Paul Kapustka's Blog

You just can't make this stuff up, but there it is. On the very same day that the WSJ runs a well-thought-out, no-new-info recap on the net neutrality debate (correctly pinning it to the coming video-over-IP question that we have talked about before), one of the Journal's wizened editorial types, Holman Jenkins, gets his undies in a bundle worrying about how big, powerful Microsoft and Google are going to tag-team AT&T and Verizon into submission over net neutrality by "loading up on Washington lobbyists."

(Hmm. Must have been all those former SBC lobbyists, who were replaced by the AT&T crew. Glad they found work!)

The kicker line is Jenkins' claim that net neutrality lobbyists are just pursuing billable hours:

Lobbyists keep themselves employed by seeking regulatory leverage over a company's competitive environment, and in "net neutrality" they found a slogan proven to stir up the useful idiots of the "public interest" sector. What for, exactly? Who cares. Let's get AT&T and Verizon by the short hairs now and we'll decide later.

Yeah, I'll just bet that Jim Cicconi and his legal brethren are shaking in their boots over Microsoft's and Google's ability to muster troops of lawyers. Probably as scared as the Indians were, bearing down on Custer: "there's only one of him with a pistol, and all of us thousands on horses! Quick, call the Wall Street Journal and tell them we need an editorial, pronto!"

Remember, it was not too long ago that AT&T was able to employ more lobbyists than lawmakers to ensure the fight for video franchising in Texas went their way. So, Big Ed's short hairs are probably safe for right now.

BONUS LINK: The WSJ is apparently running ANOTHER net neutrality editorial in Thursday's editions, which is already available online here. Got to be impressed at AT&T and Verizon's ability to get others to do their work for them.

(And: What does it say about the WSJ's own opinion of its opinions, when it charges beaucoup bucks to read the regular news, but the crackpot stuff is free? Of course, so is my blog, so... guess I need to "add value" by giving them a smackdown score: 1.5. Thanks for reading up on the topic, fellas. And thanks for the party-line view. And geez! With a column picture like that, should you really be talking about short hairs?)

Not much time left here to recap the Brownback/DeMint missive to their Senatorial brethren, which is predictable in most phases ("opposing the heavy hand of regulation that network neutrality represents is critical...") except for its introduction of a new idea, the one that says that somehow, the "new technologies" planned by the telcos "hold the promise of providing parents with new tools to protect their children and families as they explore online."

Wow! Net neutrality will prevent all that from happening, because, you know, there won't be any INCENTIVE TO INVEST! (sip) I'd go on, but there isn't time to laugh at all the points (including one ironic passage that accuses net neutrality proponents of using "fear and misinformation" to dupe the world. Any day now, we'll hear or read that it was Google who said "not on my pipes," and not Ed "fear my short hairs" Whitacre.

Smackdown score: 0.5. Really gents, don't your staffers have better things to do?

It should be funny, and it would be, until you start to realize the depth of resources the telcos are bringing to bear in this battle. Guess there's something to worry about, eh? And it ain't keeping your kids safe that's keeping Ed and Ivan up at night. Or Google's lawyers.

Oh, how did I get a copy of the Brownback/DeMint letter? Sent to me by Verizon's helpful PR team. They know I enjoy a good joke as well as anyone, I guess.