EDIT: My notes below are mostly "what if" scenarios possible with this legislation. But I like this legislation and its intent by and large. These were just the

EDIT: My notes below are mostly "what if" scenarios possible with this legislation. But I like this legislation and its intent by and large. These were just the most interesting things for me to comment on. Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. moultano already made one observation [1], I'll add that this point could get even stickier. Say Google partners with Verizon on their Google Health service to create a "Health Channel" service on Verizon, which ensures that subscribers get priority access to health information, you know, because that's important stuff, so it's in the consumer's best interest. And let's say it has enough of a differentiation from general internet access that the FCC allows it. Now, you've effectively prioritized Google Health over any other enterprising startups in the online health record space, which goes completely against the intent of this proposed legislation. Ok, so maybe the FCC will have the foresight to disallow this type of additional "service". But I have trouble imagining any type of additional service that doesn't somehow encroach on this problem. Furthermore, I have a little trouble with this bit as well: The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services. So, if some communications company currently provides internet access, but then they find that the "added services over IP" space is more profitible than general internet access, it seems they have two choices. Continue pumping resources into their less profitible internet access service such that the FCC is content, or shut down general access completely and ONLY offer the differentiated services. Did I misinterpret this part? And finally Part 7: Seventh, and finally, we strongly believe that it is in the national interest for all Americans to have broadband access to the Internet. Therefore, we support reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund, so that it is focused on deploying broadband in areas where it is not now available. Ah, there's where Google's agenda becomes apparent within this legislation (you know, in addition to the fact that they've always been publicly pro-net-neutrality). Of course, I like this part of their agenda, so more power to them. [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588799 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588799