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" <mpal...@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 > >
