7 ms·

The open web is essentially open because anybody with a computer can create and access content online. The cost to entry is almost nil, be it a big corporation

The open web is essentially open because anybody with a computer can create and access content online. The cost to entry is almost nil, be it a big corporation or a small startup or any individual. With Facebook's Internet.org or the "Free Basics" they would be the gatekeepers of defining what the free basic are. It creates a sort of economic divide - why would people people pay to access your site, when a similar big player is providing services on the Facebook's free basic plan?

ikeboy 11y ago
How is it better for those people to not have internet at all?
- Retra 11y ago
  That's not "the Internet" as it is known, but another kind of service. They wouldn't have internet. They'd have something else that could easily be (and probably will be) designed to placate the desire to have internet.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    Again: how is that worse than having nothing? And if the argument assumes that they'll eventually have the ability to get full internet, but won't want it at whatever price it costs, then isn't that their choice? If having a free service makes them unwilling to pay for a better service, what's the problem? There's no options being denied here. For anyone that wants, Facebook's offering has only benefits. If someone thinks it has drawbacks, they're free not to use it. I seriously don't see the problem here.
    - Retra 11y ago
      It's worse than nothing because 'nothing' doesn't line Facebook's pockets and empower their information monopoly over you.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        So enabling people to access some sites is now evil because it makes people money (which there's no evidence for; who's paying to advertise to people to poor to pay for internet?)
        Retra 11y ago
        Do you honestly think the only way the internet could possibly reach these people is through Facebook? This is not an all vs nothing situation. This is a problem with dozens of different solutions and hundreds of different possible outcomes. Facebook says their plan makes for a just world, and you agree with that because you're both being myopic. Facebook at least has an excuse.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Right now, there are no other providers in these areas. So if you ban internet.org, they won't have any internet. Whether other companies might go there in the future is not relevant to the question of whether internet.org should be banned now. According to you, if internet.org is so horribly evil, why would anyone freely choose to sign up for it?
        mrow84 11y ago
        > Right now, there are no other providers in these areas. This largely isn't correct. There are other providers, they just cost some money. This [0] comment by aravindet captures everything that one needs to know. These people are going to get the internet, the question is whether we should allow some company to spend its capital turning them into a captive market for its own financial gain. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568892
        ikeboy 11y ago
        If they can get internet without internet.org, then they aren't exactly being forced into it, right? I still don't see how the consumer is losing by having more choices, and how they would gain if internet.org would be disallowed.
  - stingraycharles 11y ago
    Living in a third world country right now that's rapidly developing. This is almost exclusively a smartphone-only internet society: "the internet" equals to Facebook, Youtube and Skype. Maybe some Clash of Clans, but that's it. There is no desire to open a web browser. I don't see this changing any time in the future, either. There are still a lot of people without decent internet access here. I am pretty sure nearly all of these people will use Facebook's version of the internet, were it made available to them. And don't have any illusions: there is no such thing as "net neutrality" here: internet speeds for domestic internet is way faster and cheaper than "real" internet. People have domestic-only internet plans, simply because it's all they need. So there already is massive restrictions put on the internet here, and I would argue that internet.org is not as evil as the local ISPs are. Smartphone/app only internet is completely different from desktop-centric internet like it is in western countries.
    - wesleyy 11y ago
      Does nobody ever have to use google to look something up? Something as simple as sickness symptoms or how to make bread or whether it's going to rain on Saturday? Surely these would require net neutrality and won't be all covered by youtube and wikipedia?
      - stingraycharles 11y ago
        No, really, not. I live in Cambodia. Cambodian people care about Facebook, but nobody ever taught them how to use Google. They simply do not know about anything that is withing Safari or Chrome. Education is low here, but smartphone penetration very high. It's all about sharing pictures and videos through Facebook.
        wesleyy 11y ago
        that's interesting...
- sankha93 11y ago
  Internet access is essential. But providing a limited number of sites for free and the rest as paid creates unequal opportunity on an otherwise level playing field. There are other ways to provide internet connectivity to people - by allowing them to access the entire internet and not limited websites. The Mozilla Foundation runs a program with Grameenphone, where users get free data in exchange for watching an advertisement. It also runs a program with Orange in Africa, where those who purchase a $37 handset get 500 MB of free data.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    You didn't answer the question. How is having access to fb worse for users than having access to nothing at all? If Grameenphone is so awesome, why aren't these users using it?
    - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
      They ARE using other schemes. Internet userbase in India is growing at 4% every month! At this rate, it will reach 64% within two years - without internet.org!
      - x0x0 11y ago
        According to that claim, with 1.04^12 ie 60% growth, the internet userbase is currently 40% of country. So we're supposed to be upset that 60% of the country, those without internet access, might access to fb for free? edit: I accidentally plugged 12 months, not 24 months. 24 months gives 250% growth. I think your numbers are wrong; 150% growth to only 60% implies the current base is 24%???
        nileshtrivedi 11y ago
        Yes, 24% is about right. The 4% every month growth is for mobile BROADBAND users (phone + dongles). The current base of mobile BROADBAND (speed greater than 512kbps) users is 97m. I couldn't find the monthly growth rate for (non-mobile | non-broadband) internet users so I have assumed it to be the same. Total internet users in India were about 125m back in 2011. My source for these numbers is TRAI (India's equivalent of FCC) reports. Happy to be corrected. And no, the problem is NOT that some people get to use FB for free. The problem is that we have no reason to give a privileged treatment to FB, given that they are NOT contributing in expanding the network at all. FB doesn't bear the bandwidth costs for internet.org, the telcos do. And telcos are already regulated under TRAI and have corresponding obligations. If they want to do commercial deals like these, let us first open the telecom industry to full competition. http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/PR-TSD-Aug-14102015.pdf http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/PR-T...
- killerpopiller 11y ago
  the real Internet will come, sooner or later but a monopolized, censored mutation might postpone that, thus curbing it's self-empowering and democratic potential. this programm really has to die. and we all should help killing and burying it. @ikeboy/facebook employee How well did the middle ages work out with it's 1-book policy? It regressed society from the very modern greek society with democracy to the so called dark ages. abondoning science and pluralistic cultures for centuries. Slaves get choices too, to die or live as slaves. Some might even find happiness as being slaves.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    What mechanisms would this "postponement" work through?
    - hairychris 11y ago
      Can you genuinely not see or are you just being disingenuous? The mechanism this would work by is ignorance, if someone is unaware that they only have access to a tiny subsection and believes that they have internet access (and we all know plenty of people that thought AOLs walled garden was the internet) then they are less likely to seek out real unfettered internet access. Reckon Facebook are going to have big banners up telling them this is only a fraction of the net? I very much doubt it. If you're so against an open internet what are you doing on HackerNews? Surely there is somewhere you could post about this on Facebook. Oh wait a second you love having access to the whole internet you just don't think people poorer than you deserve it.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        So that should be addressed by education and banning misleading advertising, not by banning the program altogether. Did I say I was against an open internet? I'm against government regulation of the Internet, while the people arguing with me here are in favor. There's more than one way to frame this about "open". I could also snarkily ask you why you don't think the poor deserve to have access to anything, which is what will happen if internet.org isn't allowed. If you really think that poor people deserve free internet, start a charity that brings it to them. But banning other providers from taking gradual steps towards internet access won't help them.
- edent 11y ago
  Will they be able to develop their own local services? Imagine if MySpace at its height could have killed off Facebook, Twitter, TenCent, and anything else which looked like competition.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  Because it hurts all other nodes in the net that is already open. So those kinds of arrangements even if beneficial for the newly connected (which I doubt) hurts everyone else. And the people that are newly connected will approach the internet not with the hacker mindset, but the values of walled gardens and app stores. You only see what your overseer wants you to see.
  - xseotheo 11y ago
    Some of the arguments here are not very well thought of. - It's to make money/ it will limit access to other competitive services/ etc. Think of the market this is reaching. Mind you there are no pictures or videos in the internet.org version iirc. This is not the market you'd want to reach for your services/ads as not only tge experience is limited, but also these are the people that can't even really afford internet. If it was for money/ world domination/ jeopardize the purity of internet the target audience would be different. - it should be access to all internet. I think we all agree on that, including Zuckerberg, however it is childish to think that an ISP would be willing to work with that. The greatest challenge in a project of this magnitude is working with the local service providers. They are the ones that need to be convinced, and you'd need to work with to make this happen. I think a good exercise for everyone here is to think, how would I solve the problem of internet illiteracy.. Realistically? The "watch an ad an get internet" does not sound to me as appealing for the service providers. They are basically using internet, to give internet, to someone that can't afford internet? I don't think this initiative would be succesful. - "This is only a hinderance and hurts when internet is eventually accesible to everyone." This is what Paul Graham calls indefinite optimism. How exactly do you think this will just happen? The answer is little by little working with the service providers, phone manufacturers, etc. which is what fb does, and the fact they actually got something that everyone is willing to accept is pretty unbelievable. So instead of idealistically oposing something that would make disconnected people lives better, how about thinking how would you solve the problem? Align all the major players over an initiative that would hardly lead to high revenues. And if you doubt the usefulness of it how about you check the access it gives. I personally consider wikipedia pretty useful.
- mrow84 11y ago
  It is almost certainly beneficial for each individual in the short term - having some sort of connection is better than having no connection. However, the value for that group of people over time is less obvious, as they will be incentivised to remain within the Facebook-controlled garden, rather than being free to choose how to direct their time and money. It isn't much more than an attempt at monopoly, and I think it seems more egregious because of it being explicitly targeted at the poor. In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect. For some additional perspective, here's a view from India: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect. If we're worried about long-term effects, but concede there's a gain for everyone short-term, isn't the right thing to do to let them do it now, and if these negative effects materialize, then stop it?
    - mrow84 11y ago
      Only Facebook has that level of control over the situation, and their only incentive is to try and make as much money as possible. On a personal level, whilst I don't have strong feelings about the campaign against internet.org, I wouldn't mind if they succeeded. I do have to question why we think net neutrality is so important for us, but not for the poorest in the world. Did you watch the video I linked to? Before watching that I (obviously very naively) hadn't really considered the issue in net neutrality terms, preferring to see it as you appear to, in terms of something-better-than-nothing, but now I'm really not so sure.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        I'm against net neutrality, for many of the same reasons I don't have a problem with this Facebook initiative. So any argument of the form "but it's against net neutral" won't work for me.
- aravindet 11y ago
  In the very short run, they will be worse off. In about a year or two, they will have access to the Internet anyway (see below). If internet.org is not allowed to violate net neutrality, they will come online to a better, more open Internet. I oppose internet.org due to the permanent damage that it will cause to the Internet itself. Please see my earlier comment for how this will happen. Internet.org probably won't shut down even if strong net neutrality is legislated in India; they would merely change their program to be compliant, by using a data cap on free (beer and freedom) internet use. The cost for ISPs are the same in either scenario. The fiction about internet.org being "cheaper" to provide than the open Internet doesn’t hold water. Internet growth in India: 20% of Indians have Internet access today, a number that has grown at 30% annually for the last five years. Mobile phone use grew from 20% to 75% in five years, so it is likely that Internet use would also get there by 2019 without internet.org.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    Largely it's rich Indians trying to block poorer Indians from having access to shiny things on specious moral grounds. Just who the hell are you to deny your poorer countrymen free access, based on your personal beliefs from a position of pure privilege? Would you give up your internet access for the same cause? No, I didn't think so.
    - mehrdada 11y ago
      That is an interesting characterization of the situation. I would be more inclined to agree with you about X denying something to Y if Y had asked for it in the first place. However, in this case, I have heard Zuck himself saying numerous times that one issue with poorer countries is that they don't really know what internet is and they don't feel the need to pay to use it in the first place. It is hard to portray that as denial of connectivity to a certain set of people. They never asked for it. This is probably a bad analogy, but I see it more like a drug dealer luring away users for free, and some public organizations trying to ban that behavior.
      - ikeboy 11y ago
- xorcist 11y ago
  Apart from what's already been said here, it's important to think about how you would build such a service. You would start to offer it where people have access to clients and the basic communication infrastructure (backbones) is already in place but where Internet access is still not sold or just too expensive. All you do in that situation is creating roadblocks for small ISPs. It's probably not hard to convince the incumbent telcos to get in on it. All you have to do is create a good business proposal. Telcos have tried similar things since ever since IP started to win, especially in the mobile space, but they've never had the services people want. This is an unholy alliance between telcos and big content, and could very well succeeed. But I am still an optimist. I believe the market will win out in the end, and one thing we know for certain is that what people really want is the Internet. It will only delay that for a number of years, but that's hardly any consolation for those potential entrepreneurs stuck in that particular irrational market.
m1sta_ 11y ago
Think of Internet.org as part VC then.

ikeboy 11y ago

How is it better for those people to not have internet at all?

Retra 11y ago
That's not "the Internet" as it is known, but another kind of service. They wouldn't have internet. They'd have something else that could easily be (and probably will be) designed to placate the desire to have internet.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  Again: how is that worse than having nothing? And if the argument assumes that they'll eventually have the ability to get full internet, but won't want it at whatever price it costs, then isn't that their choice? If having a free service makes them unwilling to pay for a better service, what's the problem? There's no options being denied here. For anyone that wants, Facebook's offering has only benefits. If someone thinks it has drawbacks, they're free not to use it. I seriously don't see the problem here.
  - Retra 11y ago
    It's worse than nothing because 'nothing' doesn't line Facebook's pockets and empower their information monopoly over you.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      So enabling people to access some sites is now evil because it makes people money (which there's no evidence for; who's paying to advertise to people to poor to pay for internet?)
      - Retra 11y ago
        Do you honestly think the only way the internet could possibly reach these people is through Facebook? This is not an all vs nothing situation. This is a problem with dozens of different solutions and hundreds of different possible outcomes. Facebook says their plan makes for a just world, and you agree with that because you're both being myopic. Facebook at least has an excuse.
        ikeboy 11y ago
        Right now, there are no other providers in these areas. So if you ban internet.org, they won't have any internet. Whether other companies might go there in the future is not relevant to the question of whether internet.org should be banned now. According to you, if internet.org is so horribly evil, why would anyone freely choose to sign up for it?
        mrow84 11y ago
        > Right now, there are no other providers in these areas. This largely isn't correct. There are other providers, they just cost some money. This [0] comment by aravindet captures everything that one needs to know. These people are going to get the internet, the question is whether we should allow some company to spend its capital turning them into a captive market for its own financial gain. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10568892
        ikeboy 11y ago
        If they can get internet without internet.org, then they aren't exactly being forced into it, right? I still don't see how the consumer is losing by having more choices, and how they would gain if internet.org would be disallowed.
- stingraycharles 11y ago
  Living in a third world country right now that's rapidly developing. This is almost exclusively a smartphone-only internet society: "the internet" equals to Facebook, Youtube and Skype. Maybe some Clash of Clans, but that's it. There is no desire to open a web browser. I don't see this changing any time in the future, either. There are still a lot of people without decent internet access here. I am pretty sure nearly all of these people will use Facebook's version of the internet, were it made available to them. And don't have any illusions: there is no such thing as "net neutrality" here: internet speeds for domestic internet is way faster and cheaper than "real" internet. People have domestic-only internet plans, simply because it's all they need. So there already is massive restrictions put on the internet here, and I would argue that internet.org is not as evil as the local ISPs are. Smartphone/app only internet is completely different from desktop-centric internet like it is in western countries.
  - wesleyy 11y ago
    Does nobody ever have to use google to look something up? Something as simple as sickness symptoms or how to make bread or whether it's going to rain on Saturday? Surely these would require net neutrality and won't be all covered by youtube and wikipedia?
    - stingraycharles 11y ago
      No, really, not. I live in Cambodia. Cambodian people care about Facebook, but nobody ever taught them how to use Google. They simply do not know about anything that is withing Safari or Chrome. Education is low here, but smartphone penetration very high. It's all about sharing pictures and videos through Facebook.
      - wesleyy 11y ago
        that's interesting...
sankha93 11y ago
Internet access is essential. But providing a limited number of sites for free and the rest as paid creates unequal opportunity on an otherwise level playing field. There are other ways to provide internet connectivity to people - by allowing them to access the entire internet and not limited websites. The Mozilla Foundation runs a program with Grameenphone, where users get free data in exchange for watching an advertisement. It also runs a program with Orange in Africa, where those who purchase a $37 handset get 500 MB of free data.
- x0x0 11y ago
  You didn't answer the question. How is having access to fb worse for users than having access to nothing at all? If Grameenphone is so awesome, why aren't these users using it?
  - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    They ARE using other schemes. Internet userbase in India is growing at 4% every month! At this rate, it will reach 64% within two years - without internet.org!
    - x0x0 11y ago
      According to that claim, with 1.04^12 ie 60% growth, the internet userbase is currently 40% of country. So we're supposed to be upset that 60% of the country, those without internet access, might access to fb for free? edit: I accidentally plugged 12 months, not 24 months. 24 months gives 250% growth. I think your numbers are wrong; 150% growth to only 60% implies the current base is 24%???
      - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
        Yes, 24% is about right. The 4% every month growth is for mobile BROADBAND users (phone + dongles). The current base of mobile BROADBAND (speed greater than 512kbps) users is 97m. I couldn't find the monthly growth rate for (non-mobile | non-broadband) internet users so I have assumed it to be the same. Total internet users in India were about 125m back in 2011. My source for these numbers is TRAI (India's equivalent of FCC) reports. Happy to be corrected. And no, the problem is NOT that some people get to use FB for free. The problem is that we have no reason to give a privileged treatment to FB, given that they are NOT contributing in expanding the network at all. FB doesn't bear the bandwidth costs for internet.org, the telcos do. And telcos are already regulated under TRAI and have corresponding obligations. If they want to do commercial deals like these, let us first open the telecom industry to full competition. http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/PR-TSD-Aug-14102015.pdf http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/PR-T...
killerpopiller 11y ago
the real Internet will come, sooner or later but a monopolized, censored mutation might postpone that, thus curbing it's self-empowering and democratic potential. this programm really has to die. and we all should help killing and burying it. @ikeboy/facebook employee How well did the middle ages work out with it's 1-book policy? It regressed society from the very modern greek society with democracy to the so called dark ages. abondoning science and pluralistic cultures for centuries. Slaves get choices too, to die or live as slaves. Some might even find happiness as being slaves.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  What mechanisms would this "postponement" work through?
  - hairychris 11y ago
    Can you genuinely not see or are you just being disingenuous? The mechanism this would work by is ignorance, if someone is unaware that they only have access to a tiny subsection and believes that they have internet access (and we all know plenty of people that thought AOLs walled garden was the internet) then they are less likely to seek out real unfettered internet access. Reckon Facebook are going to have big banners up telling them this is only a fraction of the net? I very much doubt it. If you're so against an open internet what are you doing on HackerNews? Surely there is somewhere you could post about this on Facebook. Oh wait a second you love having access to the whole internet you just don't think people poorer than you deserve it.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      So that should be addressed by education and banning misleading advertising, not by banning the program altogether. Did I say I was against an open internet? I'm against government regulation of the Internet, while the people arguing with me here are in favor. There's more than one way to frame this about "open". I could also snarkily ask you why you don't think the poor deserve to have access to anything, which is what will happen if internet.org isn't allowed. If you really think that poor people deserve free internet, start a charity that brings it to them. But banning other providers from taking gradual steps towards internet access won't help them.
edent 11y ago
Will they be able to develop their own local services? Imagine if MySpace at its height could have killed off Facebook, Twitter, TenCent, and anything else which looked like competition.
venomsnake 11y ago
Because it hurts all other nodes in the net that is already open. So those kinds of arrangements even if beneficial for the newly connected (which I doubt) hurts everyone else. And the people that are newly connected will approach the internet not with the hacker mindset, but the values of walled gardens and app stores. You only see what your overseer wants you to see.
- xseotheo 11y ago
  Some of the arguments here are not very well thought of. - It's to make money/ it will limit access to other competitive services/ etc. Think of the market this is reaching. Mind you there are no pictures or videos in the internet.org version iirc. This is not the market you'd want to reach for your services/ads as not only tge experience is limited, but also these are the people that can't even really afford internet. If it was for money/ world domination/ jeopardize the purity of internet the target audience would be different. - it should be access to all internet. I think we all agree on that, including Zuckerberg, however it is childish to think that an ISP would be willing to work with that. The greatest challenge in a project of this magnitude is working with the local service providers. They are the ones that need to be convinced, and you'd need to work with to make this happen. I think a good exercise for everyone here is to think, how would I solve the problem of internet illiteracy.. Realistically? The "watch an ad an get internet" does not sound to me as appealing for the service providers. They are basically using internet, to give internet, to someone that can't afford internet? I don't think this initiative would be succesful. - "This is only a hinderance and hurts when internet is eventually accesible to everyone." This is what Paul Graham calls indefinite optimism. How exactly do you think this will just happen? The answer is little by little working with the service providers, phone manufacturers, etc. which is what fb does, and the fact they actually got something that everyone is willing to accept is pretty unbelievable. So instead of idealistically oposing something that would make disconnected people lives better, how about thinking how would you solve the problem? Align all the major players over an initiative that would hardly lead to high revenues. And if you doubt the usefulness of it how about you check the access it gives. I personally consider wikipedia pretty useful.
mrow84 11y ago
It is almost certainly beneficial for each individual in the short term - having some sort of connection is better than having no connection. However, the value for that group of people over time is less obvious, as they will be incentivised to remain within the Facebook-controlled garden, rather than being free to choose how to direct their time and money. It isn't much more than an attempt at monopoly, and I think it seems more egregious because of it being explicitly targeted at the poor. In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect. For some additional perspective, here's a view from India: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0w_YhZUYeA
- ikeboy 11y ago
  In truth, it seems unlikely to me that those people won't simply be able to migrate to other services when they can afford it, but I also find it hard to believe that there won't be some (possibly significant) monopolisation effect. If we're worried about long-term effects, but concede there's a gain for everyone short-term, isn't the right thing to do to let them do it now, and if these negative effects materialize, then stop it?
  - mrow84 11y ago
    Only Facebook has that level of control over the situation, and their only incentive is to try and make as much money as possible. On a personal level, whilst I don't have strong feelings about the campaign against internet.org, I wouldn't mind if they succeeded. I do have to question why we think net neutrality is so important for us, but not for the poorest in the world. Did you watch the video I linked to? Before watching that I (obviously very naively) hadn't really considered the issue in net neutrality terms, preferring to see it as you appear to, in terms of something-better-than-nothing, but now I'm really not so sure.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      I'm against net neutrality, for many of the same reasons I don't have a problem with this Facebook initiative. So any argument of the form "but it's against net neutral" won't work for me.
aravindet 11y ago
In the very short run, they will be worse off. In about a year or two, they will have access to the Internet anyway (see below). If internet.org is not allowed to violate net neutrality, they will come online to a better, more open Internet. I oppose internet.org due to the permanent damage that it will cause to the Internet itself. Please see my earlier comment for how this will happen. Internet.org probably won't shut down even if strong net neutrality is legislated in India; they would merely change their program to be compliant, by using a data cap on free (beer and freedom) internet use. The cost for ISPs are the same in either scenario. The fiction about internet.org being "cheaper" to provide than the open Internet doesn’t hold water. Internet growth in India: 20% of Indians have Internet access today, a number that has grown at 30% annually for the last five years. Mobile phone use grew from 20% to 75% in five years, so it is likely that Internet use would also get there by 2019 without internet.org.
- peteretep 11y ago
  Largely it's rich Indians trying to block poorer Indians from having access to shiny things on specious moral grounds. Just who the hell are you to deny your poorer countrymen free access, based on your personal beliefs from a position of pure privilege? Would you give up your internet access for the same cause? No, I didn't think so.
  - mehrdada 11y ago
    That is an interesting characterization of the situation. I would be more inclined to agree with you about X denying something to Y if Y had asked for it in the first place. However, in this case, I have heard Zuck himself saying numerous times that one issue with poorer countries is that they don't really know what internet is and they don't feel the need to pay to use it in the first place. It is hard to portray that as denial of connectivity to a certain set of people. They never asked for it. This is probably a bad analogy, but I see it more like a drug dealer luring away users for free, and some public organizations trying to ban that behavior.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
xorcist 11y ago
Apart from what's already been said here, it's important to think about how you would build such a service. You would start to offer it where people have access to clients and the basic communication infrastructure (backbones) is already in place but where Internet access is still not sold or just too expensive. All you do in that situation is creating roadblocks for small ISPs. It's probably not hard to convince the incumbent telcos to get in on it. All you have to do is create a good business proposal. Telcos have tried similar things since ever since IP started to win, especially in the mobile space, but they've never had the services people want. This is an unholy alliance between telcos and big content, and could very well succeeed. But I am still an optimist. I believe the market will win out in the end, and one thing we know for certain is that what people really want is the Internet. It will only delay that for a number of years, but that's hardly any consolation for those potential entrepreneurs stuck in that particular irrational market.

m1sta_ 11y ago

Think of Internet.org as part VC then.