If you do believe that Iraqis should be able to have zero rated Wikipedia, because they are poor, shouldn't poor Americans (of which their are millions living in abject poverty) be able to get zero rated services as well?
However the FCC of which the article speaks (which sets the tone of the conversation that is about what article I would naturally think) is based and regulating companies and is regulating institutions within ....you guessed it! The United States.
I don't believe Iraqis should have zero rated internet access. I also believe you aren't quoting me saying as such. Again I ask: how is what Iraqs telecom regulations are have an impact on the FCC?
And to be clear I believe strongly in net neutrality in the USA and abroad. It just holds no direct bearing on FCC policy.
I think zero rating in essence limits access, allows ISPs to pick winners and losers on the internet, and could threaten the next great platform for free speech.
I'm still awaiting a real factual rebuttal to net neutrality. I'd love to hash these ideas out. How does zero rating actually benefit anyone? How does the current changes and near term purposed structure of telecom regulations benefit the average consumer? How would you seek to increase competition specifically.
Not hide vagaries of "reduce regulation". What regulations exactly?
In this same thread I posted at length what I believe to be strong facts in favor of net neutrality. I can re post them here if you like.
What does that have to do with Iraq and its internet access?? Not that it isn't important. It just has nothing to do with internet access in the United States.
you're not exactly elaborating on how that example applies.
I see no evidence here, yet you claim Net neutrality 'absolutists' need to tone down their rhetoric, and give no cited or strong example as to what is actually wrong with net neutrality.