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 @ 5:12pm

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

    OK, off the top of my head:

    Well, first off, a bunch of those aren't lies... but, anyway...

    OK, right back off the top of my head (remember, you said for every ONE telco lie, there were TEN from the other side.

    Lie #1. "A new law pending in Congress gives control of the Internet to the telcos."

    Telco lie: "Adding net neutrality regulation would be the end of the internet as we know it."

    Lie #2: "The Internet has always been regulated"

    Telco lie: "We're against regulation, as it's bad for 'the market'." (even though they're for all sorts of regulations that give them subsidies and retain their monopoly position).

    Lie #3: "Network neutrality is fundamental to the architecture of the Internet."

    Telco lie: "Network neutrality legislation would add something new that's never been there before." (common carrier rules be damned...)

    Lie #4: "We're grass-roots, they're astroturf"

    Telco lie: "Ditto" (both sides have used this crap).

    Lie #5: "Google has never given any money to Moveon.org"

    Telco lie: "Mike McCurry's position has nothing to do with who's funding him."

    Lie #6: "Google doesn't want a free ride."

    Telco lie: "Google just wants a free ride."

    Lie #7: "Common carrier regulations enabled the Internet to flourish."

    Telco lie: "Regulations forced carriers to lease their lines at a loss."

    Lie #8: "The last mile has always been governed by common carrier law"

    Telco lie: "There's plenty of competition in the last mile."

    Lie #9: "Ted Stevens doesn't understand the Internet."

    Telco lie: "We would never degrade or block service for a competing service."

    Lie #10: "Google speaks for the consumer."

    Telco lie: "Without a guarantee of profit, we'd never build new networks."

    How's that?

    You tell me. Both sides lie. I'm sure I could match you point for point (and remember, I don't agree with the side that's pushing for regulations).

    Richard, I don't mean any disrespect, given your expertise in this area. But, it really disappoints me to see you spouting telco talking points rather than looking at this issue from a realistic standpoint.

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
Special Affiliate Offer

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.