7 ms·

Facebook provides free access to Facebook / Wikipedia etc... then customers that have no access win because they get access and along with it, some pretty nifty

Facebook provides free access to Facebook / Wikipedia etc... then customers that have no access win because they get access and along with it, some pretty nifty tools to gain information and share news with their friends and family. On the other hand, if Facebook doesn't provide free internet, then all those people stay in the dark. What does net neutrality have to do with this? It's not those people are paying for an unequal service. It's FREE!

captn3m0 11y ago
This is the "some internet access is better than none" argument. However, the end result is - facebook controlling internet access for those people - Zero Rating creates an imbalance in the ecosystem, favoring websites and services that can get into the walled garden - facebook gets to mine your usage data. There are better ways of improving internet access, such as : - The Mozilla Foundation runs a program with Grameenphone, where users get free data in exchange for watching an advertisement. - The Mozilla Foundation also runs a program with Orange in Africa, where those who purchase a $37 handset get 500 MB of free data. - There are data cashback schemes such as Gigato offer data for free, for surfing some sites. Airtel has launched night plans, which give data as a cashback upon usage of the Internet between midnight and 6am, helping bring cost of access down. These things work, without breaking net neutrality. See [0] for a more thorough discussion of these arguments. [0]: http://blog.savetheinternet.in/response-to-facebook-townhall/ http://blog.savetheinternet.in/response-to-facebook-townhall...
- magic_man 11y ago
  Did you never use these free AOL CDs when you were a kid. Yes they did provide access to the entire internet, but it was designed to get people to use AOL. I am not going to complain about free internet even if it is walled.
  - Ar-Curunir 11y ago
    I'd rather not have Western companies filter what Indians can and cannot have under the assumption that India is too poor or backwards to get its shit done.
    - Jonanin 11y ago
      That isn't anyone's assumption. These people are too underprivileged to know or care about your "walled gardens" and "ecosystems". It's supposed to be a good enough intermediate step to drastically improve the poor's access to information. Yes, it's good for Facebook, obviously, but this is not a zero sum game. The choice to use any better competing service that comes along will always exist. No one else is willing to front the hundreds of millions with little to no returns for 20+ years required, though.
      - firasd 11y ago
        Just to be clear, Free Basics runs on top of existing mobile internet providers. It’s just free access to Facebook plus a few handpicked websites.
      - Ar-Curunir 11y ago
        No, this is precisely digital imperialism. Being underprivileged does NOT mean that these people should not have privacy and security. Currently, for lots of phones still used in India, using internet.org means NO HTTPS. So FB (and any other eavesdropping party) gets to snoop on your data and browsing habits. It's not about a walled garden, it's about basic human rights. The last time the West tried to save backwards people, they stole and murdered and raped their way to wealth. We don't need any more generosity from the West.
    - peteretep 11y ago
      > under the assumption that India is too poor or > backwards to get its shit done Perhaps until it does "get its shit done" that assumption would appear to hold? I have often wondered what the middle-class Indian dudes who are trying to block their country men from getting Facebook and Wikipedia access are really scared of. Could it just be they're worried about how it looks?
  - captn3m0 11y ago
    I'm going to copy-paste from a comment on mine from 6 months back[0]: As an Indian, believe me when I say this: "We already have good internet". Our data rates are extremely cheap. I paid less than 1 INR per day (it costs more to get a cup of coffee, which costs around 5-10 bucks) while using Opera Mini on a Nokia dumbphone. India has progressed beyond the point where rich corporations need to help our country. We have amongst the world's largest telecom industry and usage statistics. Everyone owns a cellphone, and more and more people are realizing the benefits of a smartphone (Whatsapp primarily, which is way cheaper than SMS). A basic android smartphone costs 100 USD in India. If a person can purchase a smartphone that costly to "access the internet", they are rich enough to afford a data plan (which costs around 3 USD/month). India does not need free internet. What we need is cheaper and better internet and companies trying to use this internet in the first place (which is already happening with ecommerce). There is no point of giving internet to people unless they have a use for it. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9485334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9485334
    - enitihas 11y ago
      Curious. Which Internet pack did you use which cost less than 1 INR per day? I too used to rely exclusively on Opera Mini in the past but never found rates so cheap.
- maldeh 11y ago
  Not to mention that Facebook's partner in all this is Reliance Telecom, who do not have a good track record on censorship. You need an RCom subscription in order to have access. Does anybody happen to know how easy or hard it is for a site to be whitelisted under Free Basics? Or if Reliance has any negotiating power on that front?
- horsecaptin 11y ago
  Can't wait for other internet companies to compete with Facebook's free service and let people decide for themselves what they want. Some of them will probably want more internet, while others will be perfectly content with just a Facebook account.
mtgx 11y ago
"sharing news" only from the limited news sources offered by Facebook and permitted on Facebook. Facebook and the local governments there could have a huge effect on warping people's views there.
cvs268 11y ago
Its better to provide free as in freedom when attempting to provide internet to the masses. Claiming to provide free as in beer means either someone else is paying for it or/and you end-up paying for it in other forms i.e. you are the product they acquired and are being sold.
- mkagenius 11y ago
  > i.e. you are the product they acquired and are being sold. But that has been the case for more than a century. Similar example is Mozilla's - watch advertisement of this body lotion to get 50MB of data.
Ar-Curunir 11y ago
This is economic imperialism. The underlying current of thought is that India is too poor/stupid/backwards to get its population online. That's pretty fucking racist. And Facebook is hardly doing this out of any altruistic tendencies. These poor people, who've only ever seen a facebook-ized internet, become a cash cow for FB - they can exploit them however they please. I trust the EFF much more than I trust FB: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutral-not-secure-and-not-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutra...
- icebraining 11y ago
  This is economic imperialism. The underlying current of thought is that India is too poor/stupid/backwards to get its population online. That's pretty fucking racist. Then India can prove them wrong but offering free full Internet access to its citizens, so that Facebook's racism costs them their investment.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
zinghaboi 11y ago
I think their "free basics" is geared towards people who already have internet. They are not exactly going to remote villages and electrifying them. Imagine how hard it would be for Indian startups when you need a 'license' from Facebook to deploy your app to your target market. The poor will have free facebook, but they won't have tech jobs. I've seen thousands of really poor guys being alleviated out of poverty due to Indian tech businesses which could grow because competition was fair. Tomorrow when launching an app means getting a license from facebook, it would be much harder!! And it is a fair argument to make that other big boys will jump in to give some competition to facebook's "zero rating" but what about the small guys??

captn3m0 11y ago

This is the "some internet access is better than none" argument. However, the end result is - facebook controlling internet access for those people - Zero Rating creates an imbalance in the ecosystem, favoring websites and services that can get into the walled garden - facebook gets to mine your usage data. There are better ways of improving internet access, such as : - The Mozilla Foundation runs a program with Grameenphone, where users get free data in exchange for watching an advertisement. - The Mozilla Foundation also runs a program with Orange in Africa, where those who purchase a $37 handset get 500 MB of free data. - There are data cashback schemes such as Gigato offer data for free, for surfing some sites. Airtel has launched night plans, which give data as a cashback upon usage of the Internet between midnight and 6am, helping bring cost of access down. These things work, without breaking net neutrality. See [0] for a more thorough discussion of these arguments. [0]: http://blog.savetheinternet.in/response-to-facebook-townhall/ http://blog.savetheinternet.in/response-to-facebook-townhall...

magic_man 11y ago
Did you never use these free AOL CDs when you were a kid. Yes they did provide access to the entire internet, but it was designed to get people to use AOL. I am not going to complain about free internet even if it is walled.
- Ar-Curunir 11y ago
  I'd rather not have Western companies filter what Indians can and cannot have under the assumption that India is too poor or backwards to get its shit done.
  - Jonanin 11y ago
    That isn't anyone's assumption. These people are too underprivileged to know or care about your "walled gardens" and "ecosystems". It's supposed to be a good enough intermediate step to drastically improve the poor's access to information. Yes, it's good for Facebook, obviously, but this is not a zero sum game. The choice to use any better competing service that comes along will always exist. No one else is willing to front the hundreds of millions with little to no returns for 20+ years required, though.
    - firasd 11y ago
      Just to be clear, Free Basics runs on top of existing mobile internet providers. It’s just free access to Facebook plus a few handpicked websites.
    - Ar-Curunir 11y ago
      No, this is precisely digital imperialism. Being underprivileged does NOT mean that these people should not have privacy and security. Currently, for lots of phones still used in India, using internet.org means NO HTTPS. So FB (and any other eavesdropping party) gets to snoop on your data and browsing habits. It's not about a walled garden, it's about basic human rights. The last time the West tried to save backwards people, they stole and murdered and raped their way to wealth. We don't need any more generosity from the West.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    > under the assumption that India is too poor or > backwards to get its shit done Perhaps until it does "get its shit done" that assumption would appear to hold? I have often wondered what the middle-class Indian dudes who are trying to block their country men from getting Facebook and Wikipedia access are really scared of. Could it just be they're worried about how it looks?
- captn3m0 11y ago
  I'm going to copy-paste from a comment on mine from 6 months back[0]: As an Indian, believe me when I say this: "We already have good internet". Our data rates are extremely cheap. I paid less than 1 INR per day (it costs more to get a cup of coffee, which costs around 5-10 bucks) while using Opera Mini on a Nokia dumbphone. India has progressed beyond the point where rich corporations need to help our country. We have amongst the world's largest telecom industry and usage statistics. Everyone owns a cellphone, and more and more people are realizing the benefits of a smartphone (Whatsapp primarily, which is way cheaper than SMS). A basic android smartphone costs 100 USD in India. If a person can purchase a smartphone that costly to "access the internet", they are rich enough to afford a data plan (which costs around 3 USD/month). India does not need free internet. What we need is cheaper and better internet and companies trying to use this internet in the first place (which is already happening with ecommerce). There is no point of giving internet to people unless they have a use for it. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9485334 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9485334
  - enitihas 11y ago
    Curious. Which Internet pack did you use which cost less than 1 INR per day? I too used to rely exclusively on Opera Mini in the past but never found rates so cheap.
maldeh 11y ago
Not to mention that Facebook's partner in all this is Reliance Telecom, who do not have a good track record on censorship. You need an RCom subscription in order to have access. Does anybody happen to know how easy or hard it is for a site to be whitelisted under Free Basics? Or if Reliance has any negotiating power on that front?
horsecaptin 11y ago
Can't wait for other internet companies to compete with Facebook's free service and let people decide for themselves what they want. Some of them will probably want more internet, while others will be perfectly content with just a Facebook account.

mtgx 11y ago

"sharing news" only from the limited news sources offered by Facebook and permitted on Facebook. Facebook and the local governments there could have a huge effect on warping people's views there.

cvs268 11y ago

Its better to provide free as in freedom when attempting to provide internet to the masses. Claiming to provide free as in beer means either someone else is paying for it or/and you end-up paying for it in other forms i.e. you are the product they acquired and are being sold.

mkagenius 11y ago
> i.e. you are the product they acquired and are being sold. But that has been the case for more than a century. Similar example is Mozilla's - watch advertisement of this body lotion to get 50MB of data.

Ar-Curunir 11y ago

This is economic imperialism. The underlying current of thought is that India is too poor/stupid/backwards to get its population online. That's pretty fucking racist. And Facebook is hardly doing this out of any altruistic tendencies. These poor people, who've only ever seen a facebook-ized internet, become a cash cow for FB - they can exploit them however they please. I trust the EFF much more than I trust FB: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutral-not-secure-and-not-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutra...

icebraining 11y ago
This is economic imperialism. The underlying current of thought is that India is too poor/stupid/backwards to get its population online. That's pretty fucking racist. Then India can prove them wrong but offering free full Internet access to its citizens, so that Facebook's racism costs them their investment.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

zinghaboi 11y ago

I think their "free basics" is geared towards people who already have internet. They are not exactly going to remote villages and electrifying them. Imagine how hard it would be for Indian startups when you need a 'license' from Facebook to deploy your app to your target market. The poor will have free facebook, but they won't have tech jobs. I've seen thousands of really poor guys being alleviated out of poverty due to Indian tech businesses which could grow because competition was fair. Tomorrow when launching an app means getting a license from facebook, it would be much harder!! And it is a fair argument to make that other big boys will jump in to give some competition to facebook's "zero rating" but what about the small guys??