Also, regarding the “ISPs’ concerns about who is paying for their networks”…I’m fairly certain the ISPs owe tax payers around $200 billion worth of undelivered networks. I’ll happily pay for my 100+ gigabyte usage/month from my share of that pot.

You’re right that American consumers hate the uncertainty. To them, that’s a cost — and it’s a cost that makes them hesitant to figure out how useful the connectivity really is.

The $50/MB may be an exaggeration, but the point still stands, that they could use this as a way of breaking network neutrality from a different direction (and to MikeT above, this article is about charging consumers, not about charging Google).

Finally, your anecdotal point about how you happen to have choice is a good sign — but the majority of Americans don’t yet have that much choice in broadband access. I am hoping we get there, but for most people there is only one or two choices — and there’s monopoly pricing to prove it.

I am very hopeful that wireless technologies will eventually help break the logjam, but it won’t happen for a while. The technology just isn’t that good and the spectrum just isn’t that available.

So, yes, for the time being, for many of us, we face a monopoly or a duopoly — and it’s a big problem.

They’re talking about charging Google, not their users. Google, pay $0.001/mb or we’ll cut your bandwidth on our network down. You’re also assuming something which has no signs of materializing. What makes you think that in a market with only 2-3 broadband providers in any given area that they’ll not all play by the same rules? If there are no real choices in that one area, that all 3 benefit from, then customers cannot get what they want. Maybe one of them would do it as a differentiator, but I doubt it. They’re just too short-sighted.

As I said on my blog, this is about preventing fraud, not property rights. Google’s not screwing anyone. They pay for their bandwidth and I pay for mine. Who the hell is the telecom to get between us when ultimately one of us pays them? I pay them to access Google, thus what is their complaint? Google pays their telecom for the ability to provide a service. If they don’t like the fees, then change them.

They’re talking about charging Google, not their users. Google, pay $0.001/mb or we’ll cut your bandwidth on our network down. You’re also assuming something which has no signs of materializing. What makes you think that in a market with only 2-3 broadband providers in any given area that they’ll not all play by the same rules? If there are no real choices in that one area, that all 3 benefit from, then customers cannot get what they want. Maybe one of them would do it as a differentiator, but I doubt it. They’re just too short-sighted.

As I said on my blog, this is about preventing fraud, not property rights. Google’s not screwing anyone. They pay for their bandwidth and I pay for mine. Who the hell is the telecom to get between us when ultimately one of us pays them? I pay them to access Google, thus what is their complaint? Google pays their telecom for the ability to provide a service. If they don’t like the fees, then change them.