[173540] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Sun Jul 27 22:46:44 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20140728023408.GG14709@hezmatt.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:16:36 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I think he meant the actual poor people that broadband subsidies and free
walled garden internet to access only fb and Wikipedia are supposed to
benefit, but I could be wrong
On 28-Jul-2014 8:06 am, "Matt Palmer" <mpalmer@hezmatt.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
