4 ms·
> Either way, it is better than No Access. I see this as a false dilemma. Internet access in India is already cheap enough to be near the cost of a phone over
by lunula 11y ago
> Either way, it is better than No Access.
I see this as a false dilemma. Internet access in India is already cheap enough to be near the cost of a phone over its effective lifetime. To quote the linked post:
> Given that data packages cost as little as Rs. 20 a month while phones cost Rs. 2,000 and up, we think their thesis itself is flawed
So the group that free basics can help to get online are those for whom the cost of a phone is feasible but paying the cost of a phone ×2 or ×3 for internet access is not. This is a relatively narrow fraction of the population.
Activists in India see that there are other reasonable alternatives to connect the entire population of the country that do not encourage the digital enslavement of their poor. The simplest one is a marginal improvement of per capita income that is driven by the people of the country itself, not exploitative "charity" from a foreign company. In very short order this, and the decreasing cost of technology will allow the whole net to reach everyone who could benefit today from free basics.
The false dilemma "better this than nothing" comes from a distant ivory tower that does not respect the capacity and future of the people of these developing nations. There are other ways to full access that do not sacrifice human rights.
- mkagenius 11y ago> India is already cheap enough to be near the cost of a phone Indians are very frugal, if they bought the phone, then that's the end of it. They won't even spend a single penny to buy the Internet.. Only way is to give it for free and let them experience the usefulness and long term effect. How to give for free? That's up for debate.
- quadrangle 11y agoHow about slow or even limited amount of data but full internet? Result of that would be people making websites that use minimal data. Result of FB-only internet is everyone putting everything on FB, effectively shutting out anyone not on FB and giving insane power to FB.
- mkagenius 11y agoit would be better but then the question comes to sponsership, who would sponser such a thing?
- quadrangle 11y agoA non-asshole, non-monopolist version of Facebook would be a company that would sponsor such a thing along with ads saying "brought to you by Facebook!" or something but no technical restrictions to FB. It's still in their interest to get more people online. It could be a consortium of companies. Or it could be the government, that would make reasonable sense. Or it could just be the phone companies saying that a little internet is a good way to get people to then pay for more bandwidth…