New Chairman Markey defends: protecting Google from net neutrality

I just got around to watching  House telecom Subcommittee Chariman Ed Markey address the Memphis media reform conference and was struck that he felt the need to go out of his way to defend Google and only Google at this strongly anti-business forum.

• About midway through his speech, Chairman Markey noted that opponents of net neutrality last year asked: "Why should we protect Google?" New House Chairman answered his own question and said "this was the wrong question."

With all due respect Mr. Chairman, "Why should we protect Google?" is precisely the right question.

• Google is the number one search engine, which is functionally an "Internet access technology."
• Google is the dominant search gatekeeper to the Internet with 47% market share of the Internet search business and rising according to ComScore.  
• Google is not neutral.
• Google's search engine is a secret discrimination algorithm that favors content that pays the highest price.
• Google does not work for consumers, all its revenues come from advertisers.
• Google's business model is to discriminate against content based on who pays the most for keywords.
• Google proposes to apply net neutrality in a discriminatory manner, only to its broadband competitors and not to its own gatekeeper Internet function.
• If net neutrality is truly a worthy Internet principle, why should it not apply to Google too? 
• Why won't Google eat its own cooking? 
• Could it be that NN is really just poison meant for its competitors? 
• Why is Chairman Markey going out of his way to defend the special interests of these particular dotcom billionaires whom he mentioned by name in his speech? (Google's founders: Brin and Page.)
• Could it possibly be that 98% of Google's employees donated to Democrats in the last election cycle according to National Journal's Tech Daily?