Charge E-Mailers, but Keep Pipeline Open

But when some of the largest, most deeply entrenched Internet service providers in the United States alternate between griping about how other firms sponge off their bandwidth and suggesting that they'd merely give Web sites the chance to buy higher-priority access, we have a different situation.

The first idea, as articulated by Verizon's deputy general counsel, John Thorne, this week -- that a company like Google has been "enjoying a free lunch" by not paying any share of Verizon's costs -- is transparently ridiculous.

Google and all the other high-traffic sites aren't getting anything free. They pay -- heavily -- for bandwidth at their end. Google is not some unemployed slacker borrowing the neighbor's open wireless network.

Second, these mainstream Internet service providers should think about what, exactly, their customers are going online for in the first place. To use the great search engine Verizon's developed? To get directions and satellite photos using AT&T's brilliant mapping site? To buy songs at BellSouth's wildly popular music-download store?

Oh, wait: None of those things exist!

It's possible that a major Internet service provider could find itself getting squeezed on bandwidth costs. But nobody's stopping them from the simple remedy already available to them: Charge customers a higher subscription fee, or impose usage quotas like those of the DirecWay satellite service. (Either step would have an especially persuasive effect on the biggest bandwidth hogs: people downloading porn and using peer-to-peer software to grab music and movies.)

The second notion -- in which Internet service providers would charge Web sites for better delivery of their data -- may not be ridiculous per se, but it is a serious departure from the Internet's traditional openness. And it would be open to abuse without clear ground rules. But companies like Verizon and BellSouth won't answer some basic questions: Would they disclose which sites are paying these business-class fares? Would they let any site pay for better access, or only those they like?

They will gladly talk about how they want the flexibility to dream up new business models (as BellSouth and Verizon executives did during a panel discussion at a Capitol Hill conference on Wednesday). Fine. But as long as AT&T, Verizon and their ilk seem to be having so much trouble getting customers connected and keeping then contented, let's broaden this discussion of new economic models.

Here's one question to ponder: When an Internet service provider makes you wait weeks to get your DSL turned on, allows service to drop out for no apparent reason, then puts you on hold until an overworked tech-support rep dishes out incorrect advice, doesn't the customer deserve some compensation, as well?

Living with technology, or trying to? E-mail Rob Pegoraro atrob@twp.com.