A complete non sequitur. It makes no difference how "open" your hardware or software is if all the ISPs are blocking or throttling or capping all your connections.
You could flash a version of Android that uses magic to communicate instead of radio waves. Duh.
(The irony is: you can't flash your own build of Android on most devices, and most Android builds are not 100% open source. Cyanogen is pretty close, though.)
I hate to dignify the original argument using openness to justify something completely unrelated, but... I think you're forgetting that the vast majority of websites accessed on "consumer wired internet" are hosted on Linux servers.
On the website side of things, though, you have a competitive market for internet services. The impression I've gotten is that the net neutrality debate has been focusing on the consumer end, not the server end, because there is typically only one or two choices for consumers for broadband internet access.
On the website side of things, if you don't like the rules of your hosting provider, you can choose from hundreds of alternatives. Hence, there is much less need for regulation.
For home wireless access, there are usually more choices than for home wired access, with at least 4 choices available in most decently populated areas. With 4+ choices, plus open platforms that make it easier to switch carriers, we may not need heavy regulation--the market might be adequate.
For home wired, an open system like Linux makes no difference for two reasons:
1. As I noticed, not many use it, so even if Linux somehow made it easier to switch wired providers, it would not have much effect, and
2. Linux doesn't make it easier to switch wired providers. If you are on, say, Comcast, and decide to switch to DSL, you aren't going to have an easier time on Linux compared to those on Windows or Mac.
Net neutrality deals with the transmission, not the server or client, which is why openness and availability of operating systems has nothing to do with these regulations.
As to your second point, it is equally difficult to switch wireless providers (e.g. Comcast) as it is to switch wired providers (e.g. Verizon). Some would argue it's harder to switch wired providers since they are essentially government-endorsed monopolies, but then again many people cannot switch wireless providers due to 2-year contracts, work-provided plans, etc.
Almost all home routers and DSL boxes are running some form of Linux. Therefore, almost everyone uses a Linux box in his home to access wired internet.
And there aren't "open operating systems like Android" in the wired world?
This is so nonsensical it's almost like a shout-out to Google.
Perhaps the providers of 10Mbps+ wireline service should tear out their last mile wires and install wireless transmitters for the last hop instead, so they can fall under the same looser regulations as the <1.5Mbps (if you're lucky) wireless providers.
I know your last point is meant to be sarcastic, but that is the exact sort of distorted behavior you get with these kinds of ill-conceived regulations.
Genachowski himself has admitted that the future of mobile is broadband. We're not just talking about phones. There are companies that have been doing highspeed wireless backhaul for years.
If wireless is the ascendant future, then a statement like "most consumers have more choices for mobile broadband than for fixed broadband" illogically ignores the cross-competition. Not every mobile customer can consider fixed as an alternative... but every fixed customer could opt for mobile/wireless if it offered a better deal. So the number of options, even if not yet the raw bandwidth, available to fixed consumers is always a superset of what is available to those who require uniquely mobile options.
And what better way to prompt growth of wireless capacity than to let the fixed providers try some of the nightmare throttling/tiering scenarios that are used to sell net neutrality? Just make sure the wireless operators remain numerous and independent, and the first competitor to offer 'all the net' as a competitive selling point will crush anyone discriminating against VOIP, video-on-demand, etc.
My initial thought on the FCC wireless move was "Maybe this will motivate Google to make the nationwide wireless network they've been dancing around all this time."
>Perhaps the providers of 10Mbps+ wireline service should tear out their last mile wires and install wireless transmitters for the last hop instead, so they can fall under the same looser regulations...
>Federal law mandates that incumbent telephone companies, such as Verizon, have to lease their copper wires to rival companies.
But those rules don't apply to fiber-optic cable networks.
This is what happens when the writing and enforcement of laws is directed by and for the benefit of those with the most money, instead of the majority.
This is nothing more strawman justification meant to distract us from the real issue. Android has nothing to do with network neutrality. The software on our handsets has no effect on how the ISPs manipulate the Internet.
