December 06, 2011, 10:55 AM — Update:
Verizon has also announced it will debut an online movie-streaming service aimed at homes and businesses that don't get its FIOS fiber-channel network, on which it sells video-on-demand at prices far higher than competitor Netflix.
The announcement gives no indication whether Verizon's tolerance of Netflix traffic across its network will change after it rolls out its own competing service. Given its history of dumping or deactivating competitive technology, not to mention dropping services such as Google Wallet that compete with new products, there's a significant chance Netflix customers will find their connections throttled to reduce bandwidth use or "tweaked" to keep performance of Verizon's own services higher than that of competitors – tweaks that are legal under the net neutrality rules as part of loopholes that allow carriers to do as they like to manage performance and traffic on their networks. -- KF
I know you'll be taking a lot of flak for your decision to exclude Google Wallet from the fancy new Samsung phone you just rolled out within your stable in favor of a service you could sell yourself.
I want to reassure you there's no reason to feel guilty about it. Not any more than usual, anyway.
First, people will get all excited about the meaning of this agreement you made with Google to support "net neutrality," though most of what Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg didn't actually support anything that could be described as "net neutrality" without at least one additional prefix. ("Anti-" or the verb-form of any expletive most accurately expresses your attitude toward net neutrality, though I'd suggest "anti-" will get you caught in fewer spam filters.)
During promotional events following your agreement with Google you both went on record as opposing the ability of one vendor to refuse to carry content from another, or to give a higher priority to one of your own services in order to make it more attractive than a competitor's.
You did argue, at the time, that wireless Internet access shouldn't be regulated at all, allowing you to do anything you wanted to restrict customer use and access via handhelds.
You did argue then, and while suing the FCC, that wireless bandwidth is so scarce that carriers have to impose content-priorities, bandwidth-throttling and other draconian net-performance-optimization.