Re: Why is Mark Zuckerberg angry at critics in India?

Bull!

As a supporter of Net Neutrality, I do so primarily because I know that 
a for profit business is required by law to employ every single tactic 
available to increase the return on investment for their investors.

As such, this legally mandates every provider to direct a customer away 
from reaching any destination which is seen as less profitable to the 
corporation. In other words, it is my legal obligation to solicit and 
service these revenue streams (read, those who elect to pay me to 
provide this service) and ignoring so puts me at risk of being accused 
of fiscal mismanagement.

Further, your assertion that the Net Neutrality issue was "settled" 
borders on profoundly ignorant. What you are labeling as some form of 
final decision is little more than a small victory in a war between 
whether the Internet should be a totally for profit entity or a 
communication medium owned by the people who pay for it.

But what irks me beyond all description is your attitude that because 
you have some form of superior understanding of a questionable economic 
theory, you are now to be accepted as the self-appointed universal 
authority on this issue. Typically, one has to read Youtube comments to 
find examples of hubris.

As a specific example, please allow me to highlight the following, 
"There is a group of people who are the shareholder of the companies [ 
Netflix, Google, Facebook]  unwilling to pay the interconnect charges to 
carriers.  It is like wanting to ride a train without buying the 
ticket.  These people hire people from group 2 to influence opinion of 
people of group 1."

I chose this one passage (out of a very fertile field) to point out your 
completely flawed premises.

Once I (or any other entity) pay for my connectivity, any traffic I send 
or receive from the net has been paid for in full. The idea that I 
should have to continue to pay every single network which may carry any 
of my packets is not only an accounting nightmare but also would require 
some form of traffic management that would allow each and every provider 
to choose only those paths which have been prepaid in order to keep 
costs to a minimum.

To continue your train analogy, what you are suggesting that every time 
a passenger passes another station they should be required to purchase 
an additional ticket for that particular stretch of track as if they 
haven't purchased a full price ticket for their entire trip.

And while you may believe your understanding of economics allows you to 
make these claims, having built, run, designed, and consulted on a 
number of Internet infrastructure projects too numerous to have counted, 
similarly allows me to inform you that you claims are patently baseless.

Ken DiPietro
Cumberland MD


On 01/01/2016 11:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> People support net neutrality for various reasons:
>
> 1. First group of people   who support Net Neutrality do so due to 
> ignorance of how  incentives and costs flow thorough markets and 
> economies. Such people cannot see how it harms  the  consumer and 
> carriers by creating perverse incentives and shifting costs to wrong 
> parties.   These people are misled into believing  that net neutrality 
> will lead  internet into some kind of  justice-equality utopia of the 
> kind espoused by leftist thinkers. Majority of people who participate 
> on internet forum and social media to save net neutrality  fall into 
> this category.
> This group of people has either never studied economics, or has been 
> taught and appreciated leftist version of it. I do not know how they 
> teach in India these days. During my first year at engineering 
> college, we were taught leftist theories like law of diminishing 
> return and law of diminishing marginal utility in a class to introduce 
> economy.   It took me many years of work to unlearn those notions, or 
> at least be able to see think in bigger economic scope. I recall my 
> teacher discussing how deficits are good for economy and all that go 
> with it. I do not want to go into details. But, I can see how some 
> opinions have  come into being.
>
> 2. There are politicians, journalists, academicians, corrupt to the 
> core,  who will write in favor of whosoever gives the job or income.  
> There is a reason why politics, academia , and the journalism are 
> three least trusted professions.  To an unattached person, it is very 
> hard to tell apart who is telling truth from who is making lies.
>
>
> 3. There is a group of people who are the shareholder of the companies 
> [ Netflix, Google, Facebook]  unwilling to pay the interconnect 
> charges to carriers.  It is like wanting to ride a train without 
> buying the ticket.  These people hire people from group 2 to influence 
> opinion of people of group 1.
>
> 4. There may be other groups too who sincerely believe in net 
> neutrality does for numerous reasons that I cannot think of.
>
> At least in the case of Net Neutrality, the group 3 has been 
> successful so far in getting what they want.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ratnendra Pandey
>
>
>
> On 1/1/2016 6:09 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:
>> A lot of the support for Net Neutrality I suspect is due to 
>> techno-skepticism. Nobody today trusts corporations to watch out for 
>> the people if it means going against their profit interests. After 
>> Tobacco and Oil, data privacy is the next most lucrative and invasive 
>> enterprise.
>>
>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/techno-skeptics-objection-growing-louder/2015/12/26/e83cf658-617a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html 
>>
>>
>> is a relevant story.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> India-gii mailing list
> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>