5 ms·

"Free Basics" - Myths and Facts

119 points by chdir 11y ago

Animats 11y ago
"Wow, this file is really popular! Some tools might be unavailable until the crowd clears." What resource at Google Docs doesn't scale?
- LeoPanthera 11y ago
  The link for some reason goes to "suggestions" mode. You can switch the mode at the top to "viewing".
- huac 11y ago
  collaborative features, editing in real-time
jMyles 11y ago
"better known as a Man-in-the-Middle attack" - instant classic right there.
- chris-at 11y ago
  OT but our company firewall does this as well. You can't use https unless you install a internal root cert. Never understood how this can be legal.
vankap 11y ago
I can't say how this turns out, but it makes me happy to see the debate this is generating. A lot of people who have never heard of net neutrality are now hearing and thinking about it. That's a definite positive for India and and open internet.
shas3 11y ago
Earnest question: on the presumption that Free Basics (FB) will become popular if launched, trying to shoot it down means that many people (mostly poor) will not get access to the internet. How does one address this? Now, this activism can do two things: 1. Force FB's hand to make it truly open, 2. Delay universal access by regulation that prevents FB from starting up. If the result turns out to be the former, well and good. If the latter ends up happening, many people will be deprived of internet access and the opportunities for social and economic growth that come with it. A corporation is well ahead of the rest of the community in its ability to deliver quasi-philanthropic internet to the poor. I wish more of these articles mentioned alternatives (any solutions from FOSS, for example or free 2G and older network services?)
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  There are alternative schemes which are already live and running: - Aircel launched free data to all websites/apps at 64kbps. - Airtel launched a cashback scheme for data usage in off-peak hours. - Gigato which gives cashback for using certain apps is in grey area but definitely more neutral because you can use the cash to access the entire Internet. - Google has launched Free WiFi in multiple places. Their Project Loon is also starting up and remains completely neutral. - Mozilla has recommended to TRAI an ad-supported free data plan like Grameenphone (which has seen good success in Bangladesh) but granted, it hasn't yet been launched in India
- leohutson 11y ago
  Facebook doesn't need to do this. They have a huge market share on the real internet, they could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow. The fact that are attempting this means that they obviously don't believe in the longevity of their product on its own merits, so they are going to try to lock in a few users while they can.
  - mkagenius 11y ago
    > could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow. By giving data without any restriction would result in its consumption via video content (e.g. Youtube) and will not be of any use to facebook.
    - awqrre 11y ago
      Facebook also host videos
      - mkagenius 11y ago
        Not in the free basics version, just text content.
- thebenedict 11y ago
  Agreed, free-as-in-beer internet is a pretty compelling deal for poor people, even if it's limited. And Free Basics has real benefits for governments and internet carriers. Wrote more about it here[1]. It's hard to imagine (but maybe possible?) there could be a comparable quality, net-neutral alternative. What would the model be? [1]: http://www.thebenedict.com/posts/2015/12/26/free-basics-alternatives.html http://www.thebenedict.com/posts/2015/12/26/free-basics-alte...
gravypod 11y ago
What is... Free Basics? I have not heard of this until now.
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  New name for Internet.org. They changed it since last time people made a lot of noise about it being "neither the Internet nor a dotOrg".
  - gravypod 11y ago
    Ok, but what is internet.org? From what I gather it seems like they made an ISP but select who the ISP connects to. This response is very ironic. - "It is not a closed system" - "You will [only] be able to access services from operators around the world." Who/what are operators, what was internet.org, are there technical details for us to see, what is it's goal?
    - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
      Basically, all traffic to the sites on Internet.org is sent to Facebook's proxy servers (including HTTPS with "dual-certificates", as in MITM attacks), and no charge is collected from the user. Users can use either an Android app or mobile browser on featurephones. Facebook decides which sites get on this platform. (Hence no Twitter, Telegram etc)
      - gravypod 11y ago
        So they have made up a way to ruin the internet for a select--small--number of people. It's nice to see the crap that facebook does get put in the spotlight recently.
nimish 11y ago
Formerly known as Internet.org
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
jimrandomh 11y ago
This isn't quite hitting the core of the problem. If someone only has Facebook's Free Basics, then they can't conduct business on the Internet with anyone who hasn't partnered with Facebook. Not reading content, not publishing content, not downloading apps, not shopping, not email. They can only do these things if they pay a telecom for real internet access. From a user's perspective, that's still an improvement, because they would've had to pay for real internet access and now they have the option of maybe not. But what if you want to conduct business with those people who only have Free Basics? Then Facebook has a veto over your ability to do so. They will make you partner with them, jump through hoops, and maybe pay them money. If you're thinking of competing with them, they can destroy your business with a flick of a switch. It's a power that begs to be abused. Free Basics isn't bad for users, it's bad for everyone else.
- fwn 11y ago
  While I am generally in favor of free basics, I believe this platform argument to be one of the better. Don't know why you are downvoted, though. Maybe for the "isn't bad for users" half sentence.
sidthekid 11y ago
"... by throwing in short-sighted plans, you are preventing the Government and the market from thinking up plans for giving permanent access to the full Internet for these poor." I am on the fence on whether to support Free Basics or not, but the scale tilts here for me towards Free Basics. This response is like saying, "No, don't help them - you'll prevent us from helping them at some point in the future." The poor person in the village, on the street, shouldn't have to wait five more years for the internet(in whatever form) when a solution (though partial) is available now. Suppose the government does introduce a proper 'Free Internet' plan two years later. I don't think anything would stop them from switching from the biased Free Basics to the better plans.
cmurf 11y ago
Facebook!=the Internet. If it's only Facebook and friends, this is not at all anything like the Internet. It's a closed platform, like 25 years ago, with walled gardens. So people need to stop saying those criticising Free Basic are in favor of depriving poor people from the Internet. Quite honestly this Free Basic thing is so absurd to me on the face of it I hope Facebook doesn't modify it as a result of all the increasing criticism. Then it can just face plant, which is where it ought to end up. Even my ISP doesn't MITM my 443 connections to other services.
- sidthekid 11y ago
  There are people who do not have access even to the walled gardens of 25 years ago. This link is a response by Facebook to criticisms of Free Basics - https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-opponents/ https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-opponen... I don't understand why no progress is better than some progress. This initiative is not meant for people already connected to the internet.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    The problem is you're framing this as "giving poor people some internet features" vs "poor people without any internet", which is the reading Facebook's propaganda is pushing. The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". Yes, the latter choice might take a bit longer, but it will be better in the long run than letting Facebook exploit the country in the style of the East India Company. This isn't about giving the poor access to the internet, it's yet another western corporation trying to exploit other countries. It's important to consider the larger, long-term consequences, instead of the merely the immediate results. Framing matters, and Facebook's propaganda on this topic is transparent if you take the time to analyze it.
    - fwn 11y ago
      >The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". While that's a fundamental believe in the anti-free-basics mindset, it's faulty. Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere. And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics. People having access to Facebook will still want to connect to the internet. Those people are not spectacularly different from us. By taking the time to analyze the consequences, many would probably notice that some of the anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.
alkonaut 11y ago
Shouldn't a service like this use a small whitelist of sites that it provides for free (Google maps, Wikipedia, ...) and use https throughout rather than not at all? I completely understand if some services are easier to provide for free, e.g. static/cachable content that can be cached close to the users. Also if I were Facebook I'd remove any and all Facebook services, just to prove I'm being altruistic and not trying to lock in third world users to my ads... Really if fb can't do this then some nonprofit should. This looks a lot like when the US got internet access, with AoL trying to be a quasi-internet within internet. I suppose you can argue "it worked" because it connected lots of households and now they have proper Internet, but the European model where governments subsidized massive backbones and municipalities created last-mile networks making "proper" internet available straight away looks more attractive in retrospect. Realistically, poor countries will have to follow the US model...
prabhakar_u 11y ago
Dear Mark Zuckerberg here is a question to your Free Basics Project(Alias Internet.org). Q). Do you allow Indian users to use your direct competitor Twitter under Free Basics Internet plan? < ------ > Personal Prediction: Even if you allow, 5-years down the lone, if you notice Indian users are spending more time on Twitter rather than Facebook, you will have the option to disable Twitter from Free Basics plan, right? Ha ha, how smart it is!. Gatekeeping is not such a good thing even though it seems Free. "Happy Christmas!"

119 points by chdir 11y ago

"Wow, this file is really popular! Some tools might be unavailable until the crowd clears." What resource at Google Docs doesn't scale?

LeoPanthera 11y ago
The link for some reason goes to "suggestions" mode. You can switch the mode at the top to "viewing".
huac 11y ago
collaborative features, editing in real-time

jMyles 11y ago

"better known as a Man-in-the-Middle attack" - instant classic right there.

chris-at 11y ago
OT but our company firewall does this as well. You can't use https unless you install a internal root cert. Never understood how this can be legal.

vankap 11y ago

I can't say how this turns out, but it makes me happy to see the debate this is generating. A lot of people who have never heard of net neutrality are now hearing and thinking about it. That's a definite positive for India and and open internet.

shas3 11y ago

Earnest question: on the presumption that Free Basics (FB) will become popular if launched, trying to shoot it down means that many people (mostly poor) will not get access to the internet. How does one address this? Now, this activism can do two things: 1. Force FB's hand to make it truly open, 2. Delay universal access by regulation that prevents FB from starting up. If the result turns out to be the former, well and good. If the latter ends up happening, many people will be deprived of internet access and the opportunities for social and economic growth that come with it. A corporation is well ahead of the rest of the community in its ability to deliver quasi-philanthropic internet to the poor. I wish more of these articles mentioned alternatives (any solutions from FOSS, for example or free 2G and older network services?)

nileshtrivedi 11y ago
There are alternative schemes which are already live and running: - Aircel launched free data to all websites/apps at 64kbps. - Airtel launched a cashback scheme for data usage in off-peak hours. - Gigato which gives cashback for using certain apps is in grey area but definitely more neutral because you can use the cash to access the entire Internet. - Google has launched Free WiFi in multiple places. Their Project Loon is also starting up and remains completely neutral. - Mozilla has recommended to TRAI an ad-supported free data plan like Grameenphone (which has seen good success in Bangladesh) but granted, it hasn't yet been launched in India
leohutson 11y ago
Facebook doesn't need to do this. They have a huge market share on the real internet, they could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow. The fact that are attempting this means that they obviously don't believe in the longevity of their product on its own merits, so they are going to try to lock in a few users while they can.
- mkagenius 11y ago
  > could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow. By giving data without any restriction would result in its consumption via video content (e.g. Youtube) and will not be of any use to facebook.
  - awqrre 11y ago
    Facebook also host videos
    - mkagenius 11y ago
      Not in the free basics version, just text content.
thebenedict 11y ago
Agreed, free-as-in-beer internet is a pretty compelling deal for poor people, even if it's limited. And Free Basics has real benefits for governments and internet carriers. Wrote more about it here[1]. It's hard to imagine (but maybe possible?) there could be a comparable quality, net-neutral alternative. What would the model be? [1]: http://www.thebenedict.com/posts/2015/12/26/free-basics-alternatives.html http://www.thebenedict.com/posts/2015/12/26/free-basics-alte...

gravypod 11y ago

What is... Free Basics? I have not heard of this until now.

nileshtrivedi 11y ago
New name for Internet.org. They changed it since last time people made a lot of noise about it being "neither the Internet nor a dotOrg".
- gravypod 11y ago
  Ok, but what is internet.org? From what I gather it seems like they made an ISP but select who the ISP connects to. This response is very ironic. - "It is not a closed system" - "You will [only] be able to access services from operators around the world." Who/what are operators, what was internet.org, are there technical details for us to see, what is it's goal?
  - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    Basically, all traffic to the sites on Internet.org is sent to Facebook's proxy servers (including HTTPS with "dual-certificates", as in MITM attacks), and no charge is collected from the user. Users can use either an Android app or mobile browser on featurephones. Facebook decides which sites get on this platform. (Hence no Twitter, Telegram etc)
    - gravypod 11y ago
      So they have made up a way to ruin the internet for a select--small--number of people. It's nice to see the crap that facebook does get put in the spotlight recently.

nimish 11y ago

Formerly known as Internet.org

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jimrandomh 11y ago

This isn't quite hitting the core of the problem. If someone only has Facebook's Free Basics, then they can't conduct business on the Internet with anyone who hasn't partnered with Facebook. Not reading content, not publishing content, not downloading apps, not shopping, not email. They can only do these things if they pay a telecom for real internet access. From a user's perspective, that's still an improvement, because they would've had to pay for real internet access and now they have the option of maybe not. But what if you want to conduct business with those people who only have Free Basics? Then Facebook has a veto over your ability to do so. They will make you partner with them, jump through hoops, and maybe pay them money. If you're thinking of competing with them, they can destroy your business with a flick of a switch. It's a power that begs to be abused. Free Basics isn't bad for users, it's bad for everyone else.

fwn 11y ago
While I am generally in favor of free basics, I believe this platform argument to be one of the better. Don't know why you are downvoted, though. Maybe for the "isn't bad for users" half sentence.

sidthekid 11y ago

"... by throwing in short-sighted plans, you are preventing the Government and the market from thinking up plans for giving permanent access to the full Internet for these poor." I am on the fence on whether to support Free Basics or not, but the scale tilts here for me towards Free Basics. This response is like saying, "No, don't help them - you'll prevent us from helping them at some point in the future." The poor person in the village, on the street, shouldn't have to wait five more years for the internet(in whatever form) when a solution (though partial) is available now. Suppose the government does introduce a proper 'Free Internet' plan two years later. I don't think anything would stop them from switching from the biased Free Basics to the better plans.

cmurf 11y ago

Facebook!=the Internet. If it's only Facebook and friends, this is not at all anything like the Internet. It's a closed platform, like 25 years ago, with walled gardens. So people need to stop saying those criticising Free Basic are in favor of depriving poor people from the Internet. Quite honestly this Free Basic thing is so absurd to me on the face of it I hope Facebook doesn't modify it as a result of all the increasing criticism. Then it can just face plant, which is where it ought to end up. Even my ISP doesn't MITM my 443 connections to other services.

sidthekid 11y ago
There are people who do not have access even to the walled gardens of 25 years ago. This link is a response by Facebook to criticisms of Free Basics - https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-opponents/ https://info.internet.org/en/response-to-free-basics-opponen... I don't understand why no progress is better than some progress. This initiative is not meant for people already connected to the internet.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  The problem is you're framing this as "giving poor people some internet features" vs "poor people without any internet", which is the reading Facebook's propaganda is pushing. The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". Yes, the latter choice might take a bit longer, but it will be better in the long run than letting Facebook exploit the country in the style of the East India Company. This isn't about giving the poor access to the internet, it's yet another western corporation trying to exploit other countries. It's important to consider the larger, long-term consequences, instead of the merely the immediate results. Framing matters, and Facebook's propaganda on this topic is transparent if you take the time to analyze it.
  - fwn 11y ago
    >The proper framing for this is "Facebook installing themselves as a middleman that can control and monitor all data access with de facto monopoly power to hinder future competitors" vs "letting the local people develop their own internet on their own terms". While that's a fundamental believe in the anti-free-basics mindset, it's faulty. Facebook isn't stopping anyone from providing internet access anywhere. And they certainly don't gain this power by providing free basics. People having access to Facebook will still want to connect to the internet. Those people are not spectacularly different from us. By taking the time to analyze the consequences, many would probably notice that some of the anti free basics arguments are rather sloppy.

alkonaut 11y ago

Shouldn't a service like this use a small whitelist of sites that it provides for free (Google maps, Wikipedia, ...) and use https throughout rather than not at all? I completely understand if some services are easier to provide for free, e.g. static/cachable content that can be cached close to the users. Also if I were Facebook I'd remove any and all Facebook services, just to prove I'm being altruistic and not trying to lock in third world users to my ads... Really if fb can't do this then some nonprofit should. This looks a lot like when the US got internet access, with AoL trying to be a quasi-internet within internet. I suppose you can argue "it worked" because it connected lots of households and now they have proper Internet, but the European model where governments subsidized massive backbones and municipalities created last-mile networks making "proper" internet available straight away looks more attractive in retrospect. Realistically, poor countries will have to follow the US model...

prabhakar_u 11y ago

Dear Mark Zuckerberg here is a question to your Free Basics Project(Alias Internet.org). Q). Do you allow Indian users to use your direct competitor Twitter under Free Basics Internet plan? < ------ > Personal Prediction: Even if you allow, 5-years down the lone, if you notice Indian users are spending more time on Twitter rather than Facebook, you will have the option to disable Twitter from Free Basics plan, right? Ha ha, how smart it is!. Gatekeeping is not such a good thing even though it seems Free. "Happy Christmas!"