I think net "neutrality" may be one of the most dangerous policy threats facing the industry today, and the threat is not limited to what goes on in Washington, D.C. The billionaire boys and the net anarchists have nothing to lose by pushing their tactics at the state level as well, making the prospects of such wrong-headed policy even more harmful to what is essentially interstate (global) commerce.

Regrettably, I fear the industry was slow in differentiating this issue between potentially understandable concerns about blocking, filtering, and affiliate abuse, from the ability (and need) to price differentiate based on service level and network management. Had that happened, it might have taken the wind out of the sails of NN proponents early enough to have avoided the kind of threat we see today.

Although I agree with your political assessment of the prospects for federal legislation this year, I remain troubled about the outlook. With the financial backing of giants like Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc., there's no limit to their efforts to push for harmful common carrier type constraints on all broadband providers, and they have every incentive to do so.

Meanwhile, the general public has no idea what really lies behind the slogan "net neutrality" and the media doesn't know enough, or care enough to help educate them.

Mitch Wilk
Former President
California Public Utilities Commission

Adam -

The most important telecom development of 2006 was the final one: acceptance by AT&T of onerous merger conditions, including extension of net neutrality by a year past the expiration of prior merger conditions. This sets net neutrality well on its way to full industry acceptance, without the inconvenience of a rulemaking and judicial review.

John Wohlstetter
Senior fellow
Discovery institute