Comments on: Senate Democrats badger FCC boss on Net neutrality

But the hearing, cut short by votes on the Senate floor, doesn't produce the fireworks some expected from the face-off.

[ralfthedog]

A better solution to net neutrality.

If ATT or Verison were to start charging content providers host on other networks, I think it would be quite easy for a company like Google to destroy them.

picture yourself as an ATT customer. You go to Google. When you get to Google you find a full page add saying that because of discriminatory practices of ATT Google can no longer provide you service.

The add would also list the contact information of your local Sennett and House representative and how they voted on net neutrality.

If Cox communication or any other network company wants to charge for better access to there customers, they can just offer to cache the site on servers located inside of their network.

[zanzzz]

No Solution

Google may be in a unique position with huge leverage against having to pay extortion money to The likes of AT&T or Verizon. In addition to being ridiculously rich and popular they own or rent vast networks of fiber, possibly positioning themselves to compete with the big ISP's in many areas.
What is far more worrisome is the small companies, nonprofits, and individuals that might not be able to pay for play in the brave new world of net discrimination.
Why are the FCC members so concerned about stifling the profiteering by these ISP's? They think that forcing them to compete on an even playing field will somehow cripple new services and innovation when in fact nothing could be further from the truth! With the natural advantages of size and wealth they currently enjoy all they need is compelling content and service delivery and they will be successful. Providing internet service should be considered a "common carrier" and noncompetitive barriers should not be allowed. Competition is meager at best in many markets, most homes have one or possibly two potential providers if they are fortunate. That is wholly inadequate to ensure the advantages of a competitive market that would minimize the concerns of anti consumer policies.
If these corporations claim that they will not engage in anti competitive or discriminatory business practices why do they oppose laws that would prohibit it? The answer is obvious. They do not want to compete and wish to take advantage of their market size and position.

[j11070]

it's not really about business

it's more about political speech. I'm sure corporations like Google would figure out a way to compete regardless. What worries me, and what should worry everyone else, is when mega-corps like ATT can decide who gets the fast track and who doesn't, what is to stop them from slowtracking every political website their CEO doesn't like. That's the biggest issue.

It should be called net neutrality. it should be called net discrimination clause.