A Compromise That Everybody Hates

Both the left and the right see the FCC's rules on net neutrality as the end of the internet.  Conservatives are furious because they say a tiered internet is the only way to make sure consumers pay for bandwidth, and that the FCC's power grab will turn the internet into a PC network for PCs as decreased investment throttles growth.  The WSJ:

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

On the other hand, the left is just as furious that the rules don't go far enough.  While landline broadband is subject to rules governing freedom, mobile broadband isn't, and that means huge mobile networks can do whatever they want in order to limit bandwidth and throttle competitors.  The Huffington Post:

For the first time in history of telecommunications law the FCC has given its stamp of approval to online discrimination.

Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections. This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.

Instead of re-establishing the FCC's authority to act as a consumer watchdog over the Internet, it places the agency's authority on a shaky and indefensible legal footing -- giving ultimate control over the Internet to a small handful of carriers. 

Both sides here argue that the compromise will mean the end of the internet as we know it.  I tend to lean more towards the Huffington Post's view of the situation, but it's true that nearly everyone hates this compromise.  Expect Congress to be pressed into legislation on this in 2011.

[UPDATE]  Matt Osborne argues that progressive activists spent all their time on health care reform and DADT and didn't exactly come through on the issue of tougher net neutrality restrictions.