[173539] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Palmer)
Sun Jul 27 22:34:18 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:34:08 +1000
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <53D59918.90402@bennett.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 05:28:08PM -0700, Richard Bennett wrote:
> It's more plausible that NAACP and LULAC have correctly deduced that
> net neutrality is a de facto subsidy program that transfers money
> from the pockets of the poor and disadvantaged into the pockets of
> super-heavy Internet users and some of the richest and most
> profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line
> retailers, and advertising networks.
I've got to say, this is the first time I've heard Verizon and Comcast
described as "poor and disadvantaged".
> Recall what happened to entry-level broadband plans in Chile when
> that nation's net neutrality law was just applied: the ISPs who
> provided free broadband starter plans that allowed access to
> Facebook and Wikipedia were required to charge the poor:
[...]
> Internet Freedom? Not so much.
I totally agree. You can't have Internet Freedom when some of the richest
and most profitable companies in America, the content resellers, on-line
retailers, and advertising networks, are paying to have eyeballs locked into
their services. Far better that users be given an opportunity to browse the
Internet free of restriction, by providing reasonable cost services through
robust and healthy competition.
Or is that perhaps not what you meant?
- Matt
