Of course this is utter BS. But lest we forget: the Wifi AP will be on 7/24, while the typical consumer micro will only be in use 30 mins per day, perhaps 5 days/week.
Note: I'm not defending the nutty guy who alleges he's allergic to 2.4GHz from wifi, just saying the counterarguments should be watertight, and comparisons to consumer micros aren't inherently watertight. (And yes that is a pun, for those of you paying attention to why 2.4GHz works.)

Few tropes are as tired and tiresome as Edison's claims, such as 'I haven't failed; I've found 10,000 ways that don't work.'

Back then, Edison could (and did) hire hundreds of engineers, have them grind through the experiments, and then claim their inventions as his own. It was then legal for a single powerful executive to claim all patents as his own, even when he'd done none of the work. (Now, they just get to claim they're co-inventors.)

Switzerland is an extraordinary example of the challenges.
Its economy, to a larger degree than any other country, depends on money laundering. So, the freedoms of the Swiss are propped up by the suffering of the populaces of countries whose dictators or corrupt magnates need to stash their ill-gotten gains somewhere safe. (Nazi theft of Jewish wealth all went to Swiss banks, for example.)

But the logic you use seems to imply a long life for the asset. In fact, Internet gear gets used up so quickly (as bandwidth demand rises) that in fact it typically has a life-in-place of two or three years. So, while it's charming to assert that the variable costs are low, it's also irrelevant.

Put it another way. To build an infrastructure that serves several million households and businesses will cost several billions of dollars. To make that network still useful in, say, three years' time, the operator has to again spend billions of dollars.

So the most useful way to compute the effective variable cost is NOT to assert "it's low" but to actually divide the entire cost by the traffic throughput (current peak offered load). A few years' back, doing the calculation this way suggests a variable cost for transmitting a DVD-quality movie to be about $2, and for transmitting an MP3 song about $0.05. I am sure these estimates are off now, perhaps by a factor of 10. But not by a factor of 100.

Also: the Comcast figures are obviously nonsense. If the variable cost to CMCSA was so low, they'd have deployed it everywhere. In fact, the figure the Comcast guy cites is the cost to upgrade the shared headend. Unfortunately, they also have to upgrade the taps ($100 plus labor) and the in-home terminal ($100 plus labor). Often, also the coax into the home needs to be replaced. And the hub near the home.

While Google is protesting Microsoft's de facto monopoly of desktop client software, it is working hard to create a de jure and de facto monopoly for itself in an important area of content. In the proposed settlement, Google is the ONLY legal site for ALL [in copyright but out of print] printed content.

How is this a good thing?

Apologies for the cowardly anonymity, not my normal style, but there's plenty to worry about here.

1. I don't believe he's an Intel drone. He's never hidden his GeekCorps credentials. He's simply passionate about the subject of laptops for kids in the developing world - which is what GeekCorps, and OLPC (and, perhaps, even the Classmate) are about.
2. The attacks today belong also in the category of mischief. He's actually getting married today. (No, I wasn't invited, and I'm not miffed. As mentioned: I've never met the man.) But, give the boy a break: kick him when he's in a position to defend himself.
3. OLPCNews, on more than one occasion, has printed drivel. It's made mistakes. It has criticized OLPC both when it needed criticism, and when - frankly - Wayan or other writers simply didn't understand what they were talking about.

But calling OLPCNews an Intel flack is nothing more than playground name-calling. Stop it children! Go back to your rooms.