5 ms·

You are free not to use it if you want. You can pay for the internet. I wonder what people who actually use the service think. I remember using netzero. You had

You are free not to use it if you want. You can pay for the internet. I wonder what people who actually use the service think. I remember using netzero. You had to view ads for that.

pkd 11y ago
Most of the people who will actually end up using the service will be middle class people who can afford to pay for the internet and have been doing so but want to take it for a spin and see how it feels. The poorest who can't afford the internet don't even have the devices capable of displaying the modern web pages properly. The cost of internet comes secondary to the cost of the hardware necessary to access it.
- monort 11y ago
  Egypt’s mobile penetration is over 100%, poor have mobile phones that can access internet.
  - pkd 11y ago
    How does mobile penetration relate to the type of devices the people are using? India has almost 80% mobile penetration, but less than half of that is using smart/multimedia enabled phones. I'd estimate that Egypt's condition won't be vastly different considering the similarities between the economies.
    - monort 11y ago
      Not only smartphones can access internet. http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other
  - hellbanner 11y ago
    Does "over 100%" mean that on average every person has > 1 internet phone?
- quadrangle 11y ago
  wealthier people won't just "try this" they will spend far more of their time on Facebook if any of the poorer people they know or do business with are only on Facebook. That's the whole point. Network effects mean that if you get a critical mass of people on Facebook (and especially nowhere else), then people who have a choice to be elsewhere still have to go to Facebook to reach those people who are there.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  > The poorest who can't afford the internet don't even have the devices capable of displaying the modern web pages properly. The cost of internet comes secondary to the cost of the hardware necessary to access it. A serviceable used PC can be had for on the order of $50. Internet service is on the order of $50/month.
  - wsxcde 11y ago
    > Internet service is on the order of $50/month. This is bullshit. 1GB of 4G LTE costs less than $4 in India. http://www.airtel.in/4g/ http://www.airtel.in/4g/
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      I thought we were talking about real internet service, not a cell phone data plan crippled with such a low data cap you need a separate wifi connection. Even at $4/month = $48/year, how is that supposed to make buying a $50 device once every five years the dominant factor in affordability?
tdaltonc 11y ago
> You are free not to use it if you want. This argument can lead to a lot of unpleasant places. It's the regulators job to decide what offers are coercive to the poor, and make it illegal to offer them. It's generally illegal to offer to buy an organ, buy sex, or buy someone in to slavery because the only people that would consider that offer are being coerced by their circumstances. I think that the same (obviously to a lesser degree) is true of facebook's offer here (but not of netzero's offer). They are not free to choose, they are coerced by circumstance.
- fragsworth 11y ago
  It's not clear that making organ sales illegal leads to overall greater happiness. If someone is poor and chooses to sell an organ, as long as their decision is rational, then they would be better off by doing so. In other words, they're coerced into staying broke if we make it illegal to sell organs.
  - asddubs 11y ago
    The solution to that problem is not making selling organs legal, but getting a better safety net in place. Jeeze.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - tdaltonc 11y ago
    Unless you think that there should be a totally unregulated market in human organ though, you still agree with my main point? That regulators have a role to play in preventing people from making coercive offers to the poor?
  - bbarn 11y ago
    So if I show up with a kidney to sell in a cooler, all good? Does it matter where I got it? Ok, how about we say, you have to sell it yourself, at a licensed organ selling place. Then we regulate that you've got to be licensed to specifically harvest organs. But then, you might wind up with crooked harvesting facilities. Lots of legislation and resources would have to be spent on making sure the poor are really benefiting from their own organ sales. Or, we could stop trying to justify abuse of the poor for the benefit of the wealthy.
petke 11y ago
I'm a bit sad about this. Whatever its faults. This would surely have driven down the cost to send a messages between people, low enough that very poor people could do it also. There are plenty of poor people who cant afford to make mobile phone calls or send sms messages. With this they would at least had some way to do so. Say there is one mobile phone in the village (powered by say a solar panel). A person could just borrow that or rent it for a moment, to send some important message. Say to find out what the price of milk is today at the market in the next village. (If they cant read or write then they could get that one kid that can, to do it for them) Small thing like this could create all kinds of new opportunities.
- roymurdock 11y ago
  I think you underestimate how affordable and widespread mobile communication is. From my observations in Kumasi, Ghana and Kabul, Afghanistan (where I worked for a telco) having a basic cellphone and a cheap top-up plan is nearly universal. Prepaid SIM cards are sold on almost every street corner and the Facebook-enabled bundles are extremely popular. After food, water, and clothing, family and business communications are the next most important need.
  - petke 11y ago
    I hope you are right. I would make a great ted talk. How cheap mobile communication is changing life in remote villages. From own limited experience, I was struck by how expensive slow internet access was in the third world around 2008 (two years backpacking South America and South East Asia). The average local could not afford it. I could barely afford it. I remember for instance a Internet cafe in a small mountain town in Bolivia charged about $10 dollars an hour in 2008 (I guess it was internet by satellite). I hope things have changed. Any internet access (however limited) would make a big difference to the poor.
    - cdubzzz 11y ago
      For what it's worth, I experienced the same thing in Burkina Faso more than three years ago. It is far poorer than Ghana and pretty much everyone living in a town had a cell phone (or two or three) and used top-up services. Even in remote villages, usually at least one person would have a cell phone to share in places where network was available.
striking 11y ago
So we're now allowed to provide inferior service to the poor as long as it's called free? What happened to Net Neutrality? If the Internet is really so beneficial and necessary to these people, they should be given the actual Internet. Accept no substitutions. (Also, this is more than just "ad supported." This is a bundle of specific sites with their own biases and opinions, not real access to the Internet.)

You are free not to use it if you want. You can pay for the internet. I wonder what people who actually use the service think. I remember using netzero. You had to view ads for that.

pkd 11y ago

Most of the people who will actually end up using the service will be middle class people who can afford to pay for the internet and have been doing so but want to take it for a spin and see how it feels. The poorest who can't afford the internet don't even have the devices capable of displaying the modern web pages properly. The cost of internet comes secondary to the cost of the hardware necessary to access it.

monort 11y ago
Egypt’s mobile penetration is over 100%, poor have mobile phones that can access internet.
- pkd 11y ago
  How does mobile penetration relate to the type of devices the people are using? India has almost 80% mobile penetration, but less than half of that is using smart/multimedia enabled phones. I'd estimate that Egypt's condition won't be vastly different considering the similarities between the economies.
  - monort 11y ago
    Not only smartphones can access internet. http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other http://www.opera.com/mobile/mini/other
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Does "over 100%" mean that on average every person has > 1 internet phone?
quadrangle 11y ago
wealthier people won't just "try this" they will spend far more of their time on Facebook if any of the poorer people they know or do business with are only on Facebook. That's the whole point. Network effects mean that if you get a critical mass of people on Facebook (and especially nowhere else), then people who have a choice to be elsewhere still have to go to Facebook to reach those people who are there.
AnthonyMouse 11y ago
> The poorest who can't afford the internet don't even have the devices capable of displaying the modern web pages properly. The cost of internet comes secondary to the cost of the hardware necessary to access it. A serviceable used PC can be had for on the order of $50. Internet service is on the order of $50/month.
- wsxcde 11y ago
  > Internet service is on the order of $50/month. This is bullshit. 1GB of 4G LTE costs less than $4 in India. http://www.airtel.in/4g/ http://www.airtel.in/4g/
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    I thought we were talking about real internet service, not a cell phone data plan crippled with such a low data cap you need a separate wifi connection. Even at $4/month = $48/year, how is that supposed to make buying a $50 device once every five years the dominant factor in affordability?

tdaltonc 11y ago

> You are free not to use it if you want. This argument can lead to a lot of unpleasant places. It's the regulators job to decide what offers are coercive to the poor, and make it illegal to offer them. It's generally illegal to offer to buy an organ, buy sex, or buy someone in to slavery because the only people that would consider that offer are being coerced by their circumstances. I think that the same (obviously to a lesser degree) is true of facebook's offer here (but not of netzero's offer). They are not free to choose, they are coerced by circumstance.

fragsworth 11y ago
It's not clear that making organ sales illegal leads to overall greater happiness. If someone is poor and chooses to sell an organ, as long as their decision is rational, then they would be better off by doing so. In other words, they're coerced into staying broke if we make it illegal to sell organs.
- asddubs 11y ago
  The solution to that problem is not making selling organs legal, but getting a better safety net in place. Jeeze.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- tdaltonc 11y ago
  Unless you think that there should be a totally unregulated market in human organ though, you still agree with my main point? That regulators have a role to play in preventing people from making coercive offers to the poor?
- bbarn 11y ago
  So if I show up with a kidney to sell in a cooler, all good? Does it matter where I got it? Ok, how about we say, you have to sell it yourself, at a licensed organ selling place. Then we regulate that you've got to be licensed to specifically harvest organs. But then, you might wind up with crooked harvesting facilities. Lots of legislation and resources would have to be spent on making sure the poor are really benefiting from their own organ sales. Or, we could stop trying to justify abuse of the poor for the benefit of the wealthy.

petke 11y ago

I'm a bit sad about this. Whatever its faults. This would surely have driven down the cost to send a messages between people, low enough that very poor people could do it also. There are plenty of poor people who cant afford to make mobile phone calls or send sms messages. With this they would at least had some way to do so. Say there is one mobile phone in the village (powered by say a solar panel). A person could just borrow that or rent it for a moment, to send some important message. Say to find out what the price of milk is today at the market in the next village. (If they cant read or write then they could get that one kid that can, to do it for them) Small thing like this could create all kinds of new opportunities.

roymurdock 11y ago
I think you underestimate how affordable and widespread mobile communication is. From my observations in Kumasi, Ghana and Kabul, Afghanistan (where I worked for a telco) having a basic cellphone and a cheap top-up plan is nearly universal. Prepaid SIM cards are sold on almost every street corner and the Facebook-enabled bundles are extremely popular. After food, water, and clothing, family and business communications are the next most important need.
- petke 11y ago
  I hope you are right. I would make a great ted talk. How cheap mobile communication is changing life in remote villages. From own limited experience, I was struck by how expensive slow internet access was in the third world around 2008 (two years backpacking South America and South East Asia). The average local could not afford it. I could barely afford it. I remember for instance a Internet cafe in a small mountain town in Bolivia charged about $10 dollars an hour in 2008 (I guess it was internet by satellite). I hope things have changed. Any internet access (however limited) would make a big difference to the poor.
  - cdubzzz 11y ago
    For what it's worth, I experienced the same thing in Burkina Faso more than three years ago. It is far poorer than Ghana and pretty much everyone living in a town had a cell phone (or two or three) and used top-up services. Even in remote villages, usually at least one person would have a cell phone to share in places where network was available.

striking 11y ago

So we're now allowed to provide inferior service to the poor as long as it's called free? What happened to Net Neutrality? If the Internet is really so beneficial and necessary to these people, they should be given the actual Internet. Accept no substitutions. (Also, this is more than just "ad supported." This is a bundle of specific sites with their own biases and opinions, not real access to the Internet.)