4 ms·

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 fi

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...
    - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
      Current Internet user base in India 375 million and expected to reach 402 million in December. Source: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/9Vipq3XmcfQuhJRMBleuwL/Indias-Internet-users-set-to-increase-49-to-402-million-by.html http://www.livemint.com/Politics/9Vipq3XmcfQuhJRMBleuwL/Indi... With a population of 1.24B, that makes 30% population being online. So 150% growth in 2 years will take us to 75%.
ikeboy 11y ago
Saying "you could have done X, which would help people more than what you're doing now" isn't a condemnation, as people seem to be condemning Facebook for this. The whole thing is reminding me of http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... How can allowing more people limited internet, where before they had no internet, possibly be a bad thing?
- nitrogen 11y ago
  It's like giving free soda to the thirsty so they don't seek out something healthier. There is no such thing as limited "internet". If it's limited, it's not the Internet. A more noble implementation of the idea would provide low-bandwidth connectivity to any site (maybe with a browser that only loads text by default). The service could still deliver local ads to pay for the bandwidth.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    If you think soda is harmful, and the effects are severe enough, then ban it. But clearly the limited access that Facebook is offering is not harmful in that sense, because it's a subset of the "full" internet that you want them to offer instead. And saying that there's a more noble option they could have done doesn't mean that what they did do is wrong.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      It's harmful because it promotes digital segregation and corporate control. It's about as right as Nestle giving an inadequate supply of free formula to mothers who could otherwise nurse for free[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
      - ikeboy 11y ago
        >Organizers of the boycott encourage the practice of newborn nutrition via natural breast milk and claim that use of the substitutes represent a health risk for infants What's the analog to this health risk in the Facebook example? "Digital segregation" is a nice abstract concept, which falls apart when you remember that the people using this have no other way to get internet, so they can't possibly be better off without Facebook.

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...
  - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    Current Internet user base in India 375 million and expected to reach 402 million in December. Source: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/9Vipq3XmcfQuhJRMBleuwL/Indias-Internet-users-set-to-increase-49-to-402-million-by.html http://www.livemint.com/Politics/9Vipq3XmcfQuhJRMBleuwL/Indi... With a population of 1.24B, that makes 30% population being online. So 150% growth in 2 years will take us to 75%.

ikeboy 11y ago

Saying "you could have done X, which would help people more than what you're doing now" isn't a condemnation, as people seem to be condemning Facebook for this. The whole thing is reminding me of http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi... How can allowing more people limited internet, where before they had no internet, possibly be a bad thing?

nitrogen 11y ago
It's like giving free soda to the thirsty so they don't seek out something healthier. There is no such thing as limited "internet". If it's limited, it's not the Internet. A more noble implementation of the idea would provide low-bandwidth connectivity to any site (maybe with a browser that only loads text by default). The service could still deliver local ads to pay for the bandwidth.
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If you think soda is harmful, and the effects are severe enough, then ban it. But clearly the limited access that Facebook is offering is not harmful in that sense, because it's a subset of the "full" internet that you want them to offer instead. And saying that there's a more noble option they could have done doesn't mean that what they did do is wrong.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    It's harmful because it promotes digital segregation and corporate control. It's about as right as Nestle giving an inadequate supply of free formula to mothers who could otherwise nurse for free[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      >Organizers of the boycott encourage the practice of newborn nutrition via natural breast milk and claim that use of the substitutes represent a health risk for infants What's the analog to this health risk in the Facebook example? "Digital segregation" is a nice abstract concept, which falls apart when you remember that the people using this have no other way to get internet, so they can't possibly be better off without Facebook.