HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.
HideTechdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

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. identicon
    Brad Eleven, 1 Aug 2006 @ 8:35am

    Re: Campaign Finance Reform

    You have the right idea, but what in the world does Wal-Mart's corporate policy have to do with CFR??? Perhaps WM is clean internally, but... do you suppose that the largest corporation in the world might possibly be involved with corruption?

    In foreign countries, they've got to be handing over the cash. Here in the US, it'd be a small army of resources supporting the maximum number of lobbyists. Remember that flap when Maryland tried to make WM pay for the health care costs that WM's employment policies foist onto the state? How about locking illegal aliens in the store overnight? I think WM paid a fine that amounted to less than one hour of revenue in that state.

    So you've clouded the issue by lauding Wal-Mart. Don't you get it? Campaign reform has to start by addressing undue corporate influence.

    IMHO, it's all about the responsibilities that back up rights like free speech. Like the rest of us Mike McCurry has the right to express his opinion--but is he being responsible? I don't think for a second that this is something that can be legislated.

    OTOH, corporate responsibility seems measurable. I think that corporations do not get to claim the same right to representation as citizens have--until they conform, at least, to the same rules that citizens must.

    I mean, isn't it obvious how little corporate interests share with the interests of any but the wealthiest citizens?

    I'm not intending to hate on Wal-Mart and other gigantic corporations. I want for their interests to be balanced with ours.

    Of course, I'm answering a post which was clearly written by a fan of Wal-Mart. Let's presume that corporations might require some level of citizen support before they can lobby. Surely an outfit of Wal-Mart's depth and breadth could get really good at swaying our opinion. Better than they already are, anyway; they've already got most of us convinced that the lowest price is the best price.

    Think about it. Is it really OK that the larger, stronger, wealthier get their way? Or are you just putting up with it because you're too busy/worried/resigned/distracted to do anything about it?

    Now that you have some sense of what actually benefits large corporations--whether through willful manipulation or passively satisifed observation--consider how these same self-defeating viewpoints benefit the state and its media outlets.

    Turn on the TV. Find some good news. Go ahead, take your time. Get back to me when you find some. In the mean time, keep tolerating your life.

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
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

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