What's very interesting about this is what the Panel didn't say. While some are already asserting that the Panel is supporting the idea of neutrality, I don't really see anything to support that. The Panel is saying that carriers should not be able to block content - and nothing more. It is, quite literally, the least they could have done. Politically, prohibiting the blocking of content is a safe choice - everyone agrees that content is good, and that Canadians shouldn't be prevented by carriers from accessing content. Content good, blocking bad. There have been a few high profile cases of blocking, and now, we can all agree that there shouldn't be any more. OK, we've got it. Except, that's not the issue. The carriers have been trying very hard in the States to convince people that it is the issue - the better to deflect attention from the actual issue, which is whether duopolies ought to be able to tell us how we use the internet. The real issue raises questions like - can they decide who gets to be fast, and who must be slow; who gets to be cheap and who will be expensive; whose service will be spotty, and whose will have excellent QoS? These are exquisitely difficult questions, and my initial impression is that the Panel punted and played safe. What's also notable to me about the Panel report is that it so accurately toes the Kevin Martin and U.S. carrier line: carriers would never block, why would they block, there's no reason to suspect that they would block, so we don't need a rule stating that they can't block; when there as here the actual issue is not blocking, it's tiering. See, eg.: http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/03/fcc_chief_att_c.html And so, it appears that they've chosen to play safe and wait to see what happens in the U.S. Politically, it's easy to portray the issue as one about "regulating the internet" (honestly, how facile can you get, but this will play well during the CBC dinner hour), and this allows you to avoid making any difficult decisions - particularly when the Government changes mid-report. I'm not saying neutrality is an easy issue to address. Reasonable people can disagree on the policy choices. But there ought to be a debate - not attempts to sweep it all under the carpet by pretending that the issue is simple - eg, are puppies nice? Is it nice to be nice. Yes, we understand, content good, blocking bad. Fire, GOOD! So, who wins? My first impression is that it's a big win for the incumbents - i) dismantle the regulatory framework, ii) give the broadband duopolies free rein. What will come out of it - if implemented - is managed competition in which the incumbents notionally compete on the basis of service, do not compete on price, and innovate only as little as they need to to avoid disturbing the market balance between them. The last thing the duopoly wants is to create a market expectation of vigorous price and quality competition. Much better for them to take it slowly. Additionally, application providers would face the difficult reality of having - as their principal supplier of access to their customers - a duopoly consisting of their competition, and they will find themselves constantly being interfered with, using all means available, short of actual blocking (content good, blocking bad), that the carriers can use while not provoking too much public and regulatory concern. Nice business if you can get it.