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

Ratendra,

You have deliberately misrepresented what I had written - and not for the
first time - to come up with some "free market" garbage which has no social
bearing and completely distorts the reality.

By your definitions, all western democracies, including USA, are communists
since all have laws against "net neutrality" which is called "open
internet" in USA. I attach for you and others the FCC Report and Order to
read -- this is part of the USA "Law" as an FCC ruling. Read the
Introduction and Executive Summary and also pages 314 - 320 to understand
why this ruling was made after approx 4 million "testimonies" and 10 years
in the making.

This is from USA and where Zuckerberg would NEVER be able to run his "basic
internet" so he goes to developing countries to get his next level of
revenue stream for FB.

The only countries - to my knowledge - who do not have "net neutrality" are
the ones you must love: China, Russia, North Korea, ...
They do not have Open Internet - they block websites and divert traffic to
"approved" websites just like Zuckerberg wishes to do - but by your very
definition, they are not communist! A big irony, don't you think!

Please no more old diatribes on this!

FYI: The question you did not understand was that when you visit FB, you
also use (indirectly) proprietary software from other entities and as such
FB has to pay for using the Intellectual Properties (IPs) of other
entities, such as Google (for ex Motorola IPs), Microsoft (which makes more
money from Android than Google itself), Oracle, etc. FB in turn "sells"
your FB contents and your personal information, etc. - as far as FB is
concerned, you are not a "customer" but a "commodity / merchandise" which
they can use to generate money.

Now they wish to have more Indian merchandise!

Best wishes,





On 2 January 2016 at 12:43, ken <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> India-gii mailing list
> India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected]
> https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii
>