By Rob Pegoraro – I don’t know why the editorial does not mention the biggest loophole in the Google-Verizon proposal — the idea that net-neutrality rules need not cover wireless access. Earlier editorials on net neutrality have been silent on this subject as well.
So what’s the answer there? Are the likes of Ou correct to argue that wireless networks require more intrusive management? Should the Verizon-Google prescription for case-by-case oversight of wired access apply to wireless connections as well? Or should the FCC stick to its announced plan to apply a subset of the existing common-carrier rules to wired and wireless carriers alike? more> http://bwbx.io/wLWB
- Waxman’s net neutrality compromise: solution or last gasp?
- Leaked bill aims to create net neutrality law
- Tim Wu on why Net Neutrality is unbelievably important
- Tim Berners-Lee defends net neutrality
- The skinny on Net neutrality (FAQ)
- Net Neutrality: Flash Point for Foes of Big Government
- TV overhaul fueling battle over net neutrality
- Bohemian neutrality
- Net Neutrality: It All Depends On What You Fear
- After Google-Verizon, FCC Wants More Comments on Net Neutrality
- The danger of Dogma
- The Party’s Over: The end of The Bandwidth Buffet
- Net Neutrality – a side effect
- Network Industry Dynamics
- What Congressional Dems Have To Fear If The FCC Bungles Net Neutrality
- Net Neutrality: “Biggest issue since Freedom of religion”
- The FCC Has Recognized the Need for Differentiated Services
- FCC’s Copps: The public “gets” Net Neutrality DC doesn’t
- Google and Verizon Net Neutrality Plan: Is It the Devil’s Work?
- Net Neutrality: What’s All The Fuss About?
- Don’t erect tollbooths on information superhighway
- Google, Verizon warned not to “cable-ize” the Internet
- What matters in net neutrality