There might be one silver lining in Apple's shut-out of Google Voice from its iTunes store.
(A development we'll have more on in a bit.) On Friday, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) and other net neutrality advocates reintroduced legislation to prohibit network discrimination. This is Markey's third pass at a net neutrality bill. This time, though, he has in hand -- and on the front pages -- a clear example of what happens when them that runs the networks decides what runs on those networks. Our wireless space doesn't operate under principles of neutrality. So if providers (AT&T) and phone manufactures (Apple) decide they don't like something (Google Voice), that's in many ways the beginning and the end of it.

H.R. 3458 seeks to spare the Internet from the wireless world's fate...

Namechecking the role social media played in recent events in Iran and calling the Internet "essential to our democracy," Senator Al Franken -- yes, seriously -- used his time in today's Senate Judiciary hearing on Sonia Sotomayor to ask the nominee where she comes down on the question of network neutrality. In broad strokes, that's the ideal that content sent across the Internet should be protected from being privileged or discriminated against by network operators or service providers.

Franken brought up the 2005 Supreme Court "Brand X" case which, while indeed having to do with a Supreme Court decision, comes down to a question of jurisdiction rather than legal principle. That left an opening for Sotomayor to fend off the question. It was an opportunity she spotted and more or less seized.

(The particulars on Brand X: SCOTUS ruled that the FCC was within its rights to consider Internet traffic that's transmitted via cable under the provisions in the '96 Telecom Act that have to do with information services, rather than as a telecommunications service. That latter designation brings with it common carrier restrictions that prevent discrimination. As a "Title II" service, Internet via cable isn't subject to the same requirements. To put it another way, the Supreme Court simply said in Brand X that this wasn't a question of free speech or the like. It's a matter of whether, under current statute, it's up to the FCC to decide how to handle Internet traffic. They determined here that it was. Here, via WikiLeaks, is a good CRS report on the specifics.)

Sotomayor responded to Franken by saying that while "There's no question in my mind as a citizen that the Internet has revolutionized communications in the United States," she saw responsibility here falling on Congress to write better laws on how the Internet should be understood. Brand-new Senator Franken agreed, saying "Okay, so we've got some work to do on this."

The New York Times editorial board is urging President-elect Obama to embrace the idea that restoring the U.S.'s rightful place at the vanguard of the Internet could be a centerpiece of his presidential legacy...Anyone kicking in coin to the Presidential Inauguration Committee is finding themselves included in a searchable and sortable online database...As the Nation's Ari Melber reports, the transition team has posted responses to the top five queries that came out of its "Open for Questions" feature, but to what end?...and a good deal more.

There's a dust-up over network neutrality that we'll do our darnedest to encapsulate in one bullet point. Ready? Let's go. Google, reported the Wall Street Journal's Vishesh Kumar and Christopher Rhoads, has been quietly pushing a plan to create "a fast lane for its own content"...Republican rank-and-file are urging their leaders to embrace technology or face "suicide"...As the cloak of secrecy that surrounded the Obama campaign gets pulled back the slightest bit, we're finally learning the truly important stuff: which Obama logo mock-ups didn't make the cut...and still more.