Nope, not at all. If I took half of all your wealth, does that mean you'd now be completely poor? No, you'd be poorer and it will harm you.

Even though the poor in India will eventually get Internet (let's hope so) now they will get Internet a lot later and a lot fewer of them would it.

I was lucky enough to get Internet access during the 1990s in India, but there are so many people I wish had Internet. I don't expect them all to become techies like me, but I definitely think it will make their lives a LOT better rather than waiting for the government to do something.

This is what government's services gets you (it's a link to a Hindi comedy show from 1990s which satirizes how many years you had to wait to get a telephone line).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i132W_iOKu0

I started using AOL when its walled garden tried (not unconvincingly at the time) to pass itself off as the entire internet. 15 years later I can't even remember the last time I visited a core AOL property.

We fundamentally disagree upon the nature of net neutrality. I do not believe net neutrality is a good thing, and getting rid of it would be a good thing.

The fundamental fact is that all bits aren't created equal. Facebook wants to pay for some bits by attaching the economic value of future customer, and that is fundamentally a justified thing.

In America T-mobile recently launched Binge On program under which Netflix and Youtube won't count against a monthly data plan. People on HN are hell bent on claiming that somehow this is a bad thing, but the fact is, for most people this makes their lives better.

I'm surprised that TRAI (an organization which should be gotten rid of completely according to me) caved in to Net Neutrality proponents. In future you'll see when in America Net Neutrality will be removed and how much benefit it brings to the people.