Option 1: Do nothing, or at least do nothing until the FCC or the FTC has a specific complaint about anti-competitive behavior.

Option 2: Ban a network provider from charging other businesses to offer a speedier tier of delivery, which we’ll call Quality of Service (QoS).

Option 3: Don’t band the network provider from offering QoS, but do require them to offer that that same QoS deal to other companies on non-discriminatory rates and terms.

The Bell companies and their supporters, obviously, want Option 1. Google, eBay, Amazon and Yahoo! have been been pushing for Option 2, as with many other organizations, including Save the Internet. Microsoft and others have been toying with finding some kind of proposal similar to Option 3.

My column was all about how, with McLaughlin’s comments, some top-level officials at Google are teetering between Options 2 and 3. It is entirely predictable that Google officials would deny that they were teerering.

Indeed, my column reported that “McLaughlin’s statements have caused a fair bit of angst within Google” — as well as quoting company spokesman Adam Kovacevich as saying that “Andrew [McLaughlin] has a personal view” on the subject.