Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones
from the oh-come-on dept
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’m very much against enforcing net neutrality through legislation (too many unintended consequences) but I’m stunned at the ridiculous and totally bogus reasons given by those fighting against those regulations in support of their claims. The latest on this front is Stephen Titch, a policy analyst at the Reason Foundation (a group whose work I usually think is quite good), coming out with a policy brief making the ludicrous argument that network neutrality would mean no more iPhones.
Now that’s a bold claim, and such a bold claim should require at least some evidence to back it up. But there is none. This is as far as it seems to get:
The non-discrimination principle that Genachowski seeks to mandate would prohibit service providers such as AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile and Sprint from using their network resources to prioritize or partition data as it crosses their networks so as to improve the performance of specific applications, such as a movie or massive multiplayer game. Yet quality wireless service is predicated on such steps. The iPhone, for example, would not have been possible if AT&T and Apple did not work together to ensure AT&T’s wireless network could handle the increase in data traffic the iPhone would create.
There’s a neat little trick in there that hides the blatant falsehood of the premise. What’s described in the first sentence as what would be banned is not the same thing that’s described in the second sentence as what AT&T and Apple did. Furthermore, the first sentence is not particularly accurate, and appears to be a stretch and misread of what the proposals actually have said — though, again, the final rules could change. The issue isn’t that network providers couldn’t prioritize data, but that they couldn’t discriminate in terms of who could make use of that prioritization in an anti-competitive manner (i.e., the provider could determine that a VoIP call needs prioritization, so long as all VoIP providers get the same prioritization).
But, back to the key point: this has nothing, whatsoever, to do with the network improvements that AT&T agreed to make in order to get the iPhone (which arguably, haven’t worked all that well). AT&T’s efforts were focused on upgrades to its network, which had nothing at all to do with discriminating against certain applications or services directly. Of course, since then, AT&T/Apple has chosen to discriminate against certain applications in its app store, but not at the network level, which is the main issue here.
I’m as worried as the next guy about the unintended consequences of network neutrality legislation, but making totally ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims that net neutrality would mean “no more iPhone” makes those arguing against network neutrality rules look petty and willing to flat-out lie to support their position.
Filed Under: iphones, net neutrality, regulations
Comments on “Ridiculous Arguments: Net Neutrality Would Mean No iPhones”
We would all be better off, then.
Next up against the wall: blackberries!
Net neutrality would make firewalls illegal!
What about the CHILDREN?
Net nutrality means our children will be watching PORN!
Re: What about the CHILDREN?
………. instead of SMSing their naked pics?
Re: What about the CHILDREN?
Why don’t you actually try watching your children anyone allowing there children unrestricted access to the internet anyway without some form of parental control is an idiot
FUD and More FUD
I had to restrain myself from responding with “FUD” at the time it was posted on the Technology Liberation Front. Glad to see that someone else picked-up on this travesty. Regrettable this is only one instance of other logically challenged posts.
“if AT&T and Apple did not work together to ensure AT&T’s wireless network could handle the increase in data traffic the iPhone would create. “
LMFAO !!!
I didn’t RTFA, and I don’t know how I feel about the given quote, but I’ve used the iPhone argument before. Mobile carriers do limit access to websites and certain protocols and they do give certain applications the fast lane. Net neutrality could possibly mean that these phones can’t exist.
If Verizon is selling phones and touting their wonderful map service (say, Google), are you going to say they have to give equal traffic consideration to other map services (say, Yahoo)? While Verizon’s TOS have some very questionable things in them, are you going to say they CAN’T disallow certain type of traffic that might hurt QOS for other on the network while one guy on my node is using his android phone/device as a BT server?
Carriers should be play nice and give equal consideration to traffic as much as possible, but I would be careful about legislating it. I wouldn’t say that “the iPhone wouldn’t exist”, but it might make it more expensive.
Re: Re:
If the pervasive status of smart phones are forcing carriers to prioritize protocols and giving equal bandwidth is over taxing the carriers, then I would say that the carriers over sold their service and need to upgrade their network. You don’t start a buffet and then put restrictions on what customers who already paid can eat when you realize you didn’t make enough food, you just make more food.
Re: Re:
If Verizon is selling phones and touting their wonderful map service (say, Google), are you going to say they have to give equal traffic consideration to other map services (say, Yahoo)?
Net neutrality would mandate that, yes.
While Verizon’s TOS have some very questionable things in them, are you going to say they CAN’T disallow certain type of traffic that might hurt QOS for other on the network while one guy on my node is using his android phone/device as a BT server?
Disallow certain types of traffic? Sure. Disallow certain senders of traffic? If it’s a customer violating TOS that would seem to be fair game, but not if it’s a 3rd party. That is, they could block all bittorrent, but it would be disallowed to block The Pirate Bay but allow some other bittorrent site, or degrade service from TPB and not another site.
Net neutrality could possibly mean that these phones can’t exist.
I don’t see how that could possibly be true.
Re: Re:
While Verizon’s TOS have some very questionable things in them, are you going to say they CAN’T disallow certain type of traffic that might hurt QOS for other on the network while one guy on my node is using his android phone/device as a BT server?
Heh, if one user can saturate the network like that then the problem is with the network, not the user.
And let me clear up another point that you seem to be confused about: some quantity of bit torrent bits don’t take up any more bandwidth than the same number of any other kind of bits. Bits are bits. It’s a myth that bit torrent bits somehow take more.
Busy day
The “oh-come-on” department of Techdirt has been busy today.
and todays intellectual award goes to
by Stuart
Net nutrality means our children will be watching PORN!
i see this about food is it?
well i guess if one was allergic to nuts …..
and they aren’t talking about porn as in normal htey are talking about kiddy porn and in all my 12 years using p2p i have yet to see any site put up such material
it may have breasts
but yea know goto a few European beaches and what do you see
EVERYTHING NUDE.
once your over this pron kick you go ok boring what else is on the net
if your always downloading pron i think you got a problem that removing the pron form all the net would not solve.
Re: and todays intellectual award goes to
Ooops… looks like OP forgot the sarcasm tag… /s
Asked Before
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’m very much against enforcing net neutrality through legislation (too many unintended consequences
Mike,
You’ve been asked before too: Are you also opposed to neutrality regulations for other services, such as electricity, water, gas and telephone? If not, then why not?
Why won’t you answer that question?
Re: Asked Before
You’ve been asked before too: Are you also opposed to neutrality regulations for other services, such as electricity, water, gas and telephone? If not, then why not?
I have to admit, I have no idea what that question even means. Net neutrality doesn’t apply to those services.
Re: Re: Asked Before
I have to admit, I have no idea what that question even means. Net neutrality doesn’t apply to those services.
You seem to be having a reading problem. The question stated “neutrality”, not “net neutrality”. (Nice try, but not going to fly.) Care to answer the question now or are you going to try to keep dancing around it?
Re: Re: Re: Asked Before
Care to answer the question now or are you going to try to keep dancing around it?
Again, I’m afraid I don’t know what question you are asking. With electricity, water and gas, there is no issue of neutrality, since those companies just deliver the pure thing that they’re delivering, and simply have no control over any uses of those services. That’s different in the case of internet, where service is delivered with potential applications.
So I’m still at a loss as to what your question refers to.
Re: Re: Re:2 Asked Before
Again, I’m afraid I don’t know what question you are asking.
Simply, are you opposed to neutrality regulations for those other services as you are for internet service? The question really isn’t that complicated.
With electricity, water and gas, there is no issue of neutrality, since those companies just deliver the pure thing that they’re delivering,
I notice you conveniently left out telephone service there. (Still dancing huh?)
and simply have no control over any uses of those services.
Because of neutrality regulations. So would you like to change that? (By the way, I could point to exceptions of the rules even now).
So I’m still at a loss as to what your question refers to.
It’s a simple question. However, you seem to be trying awfully hard to avoid answering it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Asked Before
Simply, are you opposed to neutrality regulations for those other services as you are for internet service? The question really isn’t that complicated.
Except I keep asking you for clarification, and so far you just keep repeating the same question. So I’m still at a loss. Could you please clarify the question. I’m honestly not “dancing” around it, I just don’t know what you’re ASKING.
I notice you conveniently left out telephone service there. (Still dancing huh?)
Oh, I honestly just missed it. Can you describe to me what a “neutrality” regulation looks like for any of these?
Because of neutrality regulations
Uh, no. Did you not read what I wrote? Not because of a neutrality regulation, but because of the very nature of the services they provide.
That said, electricity, water and gas are also different than broadband (and telephone) in that they are single sourced, single infrastructure.
It’s a simple question. However, you seem to be trying awfully hard to avoid answering it.
Again, this is not the case. If you actually explained wtf you meant, I’d answer it.
Re: Re: Re:4 Asked Before
Uh, no. Did you not read what I wrote?
Yes, you wrote that providers of other services don’t have any control over how you use their services and I pointed out *why* that’s the case, not that it isn’t the case.
Not because of a neutrality regulation, but because of the very nature of the services they provide.
OK, here’s an example that’s been used before: Suppose that AT&T bought Pizza Hut. Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops? (Current neutrality regulations would prohibit that.)
That said, electricity, water and gas are also different than broadband (and telephone) in that they are single sourced, single infrastructure.
Um, no. In most places there is only one source for telephone service (land line). And in many places there is only one source for broadband internet service (if that).
Again, this is not the case. If you actually explained wtf you meant, I’d answer it.
Honestly, I don’t know how to make it much plainer.
Re: Re: Re:5 Asked Before
That would come closer to anti-competitive, and is not analogous to net neutrality. This is not like the merger of 2 companies in separate markets that then use that control to give unfair advantage to itself. Oranges to apples.
The difference in this case is that the service specifically being used over the internet can be more accurately defined, including services like Bittorrent which have their own specific protocols, whereas gas and electric companies it is not possible to do so or very difficult and pointless. A gas company cannot tell what I’m using their service for, if I’m cooking or have simply turned up my heating. An electric company cannot tell If I’ve turned on the TV or the PC.
No no one has argued for any service providers to be able to discriminate against particular forms of usage, including Mike. They’ve simply argued the regulation would more than likely be corrupted in the process of being made, as may be happening with plans to put in an exemption for the entertainment industry.
Re: Re: Re:5 Asked Before
Yes, you wrote that providers of other services don’t have any control over how you use their services and I pointed out *why* that’s the case, not that it isn’t the case.
No, you are wrong. The reason is not because of neutrality rules, but because of the way those services work (with the exception of telephone).
OK, here’s an example that’s been used before: Suppose that AT&T bought Pizza Hut. Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops? (Current neutrality regulations would prohibit that.)
Except if you’re using VoIP, of course.
Um, no. In most places there is only one source for telephone service (land line). And in many places there is only one source for broadband internet service (if that).
Heh. Look, if you’re arguing for more competition, I’m entirely in agreement with you.
You seem incredibly confused about what I’m actually arguing for. I’ve said that I believe in the importance of neutrality, but that we should get it VIA COMPETITION, not through regulation that will lead to unintended consequences.
Re: Re: Re:6 Asked Before
OK, here’s an example that’s been used before: Suppose that AT&T bought Pizza Hut. Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops? (Current neutrality regulations would prohibit that.)
Except if you’re using VoIP, of course.
No, you’re wrong. Regulations do not allow the local phone company to disconnect your land line service for using VoIP over it. I don’t know where yo got that idea. And I notice that you still didn’t answer the question: Should they be allowed to refuse telephone service (land line) to other pizza shops?
You seem incredibly confused about what I’m actually arguing for.
Actually, I think you’re incredibly confused about what you’re arguing for and the unintended consequences thereof.
I’ve said that I believe in the importance of neutrality, but that we should get it VIA COMPETITION, not through regulation that will lead to unintended consequences.
Yes, you believe in the importance of neutrality so long as it’s optional, I understand that. But you still haven’t answered the question.
Re: Re: Re:7 Asked Before
Once again, you’re confusing anti-competitive integration with fundamental differences in how certain utilities work and the effectiveness of prioritising in those other utilities.
They can’t (or is pointless to) degrade your service if you order from Pizza Hut over calling a friend, but they can if you use VOIP over instant messaging.
The analogy you’re making would be if ATT bought Techdirt and favoured Techdirt traffic over other tech news/commentary sites.
Re: Re: Re:8 Asked Before
They can’t (or is pointless to) degrade your service if you order from Pizza Hut over calling a friend, but they can if you use VOIP over instant messaging.
Uhh, that wasn’t the question.
The analogy you’re making…
Go look up “analogy”. It wasn’t an analogy at all, it was a direct question.
Re: Re: Re:9 Asked Before
It was an analogy – you were likening one situation of net neutrality to your phone service example. The direct question was whether Mike disagreed with laws that regulated in the ATT example, implying that he should if he’s against net neutrality (likening them as being the same or similar)
My point was that you were asking the wrong question in the first place, to point out the difference between anti-competitive integration and favouring yourself which is what you were talking about, over a service provider degrading a service on the basis that it makes up large amounts of traffic from an individual user or their whole network.
Re: Re: Re:10 Asked Before
It was an analogy…
Still didn’t go look it up, did you? Oh well, appear ignorant then.
My point was that you were asking the wrong question in the first place…
Oh, so now yo want to tell me what questions I can ask. Not gonna happen.
Re: Re: Re:4 Asked Before
“Again, this is not the case. If you actually explained wtf you meant, I’d answer it.”
I love this guy, 😀
Re: Re: Re:4 Asked Before
“Again, this is not the case. If you actually explained wtf you meant, I’d answer it.”
I love this guy, 😀
Re: Re: Re:4 Asked Before
AC is annoying and not helpful in his line of questioning, but I think I see what he’s trying to get at. The services he lists all constitute infrastructure monopolies that lead into our individual homes. They are “single infrastructure” in that regard, but not necessarily “single source”. As long as the quality of water/electricity/gas/voice/data that is pumped into the lines meets some accepted minimum community standard, it doesn’t really matter where or who it comes from. The connected inflow sources just have to keep up with connected outflow demand. In the case of phones and Internet, equipment at either end just has to be compatible with the connection type provided at each end, and the data must fit standards required for delivery within the heterogeneous connections in between.
The easiest example is electricity. Deregulation of the energy generation sources in California made them “less neutral”, which left Enron open to play the energy market however they wanted. The “last mile” providers were still regulated, and thus forced into a position of buying energy at available market prices, no matter how high. That precipitated the market-synthetic black outs in CA, that later helped to establish Enron’s culpability and price gouging methods. The comparison between network neutrality and “neutrality” or deregulation in this kind of service is false, primarily because the bidirectional nature of the Internet makes all inflow sources and outflow consumers equivalent, in that their roles can switch at any time.
While I think regulated service neutrality for these monopoly line types is a good step, sometimes it isn’t enough. Sometimes you have to control sourcing prices when connected sources are limited, or when vertical integration of source and delivery distort the market. End-to-end vertical integration of service delivery tends to exist in all the listed markets, so they all require some form of regulation or direct community-ownership to avoid monopoly rents.
I think a better general model for ALL these services is the road system. Every home and land owner should own their own driveways (pipes, lines) to the local grid, the local community government should own the local grid to the highways (pipelines, trunk lines), the state government should own the highways that connect to the Interstates (trans-state conduits), and the federal government should own the Interstates. Treaties can be drafted for maintenance of trans-national connections. National inflow product providers should all be free to negotiate rates with all connected outflow consumers. Maintenance should either be handled by community-appropriate government, or contracted by government on equal bid terms to all available maintenance contractors. All attempts to vertically integrate or monopolize the sources, delivery, or maintenance of any one network/service type should be resisted at every level.
Re: Re: Asked Before
He’s referring to the fact that no other basic utility provider is allowed to discriminate against you based on the how you use the resource they provide, only based on the amount you use. A gas company can’t tell you that you need to pay more to use gas for a stove than they would charge you for a water heater.
The complaint here is that ISPs not only want to charge for quantity, but all reserve the right to charge different rates and offer a different quality of goods depending on how customers use their data.
Re: Unintended Consequences
The assertion that regulation has unintended consequences, while true, is such an empty statement. Simple logic dictates that if there are no restraints (regulation) there will be an infinite number of unintended consequences. Freedom to do whatever and whenever. Yes freedom is good, but you must also acknowledge the proverbial “unintended consequences” of that freedom.
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality crowd so adamantly fighting it to the point of hysterical claiming that the iPhone will be nuked? Obviously, the anti-net-neutrality crowd has something to hide. Sounds like an unintended consequence for the consumer.
Ask yourself this, if regulation is so onerous, why is the anti-net-neutrality not offering (promising) to abide by net-neutrality principles? Seems to me, that if you want to avoid regulation, you could offer-up a code-of-conduct. Again, if someone fails to commit to a standard of conduct, would your trust them? Trust me, I have a bridge in New York City that I could sell you really cheap. I will place the title in the mail to you after the check clears! (Sarcasm of course). Seriously, just because I say “trust me” is no reason to trust me. Yet that is exactly the empty promise being made by the anti-net-neutrality crowd.
From my point of view, if the anti-net-neutrality crowd fails to establish a code-of-conduct that I can live with and only offers stonewalling rhetoric, I’ll take the unintended consequences of regulation.
Net neutrality is a necessary evil if we want prevent service providers from treating the internet like it’s a cable TV network. If without some form of regulation, the internet is going to look like this: Tiered Internet
Re: Re:
Here’s a better link: Tiered Internet
You are first claiming Stephen’s second statement has no bearing on the first, and is actually quite irrelevant (which I agree with), yet this is the point you are tearing down with regards to the sensationalist article heading?
Didn’t you just say this statement was irrelevant? if so, why is it the basis of your entire argument.
More clearly, wouldn’t it be better to tear down an actual argument, rather than an irrelevant secondary comment?
I’ve read his statement about 25 times, and still do not see the correlation you are attempting to draw. Yes he is incorrect about NN, yes he has a misunderstanding of what AT&T and Apple did to upgrade the network, but is actually claiming what you say he is? Hard to say in that snippet.
“(i.e., the provider could determine that a VoIP call needs prioritization, so long as all VoIP providers get the same prioritization). “
No, that’s not accurate.
So a provider could determine that non-bittorrent traffic needs more prioritization, so long as all non-bittorrent providers could get the same prioritization? That’s not net neutrality. Neutrality is if a provider decides that having prioritized traffic might be useful, so they offer it. Anyone can use that prioritized traffic for whatever they want, whether it’s VoIP or midget pron. They just pay whatever the ISP requires for that prioritized traffic.
Re: Re:
That’s not my idea of net neutrality. To me, NN means an ISP can’t decide bittorrent traffic from Company A is more important than bittorrent traffic from Company B. But if they decide that VOIP traffic (from anyone) is more important than bittorrent traffic as far as latency goes, and prioritize VOIP at the expense of BT, that would be allowed. And I agree with them, I would rather have a smooth phone call than have my torrent finish 30 seconds sooner.
Re: Re: Re:
So if a company wanted to have a non-neutral preference for their content, they would simply need to develop a proprietary protocol that their content used, and then throttle access to content that didn’t use their protocol? After all, everyone would be treated the same way.
Neutrality means I can use any application, any protocol, any content provider, and they’re all treated the same. If an ISP wants to offer varying levels of QOS, I can use any application, any protocol, any content provider at those varying levels of QOS. Higher QOS will of course cost more, but if I want to use that high-priority, high cost bandwith to send emails of LOLcats, I can do that. If I want to use that high-priority, high cost bandwith to do VOIP, I can do that too. But it’s not the ISPs role to decide which content I prioritize, it’s mine.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So if a company wanted to have a non-neutral preference for their content, they would simply need to develop a proprietary protocol that their content used, and then throttle access to content that didn’t use their protocol? After all, everyone would be treated the same way.
If the regulation were not worded to prevent that, then yes.
Neutrality means I can use any application, any protocol, any content provider, and they’re all treated the same.
That is one definition of neutrality. There are others. Strong competition in the market would probably make almost everyone happy. Any regulation would at best leave a lot of people dissatisfied and at worst be co-opted by the incumbents.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Any regulation would at best leave a lot of people dissatisfied
Particularly the ones being regulated, no? They never seem to like that.
Re: Re: Re:
I think that the main question will be would you rather have you Bittorrent traffic slow down for someone other customer’s VoIP traffic?
Re: Re: Re:
I would rather have a smooth phone call than have my torrent finish 30 seconds sooner
In that case then, you can prioritize your own traffic; you don’t need the ISP to do that for you. You can even manually pause your torrents while you’re using VoIP if you want to.
But what I suspect you *really* want is for the ISP to prioritize *your* traffic over other users. And you probably want that special treatment without paying extra for it either, right? Sorry, that’s not neutrality.
Re: Re:
Neutrality is if a provider decides that having prioritized traffic might be useful, so they offer it. Anyone can use that prioritized traffic for whatever they want, whether it’s VoIP or midget pron. They just pay whatever the ISP requires for that prioritized traffic.
Bingo.
Competition and Upgrades Solve All
None of this would be needed if there was actually competition. I personally think there should be one network (wired and wireless) nationwide serving all businesses and homes any service they want to purchase from any one willing to sell it from anywhere in the world that wants to lease those lines to access those consumers. Content providers should not be allowed to own/partner with content carriers as neither are in the consumers best interest.
Beyond the above, traffic NEVER (I repeat NEVER!) needs to be prioritized unless there is congestion on the network. Without congestion then EVERY packet will be routed as fast as possible by the equipment in real time. Attempting to say anything else is pure BS.
If their network is congested then they can do 1 of 2 things: 1.) Expand the network with upgrades or 2.) Wait for the network to balance itself out with dissatisfied customers leaving which would free up that bandwidth. Option one would be the better choice for their future.
Skype Fights to Be Heard on Mobile Phones
Ah the wonders of NO regulation. The New York Times is reporting that “Josh Silverman, the chief executive of Skype, the voice-over-Internet phone service, could tick off the names of mobile phone operators that block his company’s service.“ (emphasis added). Obviously this highlights the “dirty” tricks companies will play when granted unlimited freedom. Don’t these companies ever learn that if you abuse freedom through “dirty tricks” that you should not deserve freedom. If companies feel that they can lie and cheat with impunity, why shouldn’t society seek regulatory relief?
Skype Fights to Be Heard on Mobile Phones
anti-Net Neutrality bogusness
There are some simple problems with ANY anti-net neutraility argument, aside from opening the dorr to additional regulations. These are evident from experience of the past, statements by the carriers and from the simple fact of net “ownership.”
1.If any of you kiddos arguing againts neutrality remember the ’70’s for more than grainy video clips of Watergate, Star Wars, Queen or Travolta prancing around in tight pants, you might remember something about the breakup of Bell. To recap, Bell Telephone basically “owned” the telephone world, charged LD rates for any call much further away than the nearest fireplug and was getting paid by the gov’t to build phone lines to everyone in the Us while making excuses why they couldn’t. New company’s tried to build LD netsworks to bypass the Bell net (MCI, anyone?) and Bell block them from interconnects with huge fees to MCI for connecting and huge increases in rates for Bell customers who decided to use the MCI network for LD.
2.This is exactly what will happen if neutrality is not enforced somehow. ATT (and others) has already said so in stockholder meetings and private company missives to regional managers and sales. since much more voice is moving to their data nets and pure voice networks are few and far between, they view this as an opportunity to get out of their mandates against rigging QOS unfavorably against their competitors or those they want to extort with extra fees.
3. Then there is ownership. For voer a hundred years, or nearly so, Americans have been paying an extra tax to build out a “Universal Service” of communication/phone services. Telcos have been largly pocketing the money or distributing it to stockholders. They also take billions every years from various organizations, and gov’ts, to build out iand improve their networks, in the form of research monies and grants and a host of other programs. In effect, the Internet was built with public funds. When asked fro the books, telcos throw so much paperwork with so many shifts of funds no one can tell where the money went. But the strange thing is that the money they got was technically for building what became the Internet. Not only that but they now are using that Internet to run their primary/voice business over as well.
Just to clear the air, I agree that net neutrality is a bad thing, BUT, and it’s a big o stinkin butt at that. These Telcos are trying to take a network built with public funds and claim it is their property. IT IS NOT! Let them build their own network with their own money! Then they can prioritize, block, filter, schedule, limit, cap or what ever it is they want to do or need to do to COMPETE in a FAIR MARKET. Let them build a better network and charge for it!
But until they actually have done so, my tax dollars and yours are what built what is now the Internet, it should be considered ours, a publicly owned networkand, and all traffic on that network should be treated neutrally.
Net Neutrality and the iPhone
Mike,
I have answered you on the TLF blog here: http://bit.ly/9wn39n