Mike McCurry: Will You Pay Google's Bandwidth Bills For The Rest Of This Year?

from the worth-asking dept

We've already covered how much dishonesty there is in the network neutrality debate -- often involving editorial pieces in major newspapers penned by lobbyists. In almost every case, those editorials aren't just misleading, they include flat out lies. Broadband Reports points us to the latest, written by Mike McCurry, who runs a lobbying effort funded by AT&T. He's written up an editorial for the Baltimore Sun that doesn't bother to mention his lobbying duties, or who has funded them. McCurry tries to make it seem as though the whole net neutrality thing is simply a ploy by Google to get "free" bandwidth. He notes, derisively, that "a $117 billion company like Google wants legislation that would drive Internet prices higher." Of course, he doesn't happen to mention that his viewpoint is funded by AT&T, who at close of business on Monday appears to be worth (oh, look at that) $117 billion as well.

While we're not convinced legislation is the right solution (it's focused on the wrong thing, first of all), it's extremely worrisome that the telcos and their friends keep resorting to trotting out lies. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to not support the various laws as written, but this constant string of lies certainly suggests that the telcos recognize their position is pretty weak. However, rather than just accepting the rhetoric on both sides, shouldn't we call the lies out? Among the whoppers in the editorial: "The "neutral" proposal that companies like Google are touting will ensure that they never have to pay a dime no matter how much bandwidth they use, and consumers who may only use their computers to send e-mail and play Solitaire get to foot the bill." That's a flat out lie. Google pays tremendously large bandwidth bills, and the more they use the more they pay. However, if McCurry is going to pretend Google "never [has] to pay a dime no matter how much bandwidth they use," let's see him put up or shut up. If McCurry really believes that, will he agree to pay Google's bandwidth bills for the rest of this year? We're sure Google would have no problem having McCurry contribute -- but we doubt he can actually afford their bandwidth bill. Still, if he's so concerned about his own bill from playing Solitaire, we're also quite sure that Google would simply trade him. So, come on, Mike, why won't you trade bandwidth bills with Google? According to you, you wouldn't have to pay a dime...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Mike (profile), 1 Aug 2006 @ 11:08pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's not actually a li

    Look, Mike, when you try to make this debate all about who's telling the most lies, you're essentially trying to legislate on the basis of moral virtue instead of the actual issues.

    No. I'm not saying to legislate based on moral virtue. I haven't tried to focus on one side telling more lies than the other. I've made it clear that both sides have told lies, and I've called out both sides for those lies. It has nothing to do with moral virtue.

    All I'm asking for is an honest debate -- because that's HOW YOU GET TO THE ACTUAL ISSUES. So far, the entire debate has been about obscuring the issue. For you to suggest that having both sides lie is the best way to get at the actual issue is so ridiculous it pretty much leaves me speechless.

    Your argument seems to be it's ok to lie as long as you're on the side that's right.

    I really don't know what to say about that. To me, if you are right, you should be able to support your position honestly. It may be the "code" of Washington, but it need not be. Yeah, so it's idealistic, but it's important.

    You, apparently, have no problem with lies that support your viewpoint. That's one way to go through life, but it's not the path I've chosen. It certainly makes me question anything you say -- knowing that you have no problem lying to support your position. Why should anyone ever trust you again? If you can't convince people based on the actual facts, rather than distorted truths and outright lies, then perhaps the problem is with you.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.