Comments on: Google lashes out at critic over 'payola punditry'

D.C. lobbyist Scott Cleland is paid by AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others to assail Google, which he does on a daily basis. Now his adversary is fighting back--at least a little.

[dave75]

...and Google's not earning money by 'solving people's problems?' Poor Google. My heart bleeds for you...

[eltoro2827]

good....bout time the lashing comes out against google.

[gerrrg]

Cleland comes off like an idiot, a high-priced idiot.

Their research suggests that Youtube will capture nearly 88% of the video-to-pc market and 44% of the video-to-tv by 2010. I can apply the same linear logic to suggest that by the middle of next year, the DJI will be at 0. That's how stupid Cleland is.

Oh yeah, and they tried to turn the highway usage-tax on its head, by arguing that heavy users (trucks/cargo) get taxed more. Except of course, they forget that the tax is passed down to the consumer through higher prices (did Cleland forget all those fuel surcharges this summer).

But you know, advocates will simply use quotes from his study - as proof - of an unfair world without congestion pricing. As it is, broadband providers already have congestion pricing by way of different pricing for different speeds and limits.

The question is, does the broadband company have the right to slow down CERTAIN traffic? Do the rich get to have their cake and eat it too?

[gerrrg]

The Worst Study in the World.

Their research suggests that Youtube will capture nearly 88% of the video-to-pc market and 44% of the video-to-tv by 2010. I can apply the same linear logic to suggest that by the middle of next year, the DJI will be at 0. That's how Cleland works.

Oh yeah, and they tried to turn the highway usage-tax on its head, by arguing that heavy users (trucks/cargo) get taxed more. Except of course, they forget that the tax is passed down to the consumer through higher prices (did Cleland forget all those fuel surcharges this summer).

But you know, advocates will simply use quotes from his study - as proof - of an unfair world without congestion pricing. As it is, broadband providers already have congestion pricing by way of different pricing for different speeds and limits.

The question is, does the broadband company have the right to slow down CERTAIN traffic? Do the rich get to have their cake and eat it too?

[bj1126]

If they aren't paying their fair share then charge them more for their bandwidth!

It's not the content providers fault that ISPs refuse to take a practical approach to their bandwidth pricing.

[fusillijerry]

Google pays for hosting and bandwidth like everyone else. The providers just need to keep their traps shut because they each have CUSTOMERS who pay INDIVIDUALLY for bandwidth consumed (for google.com and everything else), while Google pays its providers for hosting content and throughput associated with it. Their ad network and JS tracking scripts are placed on CUSTOMERS' sites (wherever they are hosted) and the cycle continues from the consumer side.

Google has come up with businesses that allow it to proliferate on the Internet, while getting customers to pony up their own hosting to participate in Google technology. Good for them. Screw the huge communications companies who have sour grapes because they own the networks and never were able to leverage in a similar way.

[websterphreaky]

Funny that a company in Silly-cone Valley should complain about 'payola punditry' when companies like Apple are FAMOUS for THEIR Media paid-off ****** (like Walt Mossberb, Leo Laporte, etc.) that strike a perfect review for Apple with a simple call from Apple PR and some free goodies like a new MacBook, iPhone, iPud, etc.

Think this is called HYPOCRACY when Google doesn't raise ire over those occasions!

[ddesy]

Typical MSFT lover... brings Apple up when there is nothing about Apple going on.

Plus why can't people love Apple products? Is there some unwritten law?

[JonahBek]

First of all, Leo Laporte is very clear about not taking freebies from tech companies. He has integrity which is clearly above yours. Secondly the issue this post is talking about is that the providers are getting paid for the bandwidth Google is using. The consumer pays for bandwidth they use to get to Google as well. That almost sounds like double dipping for the providers. If they feel that they're not getting enough for their service they can always raise their rates, though that could lead to google or consumers switching to other service providers. Complaining about google seems more about a jealousy of success rather than a cost issue. It could also be that because of companies like Google and Apple and Microsoft there is more demand on the network. It is pretty well known that the providers are not able to provide the promised bandwidth to all of it's consumers if they all took full advantage of it. Then the fact that google is encouraging usage means that the providers are getting pinched more and more but that's mostly of their own making.

[ittesi259]

When you can spell, then I'll listen.

[Gorgeclimber1]

While I can't speak about Comcast, my experience over a 40+ year period with AT&T and Verizon's current and previous corporations is that they have been fleecing the ratepayers for years. They should pay more than Google. At least Google has been providing quality services at reasonable costs for the time they have been in business.

[gordonshan]

@ websterphreaky
leo la porte and mossberg (spell it right webster!) are NOT paid-off. you must have listened or read much of what they have written or podcast. Your rant of slander barely touched on the issue.
I completely agree with Google's argument & I guess you do too

[Understarsidream]

Why is anyone surprised that one company or group of companies pay people to lie for them?

[Rants&Raves]

That's like saying that Toyota owes the US Government money because its cars are used more often on the roads than any other. Toyotas get driven because people want them. The same with Google. People pay for their bandwidth, and they'd rather use what they pay for to reach Google destinations. That some telecom companies see this as an opportunity to squeeze the guys offering the best product and service is just greed, nothing else; it's a syndicate ganging up to steal without offering anything in return.

People are buying their bandwidth from some companies; the companies have already been paid for providing the bits both ways. Why don't they just shut up and be the dumb pipes we all want them to be.

[loose_screw]

My heart bleeds for the telecommunications companies...NOT. My "bundled" cable bill is over $150/mo, and most people I know with iphones are paying over $100/month for their wireless plan alone!

I have yet to hear about the cell phone companies (other than Sprint, who f'd up with their lack of "cool" phones) or cable companies shedding employees. Let's see their financial books and dig a little deeper here to see if they're really losing money thanks to Google (and their customers who use YouTube). Somehow, I don't think so with crap like the bandwidth caps...

[taylorheilers]

AT&T yesterday announced that they were laying out about 12,000 employees.

[loose_screw]

taylorhellers: none of those employees were from AT&T Wireless. They were from the landline/other divisions.

[SnowCrash8]

It's simple, the cable companies are seeing a shift away from traditional broadcast over their cabling to either streamed or download/stored content, and they want a piece of this action. They do not want to be dumb pipes. Look at the lengths they (and the NAB) have gone to to prevent the FCC from opening up wireless white space open to all.

The cell providers are no better. They grossly overcharge for their monthly plans, and price gouge on text messaging.

The U.S. needs many connectivity providers, and if properly managed there is more than enough bandwidth to go around--cheaply!

[mpitogo]

Telecom companies are just looking out for the almighty dollar. Look at the top 10 list of fastest residential broadband, US is not on that list. If the telecoms don't want to be in the business of providing bandwidth to their customers for legitimate traffic, streaming video, DL moves and such they should just move on and have someone else run with it. Their ILEC monopoly is what killed the CLEC competition in residential business.

[HighwayHome]

Do you really expect a company (AT&T) who spies on its own customers to have any redeemable value?

[ddesy]

Cleland is yet another mouthpiece for those companies that don't want people and companies to be able to use what they already pay for. When a service is offered, it should be what it claims to be and nothing less.

[Scott Spinucci]

Why isn't anyone talking about the Patent Bill before Congress? The Coalition for Patent Fairness HP, Micron and the rest of the Tech Heavyweights) employs the same tactics. I've been assailed by so-called journalists/bloggers that they undoubtedly employ in one form or another. And same is true, these guys are really no that bright but will do anything, say anything for a buck. It's Shameful. I mean their ought to be disclaimers on all Blogsites - Paid or unpaid and if paid who is funding their efforts. I mean who has time to Blog if you are not getting paid for it? I know very few people who do it for the fun of it. This is just another tactic used in the ongoing PR battle - I guess in any fight. Trouble is: most folks don't realize that most of these bloggers are paid.

[FlappingCrane]

It's fun to make stuff up and phrase it as factual, huh? Just speak in generalities and don't back anything up with data. There ought to be disclaimers on comment boards, too.

[NWLB]

The Telecoms ought to pay Google for giving people a reason to buy their overpriced and stunted service.

[rapier1]

Whatever. This guy is a hired gun and doing what he's paid to do. Google is attempting to make it look shady and somehow illegal. Lobbyists lobby. They do it on behalf of whoever pays them the most money. If this guy is a real thorn in their side they should just hire him as their lobbyist. Whining about it just looks petty.

[catbutt5]

Hmmm... you clearly don't understand the issue at hand.

Let me give you an example I'm sure YOU'LL understand:

Umm, your ex-girlfriend just paid me $1,000 to tell everyone you're gay. Not only that, she gave me your picture and has me posting it and your phone number on every 'hot gay sex' forum on the internet.
Of course by your logic, I'm doing nothing wrong since I'm getting paid. I'm just lobbying right?
Since I'm a ***** for money and don't care about you at all either way, it's O.K. and if you don't like it... you can pay me $10,000 and I'll stop -- or will I? After all, the money's good and I'm in it for the money - not ethics or morals or conscience.

Google pays for every last bit of bandwidth they use as do I the consumer. It's not possible for it to work any other way. Attempts to portray that simple concept in any other light can never succeed.

[zeroplane]

Well, I am no Google fan but I am also certainly not a fanboy for any of the telecommunications dinosaurs that exist now.

What this sounds like to me is "waaahhhh Google is more popular than us! Waaaahhh! Just because Google works as in the lunch room and provides classmates with tasty, cheesy, macaroni and cheese at lunch. It somehow makes Google more popular, wwwaaaaaah than me. Why Google wouldn't even get to serve tasty macaroni and cheese for lunch if it weren't for my friends and me hauling the boxes from the delivery truck into the lunch room, wwwaaahhh, ****'n whine!

Google gets all the credit and is so popular, look at their stock (looks at his stock) wwwaahhhh, wwwhhine. I have spent a lot of money on weights, running shoes, and bribing delivery drivers. What has Google done? Google is totally getting popular off of my effort!