But the ambiguous language of the new rules and the different frameworks applied to landlines and mobile internet mean that corporations like Comcast will likely continue to treat data from certain companies differently and discriminate against sites and services that don't fit into their bottom line. 

"As we stand here now, the freedom and openness of the Internet are unprotected," Genachowski said. "No rules on the books to protect basic Internet values. No process for monitoring Internet openness as technology and business models evolve. No recourse for innovators, consumers, or speakers harmed by improper practices. And no predictability for Internet service providers, so that they can effectively manage and invest in broadband networks. That will change once we vote to approve this strong and balanced order."

It's true that the FCC's needed to define itself and its position, to throw down a gauntlet for the numerous court battles sure to come. But the language of today's ruling gives companies like Comcast the right to engage in "reasonable network management," while it also bans "unreasonable discrimination." In the rapidly expanding field of wireless internet, then, the FCC has given companies like Verizon and AT&T even more latitude to decide what is reasonable or not. 

As we have already seen in the dispute between Comcast and Level 3 over the enormous amount of traffic being sent by Netflix, the big internet providers aren't afraid to play hardball, clamp down on certain kinds of data and fight it out in court. 

The FCC should have set in stone the following simple rule: ISPs can charge whatever they want for data that travels over their networks, but cannot discriminate based on content, source or destination.

By giving corporations the right to "manage their networks," the FCC failed to accomplish both of its major goals. The more these big ISPs control which data flows across their networks and at what speeds, the less true competition will emerge between them. Removing real neutrality from these networks will thus discourage investment in new broadband infrastructure, while undercutting the egalitarian nature of the web which has driven so much innovation and enterprise in America. 

A 1994 law established that cell and broadband network companies must design their systems so that survelliance can begin immediately after they are presented with a court order. But rapidly changing technology and regular network updates has complicated that process.

Charlie Savage of the NYT reported on two previously undisclosed instances in which court ordered wiretaps on suspected criminals and terrorists delayed for weeks and even months.

Only a few weeks ago it was reported that the government is attempting to bring web services like Gmail, Facebook and Skype under the same 1994 law, angering open internet advocates. 

"We think that the F.C.C. has already conceded too much to the bureau," said Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told the NYT. "The F.B.I.'s ability to have such broad reach over technical standard-setting was never anticipated in the 1994 act."

Rotenberg has a sound point. Ensuring that court orders can be carried out in a timely fashion makes sense. Allowing the government to set prohibitive standards for rapidly developing technologies networks, even in the service of justice, is the recipe for a boondoggle.