CNET’s Declan McCullagh rounds up the sordid saga of Scott Cleland, a Washington twerp who is paid by communications companies like AT&T to criticize Google as an anti-Net Neutrality smugtank called NetCompetition.org:
Cleland’s anti-Net neutrality group, NetCompetition.org, is paid by telecommunications and cable companies to be a full-time, 24-7 Google critic. Some examples of Cleland-isms: “Google steals,” it connives in a “modern-day Machiavellian plot,” and its executives dress funny.Google has generally let those fusillades–and those creative astroturfing efforts organized against it–pass without much public comment. But Cleland’s latest article prompted Richard Whitt, Google’s Washington telecom counsel, to respond.
On the company’s blog, Whitt lashed out at what he called Cleland’s “payola punditry.” He said: “We don’t fault Mr. Cleland for trying to do his job. But it’s unfortunate that the phone and cable companies funding his work would rather launch poorly researched broadsides than help solve consumers’ problems.”
Google lashes out at D.C. critic over ‘payola punditry’ [CNET News]
Image: ptufts
All because the oligopoly of telecoms (obtained through universal service mandates) steadfastly refuses to invest in infrastructure.
Real telecom competition would likely provide 100Mbps symmetric fiber optic links per residence for about $15/month in dense population regions (i.e. cities and surrounding suburbs).
Telecoms even bribe their way against local municipalities floating bonds for local fiber loops to improve their infrastructure (the same way roads, water, sewer infrastructure are afforded).
Overprovisioning (i.e. neutrality) is still the most cost effective way to increase throughput. What we need are bigger “tubes” to match increasing demand.
Ouch, that is a pretty good retort, too.
The Economist recently published a meandering article about Net Neutrality, the so-called “exabyte flood”, and eventually getting to some kind of point about how the last mile needs to be upgraded to fibre because, while telecoms may not like coping with the economic realities of increasing demand, the economic realities of possibly decreasing demand are far far more dire.