> A lot of people forget that AT&T, Verizon, and Google put forth Net Neutrality legislation that was perfectly good, but limited temporarily to "wireline" services, because they wanted time to regulate wireless.
> That was like three or four years ago
People probably "forget" that because that didn't actually happen -- even ignoring the subject "perfectly good" description, AT&T, Verizon, and Google did not propose net neutrality legislation 3-4 years ago; in fact, four-and-a-half years ago Google was supporting and AT&T opposing an alternative discussed at the FCC to use Title II. [0]
Just because YOU don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen. In the ensuing time since four and a half years ago, other things than the singular event you linked have happened.
Those three companies definitely put forth a proposal with language designed to address 'fast lane' type of concerns, though that tired metaphor is very difficult to accurately apply, since internet traffic is more like water than cars.
Look, I'm not here to say, "Hey the market will take care of this and AT&T and Verizon and Google are Good Actors(tm)", I am simply stating that they came forth with a proposal whose only shortcoming was being restricted temporarily to wireline services. That happened, and at the time, everyone was up in arms about it only being wireline.
After that juncture, rarely was Net Neutrality discussed, esp in non-technical circles, until the Netflix debacle.
> Just because YOU don't remember it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Well, no, the fact that what you describe didn't happen means it didn't happen. I've found the details of something that did happen on the same general subject, and involving some of the same actors, at about the time you describe [0][1], but it differs from your description:
> AT&T, Verizon, and Google
Just Verizon and Google.
> put forth Net Neutrality legislation
They actually put forth a set of "key elements" that they argued should be included in net neutrality legislation. [0]
> that was perfectly good, but limited temporarily to "wireline" services, because they wanted time to regulate wireless.
It was limited to wireline services (but for the transparency provision), and, in addition, allowed any provider that provided wireline services complying with the neutrality provision unlimited permission to offer any non-neutral services so long as they were distinguished in "scope and function" from the neutral service. [0; "Additional Online Services"] So, it didn't so much require wireline broadband neutrality as require wireline providers to offer a neutral service at some price point as a precondition for offering non-neutral services.
It also explicitly denied the FCC rulemaking authority, limiting the FCC to case-by-case enforcement and issuing reports to Congress. [0; "Case-by-Case Enforcement"]
Also, the temporary part is not entirely accurate. The stated reason for not including wireless services was conditions at the time, but there was nothing temporary about the exclusion (that is, the "key elements" proposed did not include any conditions for imposing wireless neutrality.) [0; "Wireless Broadband"]
> I am simply stating that they came forth with a proposal whose only shortcoming was being restricted temporarily to wireline services.
The things for which the proposal was criticized at the time for included:
1) Moving from the then-existing FCC rules "fixed" vs. "mobile" distinction where stronger neutrality rules existed for fixed and some, but weaker, neutrality rules existed for mobile to a "wireline" vs. "wireless" distinction where no neutrality rules applied to wireless. (Many neutrality proponents were also criticizing the existing FCC rules for the weaker mobile rules, but this was seen as even worse.)
2) Explicitly including a "key element" permitting wireline operators to offer any non-neutral services
so long as they also provided a service meeting the neutrality rules, and expressly limiting the FCC's authority to deal with such additional services to issuing reports. [2]
3) Imposing all the rules and loopholes through statute and including a "key element" expressly limiting the FCC rule to case-by-case enforcement and excluding rulemaking. And proposing encouragement of non-governmental dispute resolution in the framework. [3; "Meaningful harm"]
> That was like three or four years ago
People probably "forget" that because that didn't actually happen -- even ignoring the subject "perfectly good" description, AT&T, Verizon, and Google did not propose net neutrality legislation 3-4 years ago; in fact, four-and-a-half years ago Google was supporting and AT&T opposing an alternative discussed at the FCC to use Title II. [0]
[0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/07/few-neutrals-in-d...