The biggest problem I have with this is that the rationalization for why the "unique characteristics" of wireless networks require no network neutrality is comp

The biggest problem I have with this is that the rationalization for why the "unique characteristics" of wireless networks require no network neutrality is completely missing. Limited bandwidth? But why does limited bandwidth mean it's ok to prejudice services? Why does that make it ok that YouTube can purchase prioritized service over GlueTube? Doesn't having a limited resource make it more important to share that resource around rather than less important? Isn't that the way it works everywhere else (eg: limited water supplies usually mean we regulate the price and ensure Grandma doesn't have to pay way more than BigCompany or we know that Grandma is getting no water). The "still-developing nature" of the service? I still don't get it. If anything the immature nature of the services mean that the nascent network needs more protection, not less. We just don't know how it is going to evolve - ok fine - but doesn't uncertainty counsel more caution rather than lack of caution? We can always relax rules later if they are determined to be harmful. It will be very hard to wind back a non-network-neutrality situation once that has emerged and established itself if we determine it is harmful. Perhaps I can buy these arguments if they are made sufficiently, but there just isn't enough detail here to make a sound logical link. I'm not going to say they are evil, but I do think Google has got some explaining to do.