1) Crappy Vonage or Skype for $20
2) Telco VoIP for $30
3) Good Vonage or Skype for $40.

And your non-priority web surfing is the same in all configurations. They used to do something similar with independent ISPs, where you could use the Telco for your ISP with DSL for $40/mo or an independent ISP with DSL for $55/mo.

It seems to me that this is a pretty reasonable thing to do, and while I may not have chose to offer this kind of service for these prices myself, I figure that Qwest should be able to do it, especially if it encourages them to wire more houses for DSL.

Now the interesting thing about using the Internet is that it’s all transactional. I go to Google and that creates a transaction between the two of us. Now let’s say I have the low-cost plain vanilla Internet service, but the Telco has a deal whereby web-based services can pay a fee to the Telco to bump-up my performance in transactions with them, effectively subsidizing my Google experience. Under the Telco plan, as I understand it, they should be able to do that, and why not? The whole damn Google business is subsidized by ads as it is, so nobody can claim Google is opposed to bundling and subsidies in principle.

So that’s the essence of the debate: is the sauce for the Google good for the Telco? Should broadband access providers have flexibility in service bundles? Should Google be able to subsidize the link that they stuff their ads down?

It seems to me that these are all reasonable avenues to explore, given the uncertainty in the broadband business today and the high cost of infrastructure.

And the reason Google and MS don’t build their own network is that it’s cheaper for them to hitch a free ride on one that’s essentially paid for by POTS, but Google is planning to deploy some Muni WiFi that’s subsidized by advertising. Just don’t let a Telco do that, of course.

True, the issue arises though with transfer across the differet network fabrics, and how many “many” actually is.

Re: Google and Microsoft, can’t they just buy their own damned network?

I suppose the Telcos want to provide mechanisms on the ATM ring and the peering system to make their VoIP outperform Google’s and Skypes, and given the history of peering arrangements it seems to me that they can and should do so.

The Telcos have a responsibility to their shareholders to invest wisely in infrastructure, and if Google and Microsoft want to use their political muscle to make these investments unwise and unprofitable they simply won’t happen.

WMM with admission control is a bad example- which you’re probably aware of, and mean ironically. After all, being that it’s in an unlicensed band, you’ll always get what you pay for, and can not really stop the interfering networks, especially when they’re outfitted with certain products from evil companies that begin with the letter “B.”

On cable, DSL, and dedicated spectrum, however, the point is well taken, again, provided that the implied warranty of operability is not violated.

Of course, if we had multiple broadband providers in throughout country, we could just “change providers.”

There’s a simple way out of this issue which should be satisfying to all: the companies, as utilities, get no doubt copious tax breaks for infrastucture improvements; if not they ought to. It’s not difficult to scope out how to match infrastructure improvements in such a way that the better quality services are deployed without screwing the best effort folks.

My preferred solution though would be if such infrastructure improvement costs were passed on to the rate payers, that they be compensated by ownership in the company. But that’s not going to happen.

The bill isn’t in Thomas yet because it is a committee print, on deck for markup tomorrow.