Comments on: Debate heats up over Net neutrality

Should phone companies be prevented from charging Internet service providers extra for using their networks?

[NJSolly]

Tempest in a Teapot

Verizon's David Young has it just right: "Anyone who tries to take [fast pipes at a low cost] away from consumers will be punished by the market." And by "market" I'm sure he doesn't mean Wall Street, he means the consumers.

[ordaj]

It's not that fast and it's not that cheap.

A lot of other countries get 100 mbps at a lot lower cost. Face it, the US is a 3rd-world country in this regard.

[pthomsen]

Telcos want to double-dip

A BellSouth executive has said that they want to charge Google, Yahoo, etc. for their bandwidth use (Article: http://tinyurl.com/95wdq).

Problem is that Google isn't the one using that bandwidth on the BellSouth network. The customer at the browser, that's hitting Google is! And, lo and behold, BellSouth is charging that user for the bandwidth. So, why should BellSouth charge Google?

This is a despicable (IMO) attempt at double-dipping. Charge the end-user for their bandwidth use, and then again, turn around and charge Google for the same bandwidth use.

[PeterMcDoogs]

More govt. overregulation on my penny

Why are we thinking about government regulations for a problem that does not even exist yet??? Do we not have enough regulations? "net neutrality" can only be achieved by a free market not costly red tape.

[januaryk]

Live Free or Die

Nothing obstructs innovation quite like government intervention. The internet was born free, just like all of us here in the good ol' USA, let's keep it that way.

[acarey1]

Exactly!

Again and again I keep hearing that it is a good idea to solve this problem before it exists, but is that really the answer? The only thing that ever comes from pre-emptive regulation is red-tape, the crippling of industry, and countless lawsuits that pass costs on to consumers and defeat progress. Net neutrality legislation is not the solution.

[lemob]

Problem DOES exist

There are several broadband providers, including at least one large cable TV company, that are actively degrading SIP based VOIP traffic on their networks. While they are not "blocking" this traffic (and thus avoiding FCC action), they are rendering it virtually unusable in order to protect their own, over-priced, voice offerings.

[Earl Benser]

It seems logical for users....

... to pay for the bandwidth they use. Heavy users should pay more
than light users. But this already exists in the bandwidth sold to
customer. BellSouth has four levels of DSL, and maybe should add a
superwide fifth level.

So the solution already exists. And if is implemented, at least with
one Telco. Should be the end of the discussion, except for the
flakes who think bandwidth should be free.