[moultano]

>in exchange for removing any possibility of net neutrality on the wireless internet (which Google claims is the future of internet).

[citation needed] This is explicitly not true according to the text of the agreement. The agreement says that it is too early to determine whether net-neutrality provisions are necessary for wireless networks, because it's a newer market and there is much more competition.

[sprout]

That kind of "let's wait and see how it looks until it evolves before we regulate" attitude is precisely what caused the current stagnation in the wired market.

The market fundamentally is under heavy regulation; wireless can't work without heavy-handed regulation of who can use what spectrum. We can't just stop at that kind of draconian regulation (which is necessary) and say that a little thing like non-discriminatory access to your absolute monopoly is too much.

[btilly]

However there are fundamental economic reasons why the wired market should lead to natural monopolies and the wireless market should lead to more competition. Therefore there is good reason to wait.

Furthermore bandwidth is limited. The proposal is not what Google wants, it is what they were able to get Verizon to agree to. I read that clause as very much of an, "We agree to disagree, and agree that our areas of agreement are worth pursuing anyways."

[moultano]

Sure, but isn't it better to legislate net-neutrality for the wired internet than not do anything at all? If this was the only legislation that could conceivably pass, would you vote for it?