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 @ 6:56pm

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

    I'm spouting telco talking points? Really? If by "talking point" you mean "inconvenient fact",

    Which inconvenient facts are you talking about? Because so far you've said a lot of stuff that is hardly factual.

    That's a total non sequitur.

    It's not a non sequitur at all. It's highly relevant.

    How much bandwidth do you have to add to a link in order to ensure that low-volume VoIP always gets low latency?

    Yes, QoS and bandwidth are two different things and have two different impacts -- but if it's congestion that's causing the latency problem, much of it can be solved with bandwidth.

    Besides, I wasn't referring to Gary Bachula's statements, which I actually hadn't read before. There are others out there who have noted the same thing -- so it's more than "one" data point. You have to admit that there are plenty of folks who have just as much experience as you in the space who support the other side.

    Telco supporters claim that there's no evidence of a problem with telcos degrading traffic -- but the same thing is true on the reverse side. There's no real evidence yet that congestion is a real problem (and the Brix study doesn't count) yet.

    It just so happens that on this issue the telcos are right and Google and the Lefty Blogs and the scare groups are wrong. Deal with it.

    We're hardly a "lefty blog" and we don't even support Google's position... yet, when you resort to insults like that, it weakens your argument as well. Debate on the facts, not cheap insults. If you have to resort to insults, it makes me wonder if you actually have an argument.

    And, if the telcos are so right, why are they lying so much?

    The fact is both sides are being misleading in this debate, and the telcos have a much longer history of not even being close to trustworthy on issues like this. Why should we believe them now when almost every point they make is so easily refuted?

    My issue isn't with net neutrality, which is a red herring, but the lack of competition -- which is definitely due to telco moves and the support of the FCC to kill off competition. If there were real competition, we wouldn't be having this debate. Instead, the competitive nature of the market would create solutions -- and I'd be willing to bet a lot of it would include more bandwidth, rather than tiers.

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: Techdirt Logo Gear
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.