Paul Kapustka's Blog

There's lots to worry about with this article, especially with the author, Christopher Stern, who is an analyst with a big financial-investors advice outfit. I'm guessing all the company's work is above reproach, but in this age of people with hidden agendas, it'd be great to have some more transparency into the writer's conflicts, or lack thereof.

There are two more aspects of the article that I find worrisome, especially since it is likely to be widely read given the Washington Post's wide reach; the first is the condescending tone shown by this snippet:

But lately the issue, a matter of heated debate on obscure blogs and among analysts like me, has begun to attract the attention of the mainstream press.

Jeff and Om also had problems with this line. It's an unnecessary smarter-than-thou attitude, one that insults the large group of people already thinking, writing about and discussing the issue.

And then there is a problem when Stern starts trying to talk about networking -- with this snippet:

Whether or not you agree with Whitacre, you can understand his frustration. Companies like Google and Yahoo pay some fees to connect to their servers to the Internet, but AT&T will collect little if any additional revenue when Yahoo starts offering new features that take up lots of bandwidth on the Internet. When Yahoo's millions of customers download huge blocks of video or play complex video games, AT&T ends up carrying that increased digital traffic without additional financial compensation.

Doc Searls and some friends have already started to pick this one apart. It's just sad that between the writer -- who according to his bio has both journalism and telecom experience -- and the WaPo editors, this was the best they could do.

With your help, forums like this one will attempt to clarify, educate, enlighten and expose all the info you need to know. And yes, perhaps entertain along the way.