The "paid prioritization" train is leaving the station, and not even the FCC's drive to "reclassify" Internet services as limited common carriers can derail it.

Net neutrality advocates, incensed when AT&T's predecessor first suggested the need to charge some Internet companies for "using his pipes free," won't be pleased to hear that AT&T won't let such deals be halted by the FCC. Even if Chairman Genachowski succeeds in bringing ISPs under "Title II"—a prospect that looks increasingly unlikely—AT&T says it will have no effect on its ability to charges companies more for priority Internet access.

"Reclassification is not much of a threat to prioritization," said AT&T's Hank Hulquist this week, "the FCC has decades of precedence of tariffs that were deemed lawful for the provision of prioritization." National Journal noted Hulquist's statement (and you can watch the entire event at which Hulquist appeared), but it has actually been AT&T's public position for some time.

In early September, Senior Vice President Bob Quinn took to AT&T's public policy blog to share his love for extended Peanuts analogies. After mocking "so-called" public interest groups (AT&T, of course, being especially well-known for its relentless pro-consumer focus), Quinn argued that net neutrality advocates are just never going to get what they want; the law stands in their way.

Take paid prioritization, for instance. Some neutrality advocates want it banned or at least sharply circumscribed. But that's not going to happen just by "reclassifying" the broadband providers.

"The general rule of thumb has been that, so long as the Title II carrier makes its services available to similarly situated customers on similar rates, terms and conditions, the service is lawful," wrote Quinn. "So, the notion of a prior restraint on paid prioritization is just not consistent with the 'status quo' or the Third Way proposed by Chairman Genachowski. And while dominant carriers operate under a different—and more regulatory—regime, I have never seen a circumstance where the FCC prohibited any carrier, dominant or otherwise, from providing customers the option of purchasing a higher quality of service."

AT&T's take is that, as long as it offers paid prioritization to anyone who wants it, the company is in the clear. And if the broadband never gets "reclassified".... then even that limitation may not apply.

As for Genachowski, he's the Charlie Brown figure here, always having his football yanked away by Lucy—though in this case, Lucy is the "Church of Extreme Net Neutrality," which always demands more regulations. Why can't pro-neutrality groups drop their "dogma" and just be reasonable... like AT&T's lobbyists?