Even though net neutrality advocates are still pushing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to make headway with new rules that would ban Internet service providers from degrading or prioritizing material, the prospects for the regulations appear to be rather bleak - more so as the FCC has failed to move forward with a plan for reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service.

In response to the FCC's call for comment on a recent proposal by Google and Verizon, several organizations including Free Press, Public Knowledge and others, reiterated their stance in a last week filing, asking the FCC to disallow publishers from making extra payment for prioritized delivery of "specialized services."

Despite the fact that a coalition of groups led by Public Knowledge said that thus far "no one has offered a clear and comprehensive definition of `specialized services', the umbrella organization Open Internet Coalition has noted that some online services which are being considered as examples of "specialized services" include IPTV, Verizon's FiOS TV and AT&T's U-Verse.

According to the Open Internet Coalition, the mentioned "pecialized services" will not be subject to neutrality rules because they are already cable, and are subject to Title 6 of the Telecommunications Act.

Meanwhile, Public Knowledge has also refuted the claim put forward by telecom consultant Scott Cleland that all 95 Democratic Congressional candidates who pledged support for net neutrality lost their election; and has pointed out that those candidates were all challengers, and in districts "far more `red' than average."