[mseebach]

Yeah, the telcos that build pretty much the full entirety of the "last-mile" internet as we know it today can not but trusted in the least to be at all involved in any new last mile provisions what so ever.

We (fairly rich, definitely reasonably connected, people) cannot allow the third world to enjoy something as humiliating as imperfect internet (to a standard we barely enjoy ourselves, however immensely beneficial our connections are in spite of this) and we certainly can't allow some of the richest corporations in the world investing in it - after all, the result might not end up perfect.

It's much better potential beneficiaries (you know, some of the worlds poorest and most disadvantaged people) for us to complain, dismiss and and wait until someone will roll out a 100% neutral network, unencumbered by any commercial interests.

[paulojreis]

I'm pretty sure you haven't heard me complaining about the imperfect/perfect Internet this would offer, or whether we should wait or not for something more/less neutral, so your reply is totally misguided.

I have 7 years of experience working in telco business. I don't mind "rich" companies investing in this solution (something else you got wrong), what I mind is telcos in the loop.

Oh, BTW, besides the experience with the soul-crushing telco business, I also have experience at that third world thingy... You see, I've grown in a third world country. Born '85, had no idea that compact discs (CD) existed until '94.

[eric-hu]

I think I agree with your view, but the sarcasm in your post threw me for a loop. I'm not sure what point you want me to walk away with.

[mseebach]

Sorry, bad habit. Take away is that it's a bad idea (in this case arguably even immoral) to let the good solution today get in the way of the perfect solution in the future.