Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity

Joly MacFie joly at
Mon Jul 28 02:08:13 UTC 2014

Conflating zero-rating with NN is not necessarily helpful.  I somehow doubt
that is ultimately what convinced all those groups to suddenly come out
against NN at the last minute.

The EFF did recently address the issue.


However, we worry about the downside risks of the zero rated services.
Although it may seem like a humane strategy to offer users from developing
countries crumbs from the Internet's table in the form of free access to
walled-garden services, such service may thrive at the cost of stifling the
development of low-cost, neutral Internet access in those countries for
decades to come.

Zero-rating also risks skewing the Internet experience of millions (or
billions) of first-time Internet users. For those who don't have access to
anything else, Facebook *is* the Internet. On such an Internet, the task of
filtering and censoring content suddenly becomes so much easier, and the
potential for local entrepreneurs and hackers to roll out their own
innovative online services using local languages and content is severely
Sure, zero rated services may seem like an easy band-aid fix to lessen the
digital divide. But do you know what most
 stakeholders <> agree
<> is a
better approach towards conquering the digital divide? Competition—which we
can foster through rules that reduce the power of
telecommunications monopolies and oligopolies to limit the content and
applications that their subscribers can access and share.  Where
competition isn't enough, we can combine this with limited rules against
clearly impermissible practices like website blocking.


On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Richard Bennett <richard at>

>  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
> <>,
> of big companies “zero-rating” access to their services. As Quartz has
> reported
> <>,
> companies such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and Wikipedia strike up deals
> <>
> 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
> <>
> 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."
> Internet Freedom? Not so much.
> RB
> On 7/27/14, 5:07 PM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> Now, this is astroturfing.

Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - -
 VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY -

More information about the NANOG mailing list