[173541] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Palmer)
Sun Jul 27 23:52:34 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 13:52:24 +1000
From: Matt Palmer <mpalmer@hezmatt.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CAArzuosrUMwm1+ZZQjpFN4gira2vzPBJuROeoJkKh3W=ywBMPw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:16:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> 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?
>
> 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
I've got a whopping great big privilege that's possibly obscuring my view,
but I fail to see how only providing access to Facebook and Wikipedia is (a)
actual *Internet* access, or (b) actually beneficial, in the long run, to
anyone other than Facebook and Wikipedia. I suppose it could benefit the
(no doubt incumbent) telco which is providing the service, since it makes it
much more difficult for competition to flourish. I can't see any lasting
benefit to the end user (or should I say "product"?).
- Matt
