14 ms·

Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India

74 points by bugsmasher 11y ago

smhenderson 11y ago
Having skimmed the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article on Zero Rating[1] I immediately knew what it was about but I'd never heard it called that before. Think T-Mobile's free music[2] service if you live in the US. Once again I think this is going to be a hard one. If you understand the devilish details under the surface and it's effects on Net Neutrality you can make an informed decision to oppose this. But it's hard to convince the general public that free is a "bad thing". I think India's Department of Telecom is going to have a tough PR battle on it's hands. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating [2] http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-sets-your-music-free.htm http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-sets-your-music-f...
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  Imagine if Orkut was zero-rated, back when Facebook started. Or if Yahoo was zero-rated when Google started. Internet giants are turning their back on users, now that they have money.
  - mratzloff 11y ago
    It's pretty standard practice for any company that becomes suffiently large to increase barriers to entry (after previously championing low barriers to entry when it suited them). Not saying it's good for users, but the incentives for corporations are clear.
    - Gys 11y ago
      Exactly. So that is the one thing a government should care about: keeping entry levels low. However, politicians talk (!) to the public only just before elections. After that they listen (!) to the big guys because that is good for their ego and maybe future career.
    - doki_pen 11y ago
      Yes, the question is would you rather put people in office who support those barriers and benefit the few, or people who represent the majority? I'm not surprised that corporations behave this way, and it's very important that it's publicized so the populace can defend it's own interests. Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean we shouldn't publicize it.
    - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
      "Don't mistake my outrage for surprise." :)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- avdempsey 11y ago
  Are the music streaming companies paying T-Mobile to take part in the program? If not, is the barriers to entry objection sufficiently mollified? That is, the carrier is making an entire class of content zero-rated, not picking favorites.
  - smhenderson 11y ago
    That's a great question and since I brought up T-Mobile in the first place I went ahead and dug around a little via Google. It looks like no, they do not charge the providers so I guess this was a bad example on my part. They started the program with a few big names (Apple, Spotify, Pandora, more...) and then opened it up to others (Google Play, Rhapsody, more...). But it looks like the entry cost to providers is low/free and in this case T-Mobile is genuinely trying to add some value to the customer to compete against the giants in their space. So IMHO opinion it's still Zero Rating but consumer friendly because it does not favor one music streaming service over another. I'm not trying to promote T-Mobile, just stating the facts as I see them. The cynical in me thinks that T-Mobile doing it without charging providers is to avoid any any competition legislation they are worried about running up against. More here: http://www.eweek.com/networking/t-mobile-expands-free-music-streaming-offerings.html http://www.eweek.com/networking/t-mobile-expands-free-music-...
    - tired_man 11y ago
      In my heart of hearts, I want to think that TMO understands that the networked future everyone raves about won't happen because data transfer is too costly to make it practical. Mobile devices are wonderful, but come on, the price of mobile data is assault with intent. I don't mind paying for my data. But I do object to being abused for wanting to use the network for non-trivial activities, such as twitter, farcebook, etc.
anilgulecha 11y ago
Google saw the PR fallout from Facebook's public stance, and decided it would be better to silently lobby. I hope this has some publicity, and they are forced to publicly take a stand in support of neutral pipes.
plinkplonk 11y ago
I know Google jumped the shark on the "Don't be evil" concept long ago. Still, (as an Indian living in India) I am very disappointed at Google selling out like this
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- abandonliberty 11y ago
  How is supporting net neutrality selling out?
  - reagency 11y ago
    GP doesn't believe that "[website-specific] Zero Rating" is compatible with "Net Neutrality".
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Supporting Zero Rating is opposing net neutrality. Google generally supports net neutrality in the US, but apparently is supporting (or at least, opposing the idea of opposing) Zero Rating in India.
  - smhenderson 11y ago
    Google is not supporting net neutrality. Zero Rating is a tool to encourage the opposite of net neutrality. They are lobbying the Indian Government to keep any mention of Zero Rating out of new regulations so they can keep open the idea of promoting fast lanes and free data, as long as people choose Google's content over those who don't offer Zero Rating on their products. I guess because in the end it's the ad money they want over any subscription fees they might collect.
Sven7 11y ago
The Indian Telecom landscape has no resemblance to the US or Europe. There is no AT&T/Comcast monopoly. Why? Because the regulator has done a pretty decent job ensuring access to voice and data stays cheap through competition. As far as I know, in all the big cities you can choose between 7-8 major provider's. No contract. Dirt cheap access. Also worth mentioning is the existence of a reasonably large public sector ISP, with more or less a state mandate to loose money on providing access. In such a competitive landscape how do the net neutrality arguments of the west apply? Lot of misinformed outrage imho.
- oneJob 11y ago
  monopoly-regulation and net-neutrality are two unconnected issues. you can have a monopoly that does/does-not respect net-neutrality; you can also have a competitive market place where all members respect/do-not-respect net-neutrality. net-neutrality is not about ensuring broad access or low pricing, whether accomplished by regulation or the free market. net-neutrality is about ensuring equality of access and equality of speech, accomplished by preventing those who control the pipes to pick and choose the priority of what is going through the pipes.
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >monopoly-regulation and net-neutrality are two unconnected issues. Not really. Competition can be relied upon to maintain net neutrality. It's what consumers will opt for when given a choice. Only in monopolies and oligopolies can really get away with violating it (which is why the legislation is necessary in America).
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      Not really. Competition can be relied upon to maintain net neutrality. It's what consumers will opt for when given a choice. Not in the face of anticompetitive schemes like "zero-rating" promoted web sites.
- adityab 11y ago
  You are conflating ISP monopolies with software service monopolies.
nphyte 11y ago
what's the difference between access to "basic internet" and "internet"?
- thescriptkiddie 11y ago
  If Google and Facebook get their way, the world's poor will get subsidized "basic internet" that only delivers sponsored content. Only the competitively wealthy will be able to pay for the real internet and break out of the walled garden. This is opposed to giving everybody access to the same internet and having governments/charity subsidize the cost for those who can't afford it. Do we really want to create second class netizens?
  - reagency 11y ago
    You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for Internet, before they can get access to Internet? Or that some arbitrary third party should be forced to subsidize their Internet access? Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet not providing such themselves?
    - adityab 11y ago
      > Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet not providing such themselves? The Indian government is not "banning" Google from doing anything. > You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for Internet, before they can get access to Internet? In several ways, India has arguably more widespread and affordable internet infrastructure than Europe or the US. And it is getting cheaper all the time. So the motivation of zero-rating is NOT about helping the poor. It is about the huge market that India represents and the boost in market share that companies with subsidised traffic get.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      It is like Nestle handing out free formula to new mothers. Nothing wrong with that, right...
RodericDay 11y ago
I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.
- johansch 11y ago
  Suggest some better terms?
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    Better terms aren't even really necessary (though they'd be nice). But at least some sort of explanation in the article of what exactly it is that we're discussing would be nice.
  - Cakez0r 11y ago
    "toll free" would be clearer than "zero rated". Net neutrality is trickier though...
    - jjoonathan 11y ago
      If you're on the Net Neutrality side then "toll free" obscures the downside even more thoroughly than "zero rated". So it's clearer... if you're facebook :)
  - benihana 11y ago
    Did you even understand the frustration of OP's post? It's not the terms, it's the fact that the terms are stated with no context. If OP is frustrated about the assumption that everyone knows what terms like Zero Rating and Net Neutrality mean and wants some information about the issues, how could they reasonably suggest better terms?
  - doki_pen 11y ago
    Sponsored content. Sponsor-free internet.
hcccc 11y ago
It's important to remember that the target group is the poorest section of the population who have not previous had access to the internet. While it can sound noble and benevolent in theory it is a clear power move. In essence what they are doing is aggressively trying to beat the concept and affordances of decentralised networks in penetrating the physical infrastructure, government policy, telecom bureaucracy, and public consciousness. The third-world poor, as the most exploited class, is one of the last strongholds of meaningful resistance to capitalism. By actively subverting decentralised models and installing in their place, both conceptually and physically, a centralised and hierarchical vision of connectivity they secure the advancement of "surveillance capitalism" and further consolidate their power as transcending nation states. The appropriation of the concept of internet as pushed by Google and Facebook has already penetrated very far.. according to a recent poll.. "65% of Nigerians, and 61% of Indonesians agree with the statement that "Facebook is the Internet" compared with only 5% in the US (http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-ide...). The speed at which this transformation is happening means the critical public discourse around these issues is dangerously underdeveloped.

74 points by bugsmasher 11y ago

Having skimmed the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article on Zero Rating[1] I immediately knew what it was about but I'd never heard it called that before. Think T-Mobile's free music[2] service if you live in the US. Once again I think this is going to be a hard one. If you understand the devilish details under the surface and it's effects on Net Neutrality you can make an informed decision to oppose this. But it's hard to convince the general public that free is a "bad thing". I think India's Department of Telecom is going to have a tough PR battle on it's hands. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating [2] http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-sets-your-music-free.htm http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-sets-your-music-f...

nileshtrivedi 11y ago
Imagine if Orkut was zero-rated, back when Facebook started. Or if Yahoo was zero-rated when Google started. Internet giants are turning their back on users, now that they have money.
- mratzloff 11y ago
  It's pretty standard practice for any company that becomes suffiently large to increase barriers to entry (after previously championing low barriers to entry when it suited them). Not saying it's good for users, but the incentives for corporations are clear.
  - Gys 11y ago
    Exactly. So that is the one thing a government should care about: keeping entry levels low. However, politicians talk (!) to the public only just before elections. After that they listen (!) to the big guys because that is good for their ego and maybe future career.
  - doki_pen 11y ago
    Yes, the question is would you rather put people in office who support those barriers and benefit the few, or people who represent the majority? I'm not surprised that corporations behave this way, and it's very important that it's publicized so the populace can defend it's own interests. Just because it's not surprising doesn't mean we shouldn't publicize it.
  - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    "Don't mistake my outrage for surprise." :)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
avdempsey 11y ago
Are the music streaming companies paying T-Mobile to take part in the program? If not, is the barriers to entry objection sufficiently mollified? That is, the carrier is making an entire class of content zero-rated, not picking favorites.
- smhenderson 11y ago
  That's a great question and since I brought up T-Mobile in the first place I went ahead and dug around a little via Google. It looks like no, they do not charge the providers so I guess this was a bad example on my part. They started the program with a few big names (Apple, Spotify, Pandora, more...) and then opened it up to others (Google Play, Rhapsody, more...). But it looks like the entry cost to providers is low/free and in this case T-Mobile is genuinely trying to add some value to the customer to compete against the giants in their space. So IMHO opinion it's still Zero Rating but consumer friendly because it does not favor one music streaming service over another. I'm not trying to promote T-Mobile, just stating the facts as I see them. The cynical in me thinks that T-Mobile doing it without charging providers is to avoid any any competition legislation they are worried about running up against. More here: http://www.eweek.com/networking/t-mobile-expands-free-music-streaming-offerings.html http://www.eweek.com/networking/t-mobile-expands-free-music-...
  - tired_man 11y ago
    In my heart of hearts, I want to think that TMO understands that the networked future everyone raves about won't happen because data transfer is too costly to make it practical. Mobile devices are wonderful, but come on, the price of mobile data is assault with intent. I don't mind paying for my data. But I do object to being abused for wanting to use the network for non-trivial activities, such as twitter, farcebook, etc.

anilgulecha 11y ago

Google saw the PR fallout from Facebook's public stance, and decided it would be better to silently lobby. I hope this has some publicity, and they are forced to publicly take a stand in support of neutral pipes.

plinkplonk 11y ago

I know Google jumped the shark on the "Don't be evil" concept long ago. Still, (as an Indian living in India) I am very disappointed at Google selling out like this

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
abandonliberty 11y ago
How is supporting net neutrality selling out?
- reagency 11y ago
  GP doesn't believe that "[website-specific] Zero Rating" is compatible with "Net Neutrality".
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Supporting Zero Rating is opposing net neutrality. Google generally supports net neutrality in the US, but apparently is supporting (or at least, opposing the idea of opposing) Zero Rating in India.
- smhenderson 11y ago
  Google is not supporting net neutrality. Zero Rating is a tool to encourage the opposite of net neutrality. They are lobbying the Indian Government to keep any mention of Zero Rating out of new regulations so they can keep open the idea of promoting fast lanes and free data, as long as people choose Google's content over those who don't offer Zero Rating on their products. I guess because in the end it's the ad money they want over any subscription fees they might collect.

Sven7 11y ago

The Indian Telecom landscape has no resemblance to the US or Europe. There is no AT&T/Comcast monopoly. Why? Because the regulator has done a pretty decent job ensuring access to voice and data stays cheap through competition. As far as I know, in all the big cities you can choose between 7-8 major provider's. No contract. Dirt cheap access. Also worth mentioning is the existence of a reasonably large public sector ISP, with more or less a state mandate to loose money on providing access. In such a competitive landscape how do the net neutrality arguments of the west apply? Lot of misinformed outrage imho.

oneJob 11y ago
monopoly-regulation and net-neutrality are two unconnected issues. you can have a monopoly that does/does-not respect net-neutrality; you can also have a competitive market place where all members respect/do-not-respect net-neutrality. net-neutrality is not about ensuring broad access or low pricing, whether accomplished by regulation or the free market. net-neutrality is about ensuring equality of access and equality of speech, accomplished by preventing those who control the pipes to pick and choose the priority of what is going through the pipes.
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >monopoly-regulation and net-neutrality are two unconnected issues. Not really. Competition can be relied upon to maintain net neutrality. It's what consumers will opt for when given a choice. Only in monopolies and oligopolies can really get away with violating it (which is why the legislation is necessary in America).
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Not really. Competition can be relied upon to maintain net neutrality. It's what consumers will opt for when given a choice. Not in the face of anticompetitive schemes like "zero-rating" promoted web sites.
adityab 11y ago
You are conflating ISP monopolies with software service monopolies.

nphyte 11y ago

what's the difference between access to "basic internet" and "internet"?

thescriptkiddie 11y ago
If Google and Facebook get their way, the world's poor will get subsidized "basic internet" that only delivers sponsored content. Only the competitively wealthy will be able to pay for the real internet and break out of the walled garden. This is opposed to giving everybody access to the same internet and having governments/charity subsidize the cost for those who can't afford it. Do we really want to create second class netizens?
- reagency 11y ago
  You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for Internet, before they can get access to Internet? Or that some arbitrary third party should be forced to subsidize their Internet access? Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet not providing such themselves?
  - adityab 11y ago
    > Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet not providing such themselves? The Indian government is not "banning" Google from doing anything. > You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for Internet, before they can get access to Internet? In several ways, India has arguably more widespread and affordable internet infrastructure than Europe or the US. And it is getting cheaper all the time. So the motivation of zero-rating is NOT about helping the poor. It is about the huge market that India represents and the boost in market share that companies with subsidised traffic get.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    It is like Nestle handing out free formula to new mothers. Nothing wrong with that, right...

RodericDay 11y ago

I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice, and you just went with it.

johansch 11y ago
Suggest some better terms?
- ethanbond 11y ago
  Better terms aren't even really necessary (though they'd be nice). But at least some sort of explanation in the article of what exactly it is that we're discussing would be nice.
- Cakez0r 11y ago
  "toll free" would be clearer than "zero rated". Net neutrality is trickier though...
  - jjoonathan 11y ago
    If you're on the Net Neutrality side then "toll free" obscures the downside even more thoroughly than "zero rated". So it's clearer... if you're facebook :)
- benihana 11y ago
  Did you even understand the frustration of OP's post? It's not the terms, it's the fact that the terms are stated with no context. If OP is frustrated about the assumption that everyone knows what terms like Zero Rating and Net Neutrality mean and wants some information about the issues, how could they reasonably suggest better terms?
- doki_pen 11y ago
  Sponsored content. Sponsor-free internet.

hcccc 11y ago

It's important to remember that the target group is the poorest section of the population who have not previous had access to the internet. While it can sound noble and benevolent in theory it is a clear power move. In essence what they are doing is aggressively trying to beat the concept and affordances of decentralised networks in penetrating the physical infrastructure, government policy, telecom bureaucracy, and public consciousness. The third-world poor, as the most exploited class, is one of the last strongholds of meaningful resistance to capitalism. By actively subverting decentralised models and installing in their place, both conceptually and physically, a centralised and hierarchical vision of connectivity they secure the advancement of "surveillance capitalism" and further consolidate their power as transcending nation states. The appropriation of the concept of internet as pushed by Google and Facebook has already penetrated very far.. according to a recent poll.. "65% of Nigerians, and 61% of Indonesians agree with the statement that "Facebook is the Internet" compared with only 5% in the US (http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-using-the-internet/ http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-ide...). The speed at which this transformation is happening means the critical public discourse around these issues is dangerously underdeveloped.