I actually think he is deliberately unclear. That's based on previous statements he has made, plus the tendency of other politicians to give false definitions o

I actually think he is deliberately unclear. That's based on previous statements he has made, plus the tendency of other politicians to give false definitions of net neutrality. You or I might think that this statement of his: "My view on net neutrality is pretty simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I want an open internet, with a few simple guarantees - that everyone should be able to access any legal content they want; that there should be no discrimination against content providers on the basis of commercial rivalry;" ...is a perfect quick description of net neutrality. But you'll notice he doesn't say that is net neutrality. He says things like "Supporting net neutrality means supporting unfettered access to the web for everyone. But there's a problem here." and "The self-appointed defenders of the internet... are now actually calling on governments to regulate in order to guarantee net neutrality, or at least their version of it." He's dissembling. Their version of NN is the version of NN. It's the same version he earlier said he supported. And this isn't the first time the minister for communications has had to try and clarify his statements: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-vaizey-support-net-neutrality-maybe http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1899719/ed-vaizey-s... I'm really amazed at the pure Orwellian doublespeak that goes on when politicians discuss NN. "I don't support net neutrality, I think instead we should [do exactly what net neutrality calls for]."