Unrestricted access rules for wireless networks would hurt users more than help them. They just don't realize it.
Earlier this week, Google and Verizon brokered a compromise on the definition -- or at least, their definition -- of net neutrality, a set of rules that ideally, would ensure that no company could place data-access restrictions on Web content, sites, platforms, and associated equipment. The deal itself sparked controversy over whose interests Google (GOOG) and Verizon (VZ) really had at heart and whether the deal would -- or more importantly, should -- be used as a model by the Federal Communications Commission.
In the discussions, there was one glaring carve-out: wireless traffic, which was not covered by the agreement. Detractors have argued that not including wireless in the companies' net neutrality proposal is a sign of corporate greed at work, a clear move by the carriers to prevent one pipe from turning "dumb."
|NJ agrees to ban Tesla direct sales|
|Five predictions for the World Wide Web that were way, way, way off|
|West prepares sanctions against Russia over Ukraine|
|Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac stock hit by proposal to close them|
|4.2 million have signed up for Obamacare as open enrollment nears close.|