The best short comment I've read on the mating dance between Verizon and Google is the Great Grimmelmann's About That Open Internet Thing.
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Bluessky Posts- Published a blog post about how I got my congressperson to convince SFO to change their illegal mandatory biometrics collection blog.yomna.net/opting-out-o... April 14, 2026 yomna
- I gather it might be several weeks before the Hungarian election is officially certified, and the Parliament can meet to elect a new Prime Minister. Plenty of time for mischief if the outgoing crew is so minded. April 13, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Jotwell TechLaw: Tal Zarsky, Hailing a Fleeting Moment – On Regulating Autonomous Taxi Fleets, JOTWELL (Apr 13, 2026) (re: Bryant Walker Smith & Matthew T. Wansley, Regulating Robotaxis, 99 So. Cal. L. Rev. __(forthcoming 2026), available at SSRN (Oct. 12, 2025)), cyber.jotwell.com/hailing-a-fl.... April 13, 2026 Jotwell
- I am very proud and excited to share that a special issue of the Canadian Journal of Law and Technology featuring We Robot 2025 conference papers is now published and fully open access, with thanks to funding support from @windsorlaw.bsky.social: digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cjlt/vol23/i... April 13, 2026 Kristen Thomasen
- That was a good estimate. April 13, 2026 Michael Froomkin
Recent Comments
- KK Ho on Introduction
- Michael on Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback)
- Mulalira Faisal Umar on Robot Law II is Now Available! (In Hardback)
- Michael on Vince Lago Campaign Has No Shame
- Just me on Vince Lago Campaign Has No Shame
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 51 other subscribers
I’ve been very confused by this (and in theory I’m someone who should understand it pretty well) but I think things are starting to gel for me. I find the notion that all packets should be treated equally to be obviously ridiculous and I don’t think that’s what’s actually at issue in most cases. The problem here is that wireline networks are heavily overprovisioned – in the backbones, at least, there’s bandwidth to burn. That’s not the case in mobile cellular networks, however, and there’s more congestion and competition for a place in the queues. Traditional best-effort delivery will probably screw nearly everyone – clearly you don’t want “infrastructure” (routing, for example) packets being treated equally with web browser traffic and you probably don’t want real-time voice being treated equally with web browser traffic, either.
I don’t like slippery slope arguments but I suppose they’re unavoidable. So here, the question becomes “once you start making different guarantees about different kinds of traffic, how do you prevent the carriers turning this into a mechanism to squeeze more money out of customers?” Or at least that’s my understanding of the question. I don’t know what the answer is other than to point out that there’s already some traffic differentiating going on, but it’s invisible to users. I just really don’t know here, but the bottom line is that I find the suggestion that there should be no differentiation in traffic policy to be really odd. And I’ll note that it’s *especially* odd coming from AT&T customers .