[119644] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Bennett)
Wed Nov 25 06:33:03 2009
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:32:02 -0800
From: Richard Bennett <richard@bennett.com>
To: William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B0D05D1.9000204@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Now you've descended from Steenbergen's hair-splitting between "on-net
routes" (the mechanism) vs. "on-net access" (the actual product) into
Simpson's straight-up lying. ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on "A Third Way on Network
Neutrality", http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63. There is not a single
ultra-conservative on the ITIF board, they're all either moderate
Democrats or moderate Republicans.
I'm letting most of this childish venting slide, but I will point out
the bald-faced lies.
RB
William Allen Simpson wrote:
> They're opposed to net neutrality, and (based on his comments and several
> of the papers) still think the Internet is some kind of bastard child
> that
> needs adult supervision in the middle -- by which they mean themselves
> /in loco parentis/.
>
> Looking at the board, it's populated by ultra-conservative wing-nut
> Republicans, and some Conservadems (as we call them in political circles,
> they call themselves "centrists") from the "New Democrat Caucus" for
> "bi-partisan" cover. And lots of lobbyists -- Federal lobbyists -- who
> seem to list their educational clients on their bio, but not whether
> they are also employed by a firm that represents other clients....
--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC
