Should Philips contribute to the cost of the electric grid?

There are never enough people to debunk the crap coming out of some people . Take a look at Scott Cleland 'study' for 'NetCompetition.org' (conclusion: "Google uses 21 times more internet bandwidth than it pays for"). Google itself responded very aptly, and fortunately there's always the eloquent DSLreports.com.

Google pays a lot to put its content in the cloud. Consumers pay a lot for the use of the last mile. These are two entirely different things. It is the task of ISP's to collect money from end-users for the bandwidth they 'consume'. Here lies the rub: the Internet only took off when always-on internet access was introduced for a flat fee. That's when telcos and cablecos lost their pricing power. But it just doesn't make any sense to turn to the other end of the value-chain and try to collect money from Google.

It's like saying that Philips Electronics should contribute to the cost of the electric grid, because they make so many apparatuses that use electricity.

It's the business model that's broken. Telcos and cablecos should not ask people to degrade themselves producing these crappy studies. Instead, they should try to fix their business model. A lot of consultants are out there to help them.