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"?). - Matt
