nanog mailing list archives

Re: fight club :) richard bennett vs various nanogers, on paid peering


From: Paul Wall <pauldotwall () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:25:37 -0500

RB-

Where can we find data on your group's funding sources?

If we're to continue this discussion, we need to establish bias and
motive, which you've not covered on your own accord.

Drive Slow,
Paul Wall

On 11/25/09, Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com> wrote:
Now you've descended from Steenbergen's hair-splitting between "on-net
routes" (the mechanism) vs. "on-net access" (the actual product) into
Simpson's straight-up lying. ITIF is not opposed to network neutrality
in principle, having released a paper on "A Third Way on Network
Neutrality", http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=63. There is not a single
ultra-conservative on the ITIF board, they're all either moderate
Democrats or moderate Republicans.

I'm letting most of this childish venting slide, but I will point out
the bald-faced lies.

RB

William Allen Simpson wrote:
They're opposed to net neutrality, and (based on his comments and several
of the papers) still think the Internet is some kind of bastard child
that
needs adult supervision in the middle -- by which they mean themselves
/in loco parentis/.

Looking at the board, it's populated by ultra-conservative wing-nut
Republicans, and some Conservadems (as we call them in political circles,
they call themselves "centrists") from the "New Democrat Caucus" for
"bi-partisan" cover.  And lots of lobbyists -- Federal lobbyists -- who
seem to list their educational clients on their bio, but not whether
they are also employed by a firm that represents other clients....

--
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC




-- 
Sent from my mobile device


Current thread: