There were a significant number of stories last week using this same anonymous source, claiming a Google/Verizon deal was afoot, and that it wouldn't apply to wireless (Bloomberg, The Washington Post
, Dave Burstein
). The Times was only one outlet. In fact I think Burstein scooped them all.
Google and Verizon deflected these leaks by focusing on one error in one story: The Times claiming there would be paid prioritization or "pay tiers."
Yes, the Times story sucked. It clearly sounded like it was written by someone who either didn't understand what his source was telling him, or just started covering the neutrality debate yesterday (or both).
But by and large the stories were correct. Verizon and Google were working on a neutrality agreement that didn't apply to wireless in order to try and pre-empt tougher rules. Rules being crafted using an ongoing FCC process they both claimed to be dedicated to...
edit to add links....