Moreover, I've yet to understand most of the arguments against their policy proposal, beyond disappointment that they excluded wireless internet from regulation. (Which I think is a good thing for now).
I'm with you on this so far as the agreements seem rather reasonable, and I kind of assumed that agreeing not to include wireless in the deal for the moment was a compromise with Verizon so they'd agree to the regulations in the first place.
net neutrality is required if we want a free market where someone with a great idea can compete with Giant Corporation X. A lack of rules which allows Giant Corporation X to create artificial barriers to entry, which is exactly what a lack of neutrality will allow, will lead to a market that is not based primarily on merit.
I didn't speak against net neutrality. I spoke against regulations on wireless internet to enforce it at the current time. (For what its worth, I would be against any proposal that insisted that net neutrality regulations could never be implemented).
Tabling the issue for wireless networks for now might be the wrong position. (I don't think it is, but I could be wrong). But it is hardly the same as implementing policies that would forever block neutral wireless networks-- most of the critics I've read over the past few days have characterized the Google/Verizon deal as a total loss of neutrality on wireless networks, forever. It specifically outlines an annual review of the current policy.
That's hardly language of a "surrender monkey" (as Wired so inarticulately put it).
Most of us find it hard to believe that once such large corporations are able to create a tiered network there is little chance that it will ever change given their enormous financial stake in it.
