Re: Why is Mark Zuckerberg angry at critics in India?
Kiritkumar Lathia <[email protected]> Sat, 2 Jan 2016 18:02:16 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.telecom.india-gii |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMkH0Gw-vAVp0iHr4nCzc9XgLVNgArMT2q3fPjDRLDSd9z1a=Q@mail.gmail.com> |
> 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 to protect "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. > Download the Report at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf > > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ India-gii mailing list India-gii-IAPFreCvJWP2/[email protected] https://lists.india-gii.org/mailman/listinfo/india-gii