Sounds like Expedia, Nextag, and Yelp need to create their own version of “Mad Men.” According to The Wall Street Journal, the companies will be on Capitol Hill today ganging up on Google, and making their case that the Internet’s biggest search engine unfairly diverts search engine consumers to its online properties while forcing Expedia, Nextag, and Yelp below the consumers eyeball levels.

Sometimes I believe these companies are so locked into “the cloud” that they are oblivious to the rest of their environment. Rather than seeking out innovative methods of competing, the allegedly sophisticated companies would rather have the government intervene thus making a competitive market look more like a regulated utility industry.

Forcing a middleman like Google to behave the way you want them to is a waste, and I don’t see how government intervention is going to aid competition. Competitors are not guaranteed survival.

Rather than look at Google primarily like a competitor, these companies, and the government, should look at Google like Whole Foods. If you want a higher eyeball level, pay a higher shelf fee.

In addition, whatever happened to going directly to the consumer. If Expedia, Nextag, and Yelp value their services that much, maybe it’s time for them to do some more old fashioned face time with the hotels and airlines.

Looks like the net neutrality posse thinks it has a Trojan horse it can use to penetrate the walls of Troy. According to an article in The New York Times, Level 3 Communications is whining about recurring fees it is being “forced” to pay to Comcast for delivering traffic from Netflix.

Netflix, known for delivering DVDs of your favorite movies to your home for cheap, is also in the streaming movie business. Because of its emerging business model, Netflix considers itself a competitor of Comcast’s on demand video delivery service.

Now, the last time I checked, Level 3 Communications was also a telecommunications company. Level 3 enters into interconnection agreements with other communications companies for the delivery of traffic. Given the other portion of its business model, ie., delivering media traffic, audio/video feeds, dedicated Internet access, Level 3 has to interconnect with other networks to bring its clients like Netflix any value. Level 3 also provides long distance and local service and as such it also receives interconnection fees from the termination of traffic on its network.

The other irony is that Public Knowledge has jumped into the fray, describing this incident as another example for why we need net neutrality. Public Knowledge can’t have it both ways. If the network neutrality posse wants the broadband Internet access ecosystem regulated under Title II, it means that there will be recurring fees for inter carrier compensation. As demand for video streaming increases, the cost for congestion caused by these services will be recovered in these fees and these fees will increase.

Level 3 knows this. Netflix knows this. So why is Level 3 whining? Well, have you seen their stock prices lately? They are practically a penny stock and definitely not the darling of the street. Level 3’s return on equity is -257%. Its return on assets is -0.90. Earnings per share is also negative, at -$0.46. In Street parlance, the company is a dog. The last thing they need are increased costs that may lead to further questioning of their company’s value.

So, rather than hide behind the bogus net neutrality argument, maybe Level 3 needs to focus more on operating efficiently and getting that bogus stock price up. Time to find a new Trojan horse because this dog don’t hunt.

You pull up to the Chicago Hilton off of Balboa Drive after a grueling 12-hour drive. All you can think about is getting something to eat and some sleep. You go to the check-in desk and ask about the rates for a two-room suite and are quoted a rate of $250 per night. Upon hearing the quote you become indignant because you believe that you should pay a one-star hotel room rate for a five-star hotel room.

The check-in clerk explains that given the amenities of the room, the space it has, and the view, a rate of $250 is the market rate. You believe, however, that you have a right to the room at the lower rate because, after all, your need to sleep is just as important as Paris Hilton’s.

This is basically the argument that proponents of net neutrality have been raising. Content providers have a civil right to have their traffic treated equally by broadband access providers. A bit is a bit is a bit, they would argue.

Shouting the phrase “civil rights” from the rafters as a rallying cry is designed to invoke fear and guilt versus reason. Shouting civil rights is like giving libation with the expectations that upon channeling the spirits of Martin and Malcolm, anything in opposition to net neutrality will attract an evil taint and be thrown in the back of the bus where it belongs.

I never met Dr. King, but from what I know of him, he would have wanted us to approach this debate with reserve and reason. Reason requires that we properly clarify and define civil rights less we prefer stoke the flames of the Watts riots all over again.

The purpose of civil rights laws is to deter government and its agents from using their authority to deprive individuals of their federally guaranteed rights. Last time I checked, broadband access providers were not agents of the federal government. Broadband access providers, as much as the Federal Communications Commission would like them to be, are not even common carriers, like hotels or trains are. Congress wanted to provide for civil remedies where state action resulted in the violation of constitutional rights.

So, if government, federal, state, or local, ordered or allowed discrimination by broadband access providers against content providers, that would be a civil rights violation. If government provided broadband service directly but only allowed certain content providers to use it, then you would have a civil rights violation. If broadband access providers were common carriers (which they are not) and denied you access to service, then you would have a civil rights violation. None of these scenarios exist.

Envisioning a world that could be under universal broadband access does not create a constitutional right. Net neutrality, however, may be the very source of civil rights violations that net neutrality proponents allegedly want us to avoid.

Establishing a rule where a broadband access provider is required to disclose network management information to the public, I would argue, violates that provider’s free speech. Corporations, much to the chagrin of the far left, do have the limited constitutional right of free speech. It would be ironic that we would trample on the existing constitutional rights of broadband access providers in order to protect a civil right for content providers that does not exist.

I did pretty well in philosophy but even that question of existentialism is a bit much for me to wrap my head around.

Dr. King preached a message of tolerance and equality but even he, after a long night on the road marching for our civil rights, would have found it a bit unconscionable to pay one-star room rates for a five-star room.

There is an old saying: too many hands in the kitchen messes up the soup, or something like that. The danger of having too many cooks in the kitchen is that the public may deem the output as straight up rancid. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia was very clear that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) needs congressional authority to reclassify broadband access as telecommunications.

The court also made it clear in its ruling in Comcast v. FCC that the FCC needs to show changes in how broadband is delivered and perceived by the consumer before any treatment of broadband as telecommunications can past muster.

I don’t think that FCC Chairman Genachowski should be in the room at all. This is a market issue that only Congress can address. Let content providers and broadband providers share their proposed language and maybe allow the Federal Trade Commission, the nation’s premier consumer protection agency, to weigh in. If this is truly a market failure issue, which I personally believe it is not, then allow the FTC to show up and speak to the consumer welfare issue.

All Mr. Genachowski needs to do at this point is to stay any current FCC proceedings on net neutrality and allow the Congress time to consider any legislation. Now that approach smells like mom’s home cooking.