Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

Astroturfing doesn’t require a fake organization, just fraudulent use of an organization claiming to be grass roots.

I guarantee you that the majority of the communities represented by those organizations probably don’t even understand 
the issue. Of those that do, I suspect that if you polled them, you’d find most of the not backing the position 
contained in the document.

Somehow, the anti-internet-freedom collection of monopoly/oligopoly interests managed to coopt the leadership of those 
organizations into this astroturf.

Owen

On Jul 27, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com> wrote:

> So we're supposed to believe that NAACP and LULAC are phony organizations but pro-neutrality groups like Free Press 
> and Public Knowledge that admit to collaborating with Netflix and Cogent are legit? Given their long history, I think 
> this is a bit of a stretch.
>
> 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.
>
> 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:
>
> "A surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. This week, 
> Santiago put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries 
> <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>,
>  of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has reported 
> <http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet-and-facebook-are-the-same/>,
>  companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals 
> <http://qz.com/69163/the-one-reason-a-facebook-phone-would-make-sense/> with mobile operators around the world to 
> offer a bare-bones version of their service without charging customers for the data.
>
> "It is not clear whether operators receive a fee 
> <http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/29/twitters-emerging-market-strategy-includes-its-own-version-of-a-facebook-zero-like-service-called-twitter-access/>
>  from big companies, but it is clear why these deals are widespread. Internet giants like it because it encourages 
> use of their services in places where consumers shy away from hefty data charges. Carriers like it because Facebook 
> or Twitter serve as a gateway to the wider internet, introducing users to the wonders of the web and encouraging them 
> to explore further afield—and to pay for data. And it’s not just commercial services that use the practice: Wikipedia 
> has been an enthusiastic adopter of zero-rating as a way to spread its free, non-profit encyclopedia."
>
> http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/

Actually, I don’t see this ruling as such a bad thing.

> Internet Freedom? Not so much.

We can agree to disagree. I don’t think leveraging one semi-captive audience to build a captive audience for other 
companies is a good thing. It reduces the potential for new entrants to compete on an even footing. (Not that there 
aren’t already plenty of barriers to competing with Facebook and/or Google, but adding cross-subsidies from TPC 
shouldn’t be an additional one.

Owen