Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity

[Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell () gmail com>]

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Matt Palmer <mpalmer () hezmatt org> wrote:
> 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"?).

FYI it's Bharti-Airtel, not an incumbent, but a multinational GSM operator.

> - Matt