neutrality

> Equal access to exchange data and search data is a principle in parallel to the notions of net neutrality. Full of shit.

The average joe isn't outraged enough about net neutrality. If only they'd start doing this to other known bad actors coughcomcastcough, that might just be what the doctor ordered.

As soon as we go soft on the net neutrality issue, ISPs are going to take advantage. Favoring some traffic over others because they are part of an ISPs product line is ridiculous and anti-competitive.

A preview of a world without net neutrality. In the future, your $60 internet connection includes "access to 500 premium websites!"

Therefore, could somebody please explain why we would give the government, which has shown itself to be terribly incompetent with technology issues, the ability to enforce net neutrality? Seriously, I can't get over the dissonance here.

Particularly when those competitors are not seeking to confront Google, and are preferring to play rent-seeking games with anti-neutrality in their networks, thus making their end game even more brittle?

I'm not sure anyone should expect to be able to run a substantial business off their home internet connection without buying a business-class connection - nor does this decision by Google somehow imply they've "flip-flopped" on net-neutrality. I run a little game-server from my RaspberryPi at home.

They've even dropped their support for net neutrality years ago. In the mean time Google has been heavily pushing the Google+ walled garden, their anti-privacy and anti-anonymity agendas, and has been pro-active in filtering their services on behalf of the copyright-exploitation industry.

You can have: neutrality, universal access, or a mostly privately-funded telecom infrastructure, but you only get to pick two. If you think universal access is important, and net neutrality is important, you have to be willing to publicly subsidize the construction of telecom infrastructure.

Don't get me started on the logical hoops MG must jump through to view a compromise on a policy proposal for net neutrality as the ultimate betrayal while a device that requires the manufacturer to approve all software that runs on it is A-OK.

They are killing net neutrality by saying mobile networks are somehow special and don't need it, a very obvious move to bolster Android and their telco relationships. They are now apparently paying Orange in France for mobile traffic related to services like YouTube [1], again trading short term business sense for eventually losing the net neutrality fight and turning the whole internet into many walled gardens at the hands of ISPs. They have settled with news websites in France [2] to avert legal repercussions by a government that is essentially being blackmailed by press.

If you think Sweden's neutrality means a shit in this case, consider that Sweden has admitted to having been complicit with renditions of political asylum seekers to the CIA in direct violation of Swedish laws, so clearly they do not worry about cooperating with US intelligence agencies. To hand your data over to the NSA would not even require them to break any laws, and they've already demonstrated they don't have the moral backbone to stand up to far worse requests.

Net neutrality is a hard sell because it goes quite against the prevailing thought at the FCC. It has the support of many netopions, but not really among the mainstream/conservative economists that carry the most weight in these policy debates. The internet companies need to lobby, sure, but they also need a "hook." And "openness" and "neutrality" which are words that resonate in Silicon Valley on their own are not ones that resonate in Washington. To compare, look how the environmental movement has responded. Environmental groups don't talk about "conservation" and fuzzy ideas like that, not anymore, not in Washington. They talk about externalized costs and concrete economic phenomena that justify regulation. The tech industry needs to ground net neutrality in something like that.