Opinions of the Google/Verizon proposal for network neutrality continue to flood in, with the vast majority of thoughts on the proposal being negative. While there are small bits that some like (the EFF for instance likes the idea of limiting FCC authority), most criticisms of the plan (see Wired's, for instance) correctly note the plan is riddled with loopholes and is designed to protect Google's Android ad empire. Of course there's also been a fair share of those who just think network neutrality itself is a bunch of silly hysteria, like Yale Professor David Gelernter, who writes in the NY Times that this is all a case of "net irrationality":Except as the very first commenter to Gelernter's piece points out, the vast majority of customers have the choice of one or two carriers, something you'd think a Yale Professor would notice. If Verizon engages in bad behavior, millions of their customers have absolutely no way to vote with their wallets. That's of course something the FCC could have chosen to address with our national broadband plan -- but didn't.

Neutrality protections very well might not be necessary in a picture-book U.S. broadband market where consumers had the choice of multiple, varied providers -- but that simply isn't the case. The market is dominated by duopoly and monopoly carriers who by their nature in uncompetitive markets -- will try to get away with as much as napping regulators allow. They'll get away with substantially more if they're the ones dictating the "consumer protections" governing their sectors.