Paul Kapustka's Blog

In a conference call this morning with reporters, proponents of network neutrality are finally coalescing behind this idea, and it's a powerful one: The battle is not (as the telcos want you to believe) between them and the Googles of the world, but between telcos and customers -- with customers the ones who will have to pay the freight for the telcos' new shiny networks.

Why? Even I can figure this one out. If the phone companies are allowed to charge for tiered Internet services -- much like how cable companies charge for channel plans -- their "partners" in the deals (for video, music, gaming, whatever) are most likely NOT going to "share the costs." On the contrary: just like cable, the telcos are going to have to PAY EXTRA to host specialized content. Just like cablecos pay ESPN a few bucks per customer, so will phone companies have to pay for their content. And who will pay the vig? That's right, you and me.

In a mildly interesting "debate" on the topic online today at the Wall Street Journal, Craig Newmark and Mike McCurry trade jabs. While neither lands anything that even rates on the smackdown meter, there was one snippet from McCurry that bears repeating, since it seems to be another emerging telco "talking point." That somehow, if I'm using a lot of bandwidth, I'm using up resources at the expense of my neighbors, or McCurry's mom. To wit:

The Internet needs investment. That investment will be spread across the market and the big companies that provide content will help pay the cost and work that cost into their business models. Or the consumer will get stuck with the entire bill. And my mom who uses the Internet to email and read news will have to subsidize the guy down the street who wants to stream HDTV movies 10 times a day.

The first part of this quote doesn't wash with existing business models; the last part is just plain funny -- like somehow there's a limited resource and we all have to share it, even though we're being lured with advertisements that promise "Your world. delivered." (I guess I should go and check my service agreement with Comcast to make sure that I'm not downloading HD movies while Mike's mom wants to send email!)

For its part, Google will keep spending upon the millions it already invests in backbone infrastructure to ensure that its services work well over the regular Internet.

"It (the network neutrality debate) is not about big companies -- we'll do just fine," said Alan Davidson, Google's top D.C. lawyer. Consumers, however, should start to see the light and see that net neutrality regulation needs their support, he said. Or else, they'll find out that the only part of McCurry's argument that rings true is the line "or the consumer will get stuck with the entire bill."

(Nice to see from the Journal that they are calling McCurry's organization what it is -- "a phone industry group" -- instead of buying into any phony grassroots idea. Good to see that the astroturf strategy is turning out to be another expensive telco mistake.)