| Newsgroups |
gmane.org.telecom.india-gii |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
Hi Ken,
Thanks for replying. See my reply embedded in your text:
On 1/2/2016 3:43 AM, ken 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.
RATNENDRA: Exactly!!! Shareholders should sue for-profit corporations
and the Judge should punish the executives and corporation to the extent
maximum possible for failing to, in you words, "employ every single
tactic available to increase the return on investment for their
investors. " You cannot raise capital from investors for a
corporation and then not do all you can to maximize shareholder return.
This is violation of your responsibilities towards your shareholders and
equivalent of misrepresentation and fraud.
Should you want to run your business as a Charity, get a NON-PROFIT
status from IRS. There are many organizations who do just that. A lot
of hospitals are organized as non-profit.
If you do not want to organize as a non-profit, you can still follow
your social dreams. Organize as a benefit corporation (social purpose
corporation). It is a new legal form or organization. Your state of
Maryland was first in the United States (2010) to allow creation of
benefit corporations. A benefit corporation is allowed to have other
objectives besides maximizing shareholder value and thus immune to the
kind of lawsuit you are afraid of. In fact some technology companies
are organizing as benefit corporation so that they do not have to worry
about maximizing profits.
A crowed funding start company called kickstarter just reincorporated
as a public-benefit-corporation.
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/kickstarter-reincorporates-as-public-benefit-corporation/
Public benefit corporation are free to use private money for what ever
social goal they have in mind. They cannot be sued even if they promote
net neutrality, fight global warming,
or spend money to save lizards living under the rail tracks.
Do first thing after reading this mail. Call you lawyer and
reincorporate your business as a Public Benefit Corporation, if you are
uncomfortable with for-profit mandate of your company.
KEN:
>
> 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.
RATNENDRA: Net Neutrality has been settled because corporation and
politicians for and against it seems to have figured out a work around
to fool public and do the things behind the prying eyes of voting
population. This is how things work in socialist environment, America
is no exception. When unreasonable restriction and legal stops are put
on normal activities, black or grey markets come into being. Do you
know prostitution is illegal in Thailand. But, guess where people from
all over the world go to get dirty body to body message and everything
else that happens following that? You can see these things in sectors
that are heavily regulated (banks, hospitals etc). To understand why
some time corporations seem to let anti-business laws without
opposition, I once talked to the president of local chambers of
commerce when I met him at a hearing on minimum wage ordinance where I
was present to offer my views. It is the government that forces people
and business to take inefficient work around and bribe your politicians
and bureaucrats to get what they want. They somehow win, but society as
a whole looses do to lost opportunity and increased cost of doing business.
About my attitude. You are correct. I believe I have better
understanding of how things work than many other who come to this forum
for discussion. I do not mind speaking up for what I believe are true
facts and appropriate description of the situation. Do you not like
that? Please humble me with better reasoning and solid facts.
KEN:
>
> 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.
RATNENDRA: Thanks for sharing your ideas. Readers will have opportunity
to judge your description of net neutrality against mine and draw their
own conclusion. This is what discussions
are for. We learn from one another.
KEN:
>
> 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.
RATNENDRA : You are doing the same that you are accusing me of.
Are you not projecting experience of your business on rest of us and
entire industry and expect all to follow your way?
You seem not even willing to listen about the notion that
net-discrimination is an efficient and market friendly policy.
Sincerely,
Ratnendra Pandey
>
> 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