On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:52 AM, Matt Palmer <mpal...@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" <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? >> >> 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 >
