[NCSteve]

it's not about government setting prices, it's about whether access providers can blackmail large companies by threatening to provide substandard service if they don't pay.

That is unadulterated BS. Only socialists and liberals use terms like "blackmail" to characterize competetive practices. If access rates are so onerous to "large" corporations, let them invest the capital to build thier own infrastructure.

The number one reason that the telecom industry in such a snared-up mess is government regulation. I just have to chuckle when so-called "conservatives" start defending government interference in the markets when it involves something they have subjectively defined as "unfair."

As the article states, this is nothing more than corporatist warfare in which one corporation uses the weight of the government, bought and paid for with PAC money, as a weapon against another corporation, all because they are just too lazy to actually compete.

[Bulwark]

If access rates are so onerous to "large" corporations, let them invest the capital to build thier own infrastructure.

Put it this way... if the only choice you have is dial-up and a cable modem from your local provider, and your local provider decides that too many people are using Amazon.com and as a result Amazon is using too much bandwidth and they start reducing Amazon's bandwidth, don't come crying to me. Because without net neutrality that scenario will be repeated 100 times over. That's what this is all about, keeping the playing field level.