I'm still confused as to why people are bitching about traffic prioritization. That's been going on forever and it's part of smart network administration. Packets that can afford to wait should always be bumped down the ladder in favor of ones that need to get to their destination right now. And that should be determined solely by the type of data that packet carries. Web pages, file transfers, instant messages can all wait a few milliseconds. Streaming video, voice, etc. need to move faster to avoid drops and lag.
It's more to do with the way it's worded... the "meaningful harm" phrase without a real definition will basically let everyone make up their own rules as to exactly what and how badly a certain type of service will be affected. The proposal also doesn't give the FCC the authority to actually make rules around this... instead they'd only be allowed to enforce what 3rd parties agree to. In many ways, this whole thing gives the appearance of net neutrality while detoothing the FCC at the same time. And quite frankly, I don't believe the industry is capable of the sort of self regulation that this pact seems to suggest.
Then there's of course the whole wireless thing. Everyone is well aware that wireless internet is going to continue to gain importance and eventually became just as important as wired... maybe even more so. This just smacks of trying to wrestle control of it before most people notice how important it's gotten.
What sort of bugs me is all the ire being directed at Google over this. This is a joint thing between Google and Verizon and as far as I'm concerned they both deserve an equal share of the outrage.
