the basic right of companies to engage in marketing such and making a profit. The fundamental issues up for debate are whether providers should be required to make sure that all content be treated equally with regard to how it is carried (that is to say, if someone has the basic connection and wants to access not-for profit content, or wishes to pay for content which will not profit the carrier directly), this historically (see: The Communications Act of 1934) being the price exacted by our government in the public interest for granting for profit companies the use of a public communications resource (the wired and wireless Internet) for gain; and who has regulatory/oversight authority.

Once you finish explaining net neutrality to me, it'll be my turn to teach you that plants use sunlight to grow. :rolleyes:

You're misunderstanding the device issue though.

Some providers have been upgrading their infrastructure to purely IP based video (and voice). Device-independent network neutrality would mean those providers can't sell me an HD channel package with any guarantee I wouldn't sit there watching "buffering..." in my living room while my neighbors watched funny videos of cats on YouTube. Obviously, that won't fly; especially considering non-IP video providers wouldn't have that limitation.

In the (much) longer run, things will most likely converge farther toward a single network usage fee and a la carte subscriptions to video streams. We're a lot farther from that e-utopia than most outside observers would have you believe though. Several industries have to completely reconstruct their business models for starters.

Meanwhile, we're much better served by allowing them to grandfather those devices in, and agree to network neutrality on the Internet. Idealistically demanding they sabotage their TV business would only result in no agreement at all.

The part that people keep missing is that Google has absolutely no desire to limit network neutrality. It's silly to think that a) Verizon is going to outsmart Google on this issue or b) that Google would want to marginalize the utility of their core business by reducing the number of sites that most people have access to. More likely, the conspiratory craziness going around lately is because some well-written, but tragically uninformed, "journalists" have been running wild with this stupid story and taking you guys for a ride so they can meet their quotas.

Sanchek, I grasp the concept. AT&T can't throttle down Skype's usage of their infrastructure because they represent a competing product etc blah blah. Packets are first come first served etc and the tolls paid for crossing the bridge for red cars and blue cars are equal even if you own a red car selling business and you could craft a scheme where you could sell many more red cars by charging the blue cars 10x the amount of tolls that are levied on the red cars. Basically turn the Internet into the airwaves but even more broad where the regulation doesn't occur until it hits your computer.

I am at a loss though how it could really be effectively implimented or policed, unless the government became the only entity that can regulate bandwith and thus would require a whole monitoring system be established that monitors traffic of the Internet while its flowing through US infrastructure. Otherwise we have to take companies at their word and hope that they don't up and chose to route traffic offshore and than put the clamp down on that infrastructure that is not obligated to be neutral by law before redirecting it back to the US if that makes any sense. That is from the standpoint of the Internet being plumbing with valves, reserviors and viaducts etc where tweaking valves and redirecting flow upstream has vast effects on those downstream.

Given many users, it's not terribly difficult to measure when certain types of packets or certain destinations are being throttled. Comcast got outed for throttling bittorrent traffic a couple years ago, because it was conclusively proven using instrumentation that the EFF released (http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/11/eff-study-reveals-evidence-of-comcasts-bittorrent-interference.ars).

Google has a utility to measure for that sort of throttling to YouTube too (http://www.youtube.com/my_speed).

Generally, a large ISP isn't going to get away with throttling. Statistically, they'll have too many savvy users that know how to determine what's really going on and make a stink. If a particular destination or type of traffic is slow from my connection, I have a dozen ways to verify where the bottleneck is.

It's not really feasible to cloak or misdirect that activity on a large scale. The danger is in them being able to get away with it in plain view.

********, I'd be interested in your comments about Ars Technica's take on Google's recent actions.

See here. (http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/a-paper-trail-of-betrayal-googles-net-neutrality-collapse.ars)

Edit:
S a n c h e k is filtered?...

********, I'd be interested in your comments about Ars Technica's take on Google's recent actions.

See here. (http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/08/a-paper-trail-of-betrayal-googles-net-neutrality-collapse.ars)

Edit:
S a n c h e k is filtered?...

No Sanchek is not filtered S A N C H E C K is

He will prolly filter that string now too since he hates that being mispelled

Only if you add an extra C.

I won't have time to read that carefully today, but it skims the same as the rest. They're fixating on the lack of wireless net neutrality and then making the leap to claim that there would never be wireless net neutrality. Rather, the Google/Verizon thing is more "we'll revisit how the wireless situation is turning out later". It does not preempt wireless from eventual net neutrality (unless Congress were to modify it to the carriers' benefit).

Few of these pieces seem to give a fair shake to the fact that they did get an agreement for broadband neutrality, which is huge. That article led with something about how this undermines the FCC's attempts to get neutrality, but the FCC hasn't really been having a good run at it so far. There's no reason to believe that the FCC is/was going to win that fight.

If the FCC had been more effective thus far, Google probably wouldn't have felt the need to work with Verizon at all.

I think undue weight is being placed on wireless too. Wireless is important, but it's not going to replace wired connections (which includes the WiFi points hanging off them). If you look at the best connected places in the world, like South Korea, Japan, and Sweden, mobile is certainly important, but it hasn't come anywhere near replacing the need for broadband infrastructure.

Those big broadband pipes are where the war for things like carrier-independent HD video access will make net neutrality very important in coming years.

I think undue weight is being placed on wireless too. Wireless is important, but it's not going to replace wired connections (which includes the WiFi points hanging off them). If you look at the best connected places in the world, like South Korea, Japan, and Sweden, mobile is certainly important, but it hasn't come anywhere near replacing the need for broadband infrastructure.

True, but wireless for things such as laptops, netbooks, Ipads and smart phones are going to be far more mainstream than wired connections and probably represent the growth segment. Just look at how many people ditched their landlines in favor of having a cellphone and now a smartphone? These are not the serious users who gain the most benefits from Broadband but those that just want to Tweet, update Facebook, check email or use Skype where ever they want to without being tethered to a desktop machine. Look around most major cities now and people are tapping away on their smartphones, PDAs or sending text messages. The younger set of the current Facebook narcissist generation is notorious for this but then again its older people too. A trip on the Beijing Metro is testiment to this. Everyone is glued to their phones and PDA's tapping away.

Plus, wireless tends to be a nationwide service where in most cases, you can move households around as per required of the demands of today's careers seem or if you travel frequently its nice to not have to disconnect a broadband provider's service and then buy a new contract at the new location after. My Sprint 3G, while not as nice as a FIOS, cable modem or even dsl still works just about anywhere in the USA and it costs me the same. Small businesses and power users are the real segment of tomorrow's high speed connections and might have to pay through the teeth to get them. The rest of us will get wireless because it goes anywhere you can make a cell phone connection. At home in Sequim its all you can get! Its the future, Sanchek. Eventually it will be as good as cable only without the appliance you have to plug into the wall.

If wireless data is throttled or poorly managed, there are myriad WiFi hotspots (attached to broadband) that service all those devices; even phones. Wireless data is definitely a nice convenience, but even my parents out in rural NorthEast Georgia have 1.5mb DSL these days. That's the true commodity level connection.

Like Malse mentioned, wireless only has a certain capacity. It's also prone to interference. Last I checked, population density (i.e. interference) is going up, not down. There are good reasons why they didn't try to roll out that 1gbs service in Seoul via wireless.

Also, when I talk about HD video, I'm not talking about some Internet-savvy, power-user thing. I'm talking about the video being delivered to my TV today, that's indistinguishable from using a regular Cable or Satellite box. That's going to be, by far, one of the most important spaces for net neutrality to come into play in the future. Wireless likely won't ever cut it for that, because even as wireless slowly improves, the bandwidth necessary for 3D and Red is increasing rapidly.

Wireless overtaking wired connections is one of those conventional wisdom things that seems truthily inevitable, like we were supposed to have flying cars by the year 2,000, but color me unconvinced. Not that I'd happily give up my iPhone's data plan, mind you, but I'd never dream of trading my broadband for it. Though both will increase in capacity, I doubt that tradeoff will ever change proportionally in favor of wireless (assuming current radio-based wireless tech).

Wireless is going to destroy wired for always-on low-bandwidth things like phones and smart-houses and all that, but in terms of mass content delivery there is nothing that will ever hold a candle to optical fiber without costing immensely more. You have two basic wireless transmissions options, radio (EM waves) and directional (directional radio, microwave, lasers) -- directional is point to point and off the table right out, and the maximum bandwidth of radio is not only a known thing, it decreases with transmitter density.

Maybe in Star Trek time we'll have split quarks we can wiggle ... but that's still point to point and unlikely to be cheaper than fiber optics. It's hard to picture in the US since our last-mile broadband is so backwards, but you wouldn't be having this conversation in places like Seoul.

Maybe in Star Trek time we'll have split quarks we can wiggle ...
Maybe intime that will be but San* is correct in that the real fight for neutrality is over the backbones. wireless devices may be the dominating method of end use (and will be so more and more) but even wireless access comes to the wires side of life much sooner than you think.
I guess you could be under the impression that typing "W.youtube" on your smart phone connects you to the giant antenna on top of the company headquarters. but i truly believe your smarter than that.
I view thier wireless is differant argument as misdirection and an endaround

*thats how you get around not remembering the second H thingy.

So two of the FCC commissioners are totally for net neutrality, it basically falls on the head of the FCC. He seems to be the one dragging things out for a consensus among the corporations etc..
I wish they would just vote on the reclassification of broadband as a communications service, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and be done with it. And finally set in stone net neutrality once and for all.


http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/20/fcc-commissioners-copps-clyburn-strongly-support-open-internet/