Edward Wyatt has this sesational headline on the New York Times reading “F.C.C. Chief Opposes Fees for Internet Priority.” and it’s caught massive traction in the blogosphere.   But there’s one huge problem: Chairman Genachowski never actually said that.  The exact quote that Genachowski used was:

“Any outcome, any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable”

Well OK, that’s just wonderful because how could anyone oppose “freedom and openness”?  But that statement is very generic and it could mean a number of things.  That statement could mean that Chairman Genachowski opposes fee based Internet priority despite the fact that this is how the Internet has worked for some time, but it could also mean an equal opportunity network which doesn’t and shouldn’t guarantee equal outcome.

Now to give Mr. Wyatt the benefit of the doubt, I first checked with him last night if he had any additional supporting evidence for his assertion that Genachowski opposes fees for Internet priority.  His response to me was that his assertions were justified because Genachowski made that quoted comment in response to whether he supported the Goggle-Verizon Net Neutrality deal or not.  But again, that statement doesn’t necessarily mean that Genachowski opposes the Google-Verizon deal nor does it necessarily mean that Genachowski opposes fee based Internet prioritization.  So it would seem to me that Mr. Wyatt is taking too many liberties interpreting the Chairman’s statements.

Now it’s quite possible that Genachowski does in fact oppose fee based Internet priority even though it is an existing business model (though it’s a to measure.  The FCC majority proposal on Net Neutrality (called the NPRM) does in fact outlaw ISPs from offering enhanced or prioritized delivery even though such practice is normal.  The problem is that this isn’t conclusive and Wyatt never used this line of argument to justify his sensational title.