17 ms·

Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

394 points by rachellaw 11y ago

CrowFly 11y ago
I wonder it it would be feasible to tunnel the "real internet" through Facebook using (for example) their chat client (you'd need something on the other end to make the connection). Like tunneling a VPN over DNS queries. That would be a clever work-around.
- roywiggins 11y ago
  Probably violates the TOS, or if it doesn't right now, as soon as it's implemented, it will. Not that I have any moral opposition, but it'd be risking a pretty quick account ban.
- wreckimnaked 11y ago
  It doesn't have to be facebook, any of the whitelisted websites could potentially be used as a proxy.
- ArnoldP 11y ago
  Since they have their advertising bots and learning machines reading all that stuff all of the time, it would only be a matter of time before they shut that hole (if it gained a decent amount of popularity)
- akerro 11y ago
  https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-tunnel https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-tunnel I heard about some more, but didn't bookmark them :<
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Sadly this doesn’t work with http://0.facebook.com/ http://0.facebook.com/, the version of Free Basics available in Germany.
    - akerro 11y ago
      Maybe this one http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ ?
  - CrowFly 11y ago
    Well, there you go! It _was_ a good idea.
- toomanybeersies 11y ago
  I was considering doing something similar a while ago, since here in New Zealand, we get free facebook on mobile (0.facebook.com). I'm fairly sure that FB has things in place to stop you from using bots to send messages though, in an attempt to stop spam.
faramarz 11y ago
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Of course it's a land grab. The same way Google Fiber is trying grab North American broadband.
- mr_luc 11y ago
  It's not in the same way at all. Google Fiber is real internet; 'free internet basics' are an attempt to turn the internet into a walled garden.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > Google Fiber is real internet Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you to host game servers, for Minecraft, for example. Their Fiber team heavily opposes Net Neutrality, too. Sadly.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      "Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you to host game servers, for Minecraft, for example. " Basically no residential ISP in the US i'm aware of allows server hosting. Certainly no major ones :)
      - thescriptkiddie 11y ago
        If this is true then they must be doing a pretty good job of turning a blind eye.
      - kuschku 11y ago
        Just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it’s good. Now, that IPv6 is becoming more popular, and we might be able to provide globally unique IPs for every end device, and that 24/7 connected internet is standard, it should be a thing of 2 or 3 clicks to host a webserver. It should be a no-op to set up a raspberry pi to serve websites – and it would definitely provide a lot of kids and students the ability to experiment a lot easier. Remember, Facebook in its early days was hosted from a dorm room at college. Google from a garage.
beccasanchez 11y ago
Even though it's obviously a land grab... no one other than massive corporations is capable or willing to provide this. I don't like it either, but that's how corporatocracy works. Might as well fight against gravity.
- pasquinelli 11y ago
  that's a good point. might as well fight against gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM
- tokai 11y ago
  Humanity have a long and distinct history of fighting against gravity.
  - vthallam 11y ago
    Exactly! That too, a democracy like India would never approve something so capitalistic with a pro-poor cover.
  - beccasanchez 11y ago
    And yet gravity is still going strong... Make an ally out of gravity and you can use its strength for something half-decent instead of all-bad. I think this land grab by Facebook is half-decent instead of all-bad. Facebook is treating the poor better than the Indian government has, at least. Neither institution really gives a fuck about them.
    - ganadiniakshay 11y ago
      Facebook is treating the farmers better by giving them access to facebook. What has the government done except no interest loans, free seeds and fertilizers, subsidies and free training programs. Sounds about right
      - beccasanchez 11y ago
swehner 11y ago
Why are there no other companies offering the same?
- Grue3 11y ago
  Exactly, why don't people who oppose this provide unlimited internet to the poor people for free? Put their money where their mouth is.
chkuendig 11y ago
Pretty heavily editorialized headline, not at all in the economists style. Original title: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India
- ipsin 11y ago
  Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics, and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is a cover for a land-grab".
  - such_a_casual 11y ago
    There is a significant difference between a headline that reads, "Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab" and "Critics say Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab". But both titles are sensational click-bait.
  - ipsin 11y ago
    I agree with you (such_a_casual). I think my judgement was skewed because I'm one of those critics.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    It's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the article agrees with one quoted source in the article.
    - thieving_magpie 11y ago
      One quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey print. Seems fair game to me.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        It's not fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters not do this exact thing; instead, you're to use the article's original headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait. People who submit stories don't own the stories on HN; stories are community property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special privileges to reframe the story for everyone else. In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does not.
FreedomToCreate 11y ago
The content creators need to be separate from the content distributers. This way there is lower incentive for either to perform manipulative actions. With Facebook providing the content and the service at a low price (free in this case) they are setting up a model where the poor are funneled into there definition of applicable content. Sure some people upgrade, it is there argument, but at what cost. If Facebook really is trying to improve the world, they they should invest in a sustainable infrastructure for the poor with full access to the internet. Is it going to piss of people who pay for it, yes, but does it empower the poor to have tools they didn't have before and give everyone an opportunity to improve these regions, yes it does. The cynic in me though thinks its just gonna create a generation of poor people addicted to Facebook and online video. I just spent 4 months living in Shenzhen China and man are the shopkeepers addicted to playing video games and watching soap operas on there computers.Thats all they do.... all day. The internet is really only a tool for businesses and motivated individuals, for the rest its just another way to be manipulated.
- not_a_terrorist 11y ago
  wow, reading your comment, one would believe we were in the decade prior the iPhone years, where the carriers were trying to take control of all content, giving priority and exclusive access to their own content and services. Another decade later, the same temptation has survived. If history repeats itself: it will fail. Let's wish ourselves good luck!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
amelius 11y ago
Data infrastructure should be controlled by the government only. Why? Well, imagine that every transport company had to support their own road network... Alternatively, imagine that one company controlled the roads, creating effectively a controlled market nested inside a free market.
- MawNicker 11y ago
  For the "last mile" this should certainly be true. We drive on public infrastructure to get to the airport. To continue this analogy: Any party could then maintain private infrastructure in India (or anywhere) for free public consumption. Like a local retailer. They could pay for "international shipping" to keep these services supplied with fresh data. This would allow Facebook to accomplish its ostensible goals. Without becoming the governor of a walled garden.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side by side in less space than a single water pipe. And for the same reason, the companies vs government dichotomy is invalid here as well. Even if we want to provide a public service to avoid private monopolization, there's absolutely no reason to forbid private companies from competing with it. After all, if the problem is that private companies are greedy, a public ISP funded only by their customers' fees and without profit-seeking shareholders should solve the problem within a system of fair competition.
  - zanny 11y ago
    It is still hugely expensive to have redundant infrastructure, and that has real economic consequence to a country who decides to have private companies lay their own independent wires than at least compelling price controlled renting of those lines. But there is the other side of the equation that matters too. If you have complete government control there is no more market pressure on innovation at all. Nobody would have a reason to develop faster consumer fiber systems since there is no money to be made.
    - 11y ago
devindotcom 11y ago
Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector, he needs to be pouring money into local infrastructure, subsidizing open source routing software, lobbying worldwide against entrenched bureaucracy and corporate obstructionism. They're doing some of that, sure, but Free Basics is heavy handed and no one trusts Facebook to begin with - it's not strange to think of it as a sort of modern digital imperialist.
- yggydrasily 11y ago
  Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either way.
  - circuitslave 11y ago
    It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.
    - everly 11y ago
      I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.
      - hackinthebochs 11y ago
petke 11y ago
> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators it works with. How does that even work? Why would the telecoms agree to pay the bill on behalf of Facebook? Surely there must be some money from Facebook back to the telecom, to make it worthwhile for them. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-changing-hands/ http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-...
- gearoidoc 11y ago
  I guess because it leads to "full" internet subscription which generates revenue (assumedly profits) for them.
  - petke 11y ago
    This makes a big difference to me. I was actually for Facebook basics, when I thought Facebook picked up the bill so that poor people could access at least some internet. But if the operators are paying for this ... then what value is Facebook actually providing?
    - vthallam 11y ago
      They say they provide the platform and guidelines and works with telcos across the world. But it's not a convincing answer to a normal user. Thing is, if FB can do it, certainly Google and other major companies can do it.
- ocean3 11y ago
  If free basics get through then telecome operators could potentially come with up Netflix package, Youtube package like TV packages.
snydly 11y ago
AOL should get in on this. They could put all of those old CDs to good use. Free internet program from the late 90's: "1000 hours free! Sign on today!" :)
jordigh 11y ago
I like Eben Moglen's and Mishi Choudhary's take on this situation: Faced with the dawning public recognition that this so-called philanthropy is nothing but an attempt to buy the de-anonymised packets of the Indian poor at a bulk rate, breaking their security in the process of destroying their privacy, Facebook has no alternative but to change the subject. http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly-carries-white-mans-burden-poor-indians-data-packets/ http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly...
- x5n1 11y ago
  "Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it." Basic internet service. Ok. One app constitutes basic internet according to Zuckerborg.
  - r3bl 11y ago
    > Your service can be part of it. This part is my favorite. I know that my personal website is ineligible because it contains some JavaScript code that handles the navigation, but I submitted it regardlessly just to see how complicated the process is (and to write a blog post about my experience so that others would know what to expect). That was like 20 days ago. I'm still waiting for someone from Facebook to contact me.
    - cobookman 11y ago
      You weren't joking. Should be as dumb as getting your webpage crawled by google: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url?pli=1 https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url?pli=1 Why all the wording: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-submit https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-sub...
dil8 11y ago
One more reason to stop using facebook.
mwsherman 11y ago
There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article. I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that position. Instead, the critics are imposing their preference on the users here, who are poor and (in this article) unheard. Can we please see an article where such people are quoted, and perhaps some numbers about usage, revealing their empirical preferences?
- lunula 11y ago
  It does seem that people in India are speaking up against this. Now you will quip that these activists must already have internet access, otherwise they would not even know to speak up. But the activists are at least from the same communities as the target market for this program. They are fighting for their families and friends. This seems very genuine and selfless in comparison to the motivations of the company and ego they are fighting against. The alternative would be to ignore the activists and see if people like a free thing they have minimal understanding of. I think that they will, at least we both suspect they will. But I don't think this will make it right. That they will like the free thing does not make it good for the community. For instance, how many people would like free cigarettes or alcohol after their first few exposures? Many. Would their distribution be good for the community in the long run? No. But who would speak up? It won't be the uninitiated, and it won't be the company distributing the goods.
  - Grue3 11y ago
    >They are fighting for their families and friends. The less charitable explanation is that they're fighting to keep their leg up on the less fortunate population. The gap between those with Internet access and without is absolutely enormous. If everyone has Internet access, this untaps incredible amount of people resources, which would drive down the demand for those who currently have Internet access. These "activists" have a lot to lose if the poor get allowed into the cool kids' treehouse.
sremani 11y ago
What humors me most is that no one is up in arms against Reliance. On top of it, no one is suggesting Reliance whose owner is a billionaire long before Zukerberg was, to give free interwebs to his fellow Indians. India has 80% adults with no access to Interwebs, how are you going to solve this problem in next 5 years? *Do not tell me INR 20 dataplan, I know its there and I would not wish it on my worst enemy.
- vthallam 11y ago
  You could solve this problem if the govt provides more spectrum to the telco companies and in turn ask them to subsidize it to the poor. In this day and age, its not tough to do it. Just because it's tough, you would not want to accept some unfair offering.
  - sremani 11y ago
    So why is it not being done? From my previous life spent in India, government subsidies are guaranteed income for politically connected.
ecobiker 11y ago
I'm personally disappointed by the comments in this article and others, specifically from people here in the Western world, that portray the fight by the internet activists as a fight against internet access to the poor. No one would make arguments like that here. Almost everyone rallied behind Net-Neutrality. Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can get something of value in return? "beggars cannot be choosers"? Come on - no one is begging for internet.
- polyomino 11y ago
  what exactly are the poor giving up?
  - vaishaksuresh 11y ago
    >>Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can get something of value in return? In this case, choosing how to access the Internet.
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      I don't see how anyone is giving up the choice of how to access the Internet. Opposing Free Basics is opposing that choice. Free Basics is offering a new choice, and more choices is always a rationally better thing. What is your position on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...
      - vaishaksuresh 11y ago
        Nobody is giving up a choice at the moment, but if Free Basic becomes a thing, there won't be a choice in the future. That is the problem people have with it. Almost everyday I hear people complaining about how Comcast/ATT have monopoly in the US and how they are exploiting the helplessness of people. How is FreeBasic any different? For a lot of people, the only internet they will know will be the version that FB thinks is right for them. This is less a question about choice, more about net neutrality. About the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics, I am not knowledgeable enough to form an opinion yet. I'll get back to you on that.
tptacek 11y ago
Egregiously editorialized title; the actual title is: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India
drcube 11y ago
I don't understand why this is restricted to Facebook. If the telco is providing no-cost data to poor consumers, why does it matter which websites they go to? That's the suspicious thing about this, not the simple fact that Facebook is involved.
dhawalhs 11y ago
Its important to note that WhatsApp is not part of Internet.org. The telecom providers in India are not happy with messaging apps as they are cutting into their text messaging revenues. And they want to charge people for WhatsApp access (its already happening). With Facebook's help they get to create a tiered internet under the guise of "helping the poor".
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  It seems kind of unlikely that facebook would cooperate on an intentional goal to reduce access to WhatsApp, when Facebook owns WhatsApp. But maybe. Or maybe that was the telecom's motivation, if not facebook's.
myth_buster 11y ago
The fb's attempt to control the internet in third world country brings this quote to mind... When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks. In this day and age, Internet should be a utility, with government subsidizing it if required while preventing _walled gardens_.
- cvs268 11y ago
  More likely a Microsoft Surface in a Samsung Galaxy :-)
bedros 11y ago
The Internet only blossomed after it was freed from proprietary access by AOL. Zuckerberg plans to move the internet back to the dark ages.
aaron695 11y ago
Rich people limiting poor peoples options, again. It's much better they eat cake, than this "free internet"
- vaishaksuresh 11y ago
  More like rich people preventing a richer person from force feeding the poor with what makes him the most money. Exactly like Nestlé giving baby formula for the first few days for free in poor african countries so that they become dependent on it.
- pavanky 11y ago
  This is probably the most idiotic argument against the critics of Facebook and it is not even original.
funkyy 11y ago
Free internet is basically a deal that FB did with some carriers to provide some of their resources in exchange for some kick ass promises and possibly funds. The easy way to do this for ANY government would be to force all wireless carriers to provide 200 MB free internet to all citizens in exchange for license to broadcast. This happened once in Poland for example when government provided frequencies in exchange of forcing the company to provide unlimited, but slow internet to all citizens through mobiles.
- mailmrg 11y ago
  completely agree and this will make a good start for lot of people.
vaishaksuresh 11y ago
For the people arguing that rich people are preventing the poor from getting internet access, please read about the Nestlé baby formula scandal. This is exactly the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue
- sidthekid 11y ago
  It is somewhat similar because the long-term effects were malicious/not known in the short term. But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch internet carriers at any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics). 'Facebook addiction' isn't as objectively proven as the side effects mentioned in the article. 'Tracking usage data and privacy snooping' isn't as harmful as the side effects mentioned, because poor people probably value their 'usage data' less and access to basic resources like Wikipedia/job posting sites/health and weather reports more. (and its just fear and speculation that facebook will maliciously track all data passing through its servers, but we are treating it like inevitable fact)
  - vaishaksuresh 11y ago
    >But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch internet carriers at any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics) Given how there is no alternative, it is pretty much facebook or nothing.
slaxman 11y ago
Few points here: 1. It's not really internet. It's a set of 100 sites that includes a real estate portal and a personal blog. If you are talking about connecting the unconnected with essential services, why have these on your list? On the other hand, chennairains.org, a website that helped people during extreme floods in chennai was not on that list. 2. There is no proof that "free basics" actually improves internet connectivity. In fact, Facebook's telecom partner (Reliance Comm) advertises it as a way to save money for surfing on facebook and whatsapp. 3. None of the traffic must be encrypted 4. All traffic flows through facebook's servers 5. It's not an open platform. Facebook and Telcos reserve the right to accept or deny websites on "Free Basics" The above points make it clear that "free internet" is a facade and it's more of a walled garden that makes facebook the gatekeeper. Another Telco launched something similar a few months ago and was scrapped because it violated net neutrality. Arguments that "free basics" is required for internet to grow in India are ridiculous. India added _52 Million_ internet users in the first six months of 2015 (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178659_1_user-base-iamai-internet-and-mobile-association http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news...)
- dingo_bat 11y ago
  Even though it seems a big number, 52 million is nothing compared to the people who still do not have access. I think the growth rate is not fast enough. We should be doubling the installed base every year. 52 million is just about 1/6 of the total number of users. And I'm inclined to believe that this sluggishness is due in part to the cost of access.
  - slaxman 11y ago
    Once you reach a certain scale of users, percentage growth don't matter because it's hard to hit big absolute numbers. In whichever way you look at it, 52Mn is a freakishly huge number. And this timeline is 6 months, not a year. Further "Free basics" has been launched in other countries. But there is not proof that it results in more internet connectivity. (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/there-is-no-correlation-between-reducing-digital-divide-differential-pricing-r-s-sharma-115123100461_1.html http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ther...)
seshagiric 11y ago
People would actually benefit from the free (limited) internet. In fact most people are also ok if Facebook gets something back in return. It would have definitely helped if it was clearly stated as a commercial program and not an altruistic venture.
HappyTypist 11y ago
I honestly think Facebook would have done well by providing access to the full internet but making Facebook the start page / captive portal.
- 5_5 11y ago
  You will bow down to anything. What about your private data? You want facebook to decide what you want to see on internet? Start a day with friend's like and share!!! I think your internet means facebook.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
csgrad12 11y ago
Free Basics, if legalized, sets a precedent for ISPs to offer zero-rated plans which affects everyone. You don't want a huge market with more than half a billion users (by 2020) where zero-rated plans are commonplace. Everyone loses out in such a situation except the ISPs. Netflix was just launched in India, and Reliance (the carrier that supports Free Basics) has a similar offering called Bigflix, which they can zero-rate to eliminate Netflix. Airtel, another huge operator can zero-rate their messaging application Hike to eliminate WhatsApp/Snapchat. Their music offering can eliminate Spotify (if they do come to India) or any other music streaming startup. Flipkart, an e-commerce player can eliminate every other niche e-commerce startups in India by zero-rating their services, which they tried last year. Sadly, all the campaigns are focused on Facebook/Zuckerberg and people calling for a ban on Free Basics when they should actually be campaigning against zero-rating. Free Basics might be a great gateway drug to the internet, but what good is it if the internet as we know today will not exist when the poor decide to get a "complete" internet connection?
chdir 11y ago
It's unbecoming of a large corporation that "wants to work for connecting people" to make statements like these against net neutrality advocates : "Facebook has been urging users to sign a petition that claims that “a small, vocal group of critics… demand that people pay equally to access all Internet services, even if that means one billion people can’t afford to access any services,” and that “unless you take action now, India could lose access to free basic Internet services, delaying progress towards digital equality for all Indians." Facebook has resorted to slander when they can't give transparent answers to the issues raised against Free Basics. Quote Source : https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-net-neutrality-in-india/ https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-...
samikc 11y ago
Free basic internet may include Google search, Wikipedia, email of choice, access to all pages that Google suggests in first two pages. But I think Facebook should not be part of basic internet.
prabuinet 11y ago
When did facebook become non-profit to give away things for free? fcuk zcuk, stay away from India.
karmacondon 11y ago
The internet is difficult to describe to someone who has no experience with it. It's like "There's this flibity divit called Google that lets you search for hurgfbr and find veruhryhr written by people you like." If someone has no way to conceptually anchor terms like "search engine", "web pages" or "blogs" then it will be difficult for them to understand what's being said, much less know what they're missing out on. With bare minimum exposure to the ideas via Free Basics, people will be able to imagine what else is out there. It becomes "Google is like when you type words into the search box on facebook, except you get more results and they're more relevant." I would imagine that once exposed to even a limited version of the internet, people will quickly demand unrestricted access from their local government. But they have to know what they don't have before they can ask for it. If this is all an Evil Plan by Mark Zuckerberg to set up an internet monopoly in India, then it's a very stupid plan. Facebook is a communication platform. People will use it to communicate with people who have normal internet, and will no doubt hear about all the things that they don't have access to. It's only a matter of time before "Free Basics" becomes "Low Cost Government Internet Access For All". For many people from my generation, AOL was the internet. It was all we knew. But eventually we figured out that there was more out there, and the people of India are capable of doing that as well. There are hackers in every culture, at every social strata. If you give them an inch, they'll turn it into a mile or more. Free Basics isn't perfect, but for many people it's better than nothing.
piyushpr134 11y ago
Too all the oh-India-is-so-poor-needs-charity-for-everything people out there, digest this: India has 1bn live mobile phone connections (live month on month and not just issued). It has been done by cut throat competition between private phone players, such as airtel, vodafone, reliance, tata among others, and supportive government measures such a giving spectrum for cheap. No verizon needed to come here with their charity plate, giving away restricted free phone connections.
zeta0134 11y ago
"And if Free Basics proved popular there would be little to stop India’s big media and e-commerce groups from creating rival offerings, to drive first-time surfers towards their web offerings." And that's precisely the problem. Most advocates for Net Neutrality are afraid of exactly this: the death of the free and open internet for those who can't afford it, replaced by some fragmented collection of services offered in a bundle package like some Cable Television plan.
rubberstamp 11y ago
First of all, this is not "free internet" they are trying to provide. Second point - if they were trying to genuinely provide a free internet service, nothing is stoping them from doing it without all the legalise TOS that surrounds it at the moment. Third point - Free 200MB or 500MB data per month for each person is the best way to do it(no video streaming/big files download), if "helping" was the actual intention. If the only services that is accessible through it will be the ones approved by facebook, stop calling it "free internet". Also the cost of providing the service is on the ISP/carrier that FB ties up with. The key factor that is glossed over is: > Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators. I was all for facebook basics when I thought Facebook was paying for poor people to access at least some restricted internet access. But its actually the operators that are paying for this. Giving away free access to some sites in a walled garden, hoping those same users will pay to access other sites at some points. So Facebook is just a beneficiary in all of this. Getting new users at no cost. Taking the credit for it, while operators are actually paying the bills.
- rubberstamp 11y ago
  The poor also deserve privacy and actual internet instead of being snooped up on and fed by "internet for the poor".

394 points by rachellaw 11y ago

I wonder it it would be feasible to tunnel the "real internet" through Facebook using (for example) their chat client (you'd need something on the other end to make the connection). Like tunneling a VPN over DNS queries. That would be a clever work-around.

roywiggins 11y ago
Probably violates the TOS, or if it doesn't right now, as soon as it's implemented, it will. Not that I have any moral opposition, but it'd be risking a pretty quick account ban.
wreckimnaked 11y ago
It doesn't have to be facebook, any of the whitelisted websites could potentially be used as a proxy.
ArnoldP 11y ago
Since they have their advertising bots and learning machines reading all that stuff all of the time, it would only be a matter of time before they shut that hole (if it gained a decent amount of popularity)
akerro 11y ago
https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-tunnel https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-tunnel I heard about some more, but didn't bookmark them :<
- kuschku 11y ago
  Sadly this doesn’t work with http://0.facebook.com/ http://0.facebook.com/, the version of Free Basics available in Germany.
  - akerro 11y ago
    Maybe this one http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ ?
- CrowFly 11y ago
  Well, there you go! It _was_ a good idea.
toomanybeersies 11y ago
I was considering doing something similar a while ago, since here in New Zealand, we get free facebook on mobile (0.facebook.com). I'm fairly sure that FB has things in place to stop you from using bots to send messages though, in an attempt to stop spam.

faramarz 11y ago

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Of course it's a land grab. The same way Google Fiber is trying grab North American broadband.

mr_luc 11y ago
It's not in the same way at all. Google Fiber is real internet; 'free internet basics' are an attempt to turn the internet into a walled garden.
- kuschku 11y ago
  > Google Fiber is real internet Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you to host game servers, for Minecraft, for example. Their Fiber team heavily opposes Net Neutrality, too. Sadly.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you to host game servers, for Minecraft, for example. " Basically no residential ISP in the US i'm aware of allows server hosting. Certainly no major ones :)
    - thescriptkiddie 11y ago
      If this is true then they must be doing a pretty good job of turning a blind eye.
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it’s good. Now, that IPv6 is becoming more popular, and we might be able to provide globally unique IPs for every end device, and that 24/7 connected internet is standard, it should be a thing of 2 or 3 clicks to host a webserver. It should be a no-op to set up a raspberry pi to serve websites – and it would definitely provide a lot of kids and students the ability to experiment a lot easier. Remember, Facebook in its early days was hosted from a dorm room at college. Google from a garage.

beccasanchez 11y ago

Even though it's obviously a land grab... no one other than massive corporations is capable or willing to provide this. I don't like it either, but that's how corporatocracy works. Might as well fight against gravity.

pasquinelli 11y ago
that's a good point. might as well fight against gravity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM
tokai 11y ago
Humanity have a long and distinct history of fighting against gravity.
- vthallam 11y ago
  Exactly! That too, a democracy like India would never approve something so capitalistic with a pro-poor cover.
- beccasanchez 11y ago
  And yet gravity is still going strong... Make an ally out of gravity and you can use its strength for something half-decent instead of all-bad. I think this land grab by Facebook is half-decent instead of all-bad. Facebook is treating the poor better than the Indian government has, at least. Neither institution really gives a fuck about them.
  - ganadiniakshay 11y ago
    Facebook is treating the farmers better by giving them access to facebook. What has the government done except no interest loans, free seeds and fertilizers, subsidies and free training programs. Sounds about right
    - beccasanchez 11y ago

swehner 11y ago

Why are there no other companies offering the same?

Grue3 11y ago
Exactly, why don't people who oppose this provide unlimited internet to the poor people for free? Put their money where their mouth is.

chkuendig 11y ago

Pretty heavily editorialized headline, not at all in the economists style. Original title: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

ipsin 11y ago
Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics, and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is a cover for a land-grab".
- such_a_casual 11y ago
  There is a significant difference between a headline that reads, "Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab" and "Critics say Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab". But both titles are sensational click-bait.
- ipsin 11y ago
  I agree with you (such_a_casual). I think my judgement was skewed because I'm one of those critics.
- tptacek 11y ago
  It's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the article agrees with one quoted source in the article.
  - thieving_magpie 11y ago
    One quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey print. Seems fair game to me.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      It's not fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters not do this exact thing; instead, you're to use the article's original headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait. People who submit stories don't own the stories on HN; stories are community property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special privileges to reframe the story for everyone else. In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does not.

FreedomToCreate 11y ago

The content creators need to be separate from the content distributers. This way there is lower incentive for either to perform manipulative actions. With Facebook providing the content and the service at a low price (free in this case) they are setting up a model where the poor are funneled into there definition of applicable content. Sure some people upgrade, it is there argument, but at what cost. If Facebook really is trying to improve the world, they they should invest in a sustainable infrastructure for the poor with full access to the internet. Is it going to piss of people who pay for it, yes, but does it empower the poor to have tools they didn't have before and give everyone an opportunity to improve these regions, yes it does. The cynic in me though thinks its just gonna create a generation of poor people addicted to Facebook and online video. I just spent 4 months living in Shenzhen China and man are the shopkeepers addicted to playing video games and watching soap operas on there computers.Thats all they do.... all day. The internet is really only a tool for businesses and motivated individuals, for the rest its just another way to be manipulated.

not_a_terrorist 11y ago
wow, reading your comment, one would believe we were in the decade prior the iPhone years, where the carriers were trying to take control of all content, giving priority and exclusive access to their own content and services. Another decade later, the same temptation has survived. If history repeats itself: it will fail. Let's wish ourselves good luck!
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

amelius 11y ago

Data infrastructure should be controlled by the government only. Why? Well, imagine that every transport company had to support their own road network... Alternatively, imagine that one company controlled the roads, creating effectively a controlled market nested inside a free market.

MawNicker 11y ago
For the "last mile" this should certainly be true. We drive on public infrastructure to get to the airport. To continue this analogy: Any party could then maintain private infrastructure in India (or anywhere) for free public consumption. Like a local retailer. They could pay for "international shipping" to keep these services supplied with fresh data. This would allow Facebook to accomplish its ostensible goals. Without becoming the governor of a walled garden.
icebraining 11y ago
Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side by side in less space than a single water pipe. And for the same reason, the companies vs government dichotomy is invalid here as well. Even if we want to provide a public service to avoid private monopolization, there's absolutely no reason to forbid private companies from competing with it. After all, if the problem is that private companies are greedy, a public ISP funded only by their customers' fees and without profit-seeking shareholders should solve the problem within a system of fair competition.
- zanny 11y ago
  It is still hugely expensive to have redundant infrastructure, and that has real economic consequence to a country who decides to have private companies lay their own independent wires than at least compelling price controlled renting of those lines. But there is the other side of the equation that matters too. If you have complete government control there is no more market pressure on innovation at all. Nobody would have a reason to develop faster consumer fiber systems since there is no money to be made.
  - 11y ago

devindotcom 11y ago

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector, he needs to be pouring money into local infrastructure, subsidizing open source routing software, lobbying worldwide against entrenched bureaucracy and corporate obstructionism. They're doing some of that, sure, but Free Basics is heavy handed and no one trusts Facebook to begin with - it's not strange to think of it as a sort of modern digital imperialist.

yggydrasily 11y ago
Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either way.
- circuitslave 11y ago
  It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.
  - everly 11y ago
    I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.
    - hackinthebochs 11y ago

petke 11y ago

> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators it works with. How does that even work? Why would the telecoms agree to pay the bill on behalf of Facebook? Surely there must be some money from Facebook back to the telecom, to make it worthwhile for them. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-changing-hands/ http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-...

gearoidoc 11y ago
I guess because it leads to "full" internet subscription which generates revenue (assumedly profits) for them.
- petke 11y ago
  This makes a big difference to me. I was actually for Facebook basics, when I thought Facebook picked up the bill so that poor people could access at least some internet. But if the operators are paying for this ... then what value is Facebook actually providing?
  - vthallam 11y ago
    They say they provide the platform and guidelines and works with telcos across the world. But it's not a convincing answer to a normal user. Thing is, if FB can do it, certainly Google and other major companies can do it.
ocean3 11y ago
If free basics get through then telecome operators could potentially come with up Netflix package, Youtube package like TV packages.

snydly 11y ago

AOL should get in on this. They could put all of those old CDs to good use. Free internet program from the late 90's: "1000 hours free! Sign on today!" :)

jordigh 11y ago

I like Eben Moglen's and Mishi Choudhary's take on this situation: Faced with the dawning public recognition that this so-called philanthropy is nothing but an attempt to buy the de-anonymised packets of the Indian poor at a bulk rate, breaking their security in the process of destroying their privacy, Facebook has no alternative but to change the subject. http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly-carries-white-mans-burden-poor-indians-data-packets/ http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly...

x5n1 11y ago
"Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it." Basic internet service. Ok. One app constitutes basic internet according to Zuckerborg.
- r3bl 11y ago
  > Your service can be part of it. This part is my favorite. I know that my personal website is ineligible because it contains some JavaScript code that handles the navigation, but I submitted it regardlessly just to see how complicated the process is (and to write a blog post about my experience so that others would know what to expect). That was like 20 days ago. I'm still waiting for someone from Facebook to contact me.
  - cobookman 11y ago
    You weren't joking. Should be as dumb as getting your webpage crawled by google: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url?pli=1 https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url?pli=1 Why all the wording: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-submit https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-sub...

dil8 11y ago

One more reason to stop using facebook.

mwsherman 11y ago

There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article. I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that position. Instead, the critics are imposing their preference on the users here, who are poor and (in this article) unheard. Can we please see an article where such people are quoted, and perhaps some numbers about usage, revealing their empirical preferences?

lunula 11y ago
It does seem that people in India are speaking up against this. Now you will quip that these activists must already have internet access, otherwise they would not even know to speak up. But the activists are at least from the same communities as the target market for this program. They are fighting for their families and friends. This seems very genuine and selfless in comparison to the motivations of the company and ego they are fighting against. The alternative would be to ignore the activists and see if people like a free thing they have minimal understanding of. I think that they will, at least we both suspect they will. But I don't think this will make it right. That they will like the free thing does not make it good for the community. For instance, how many people would like free cigarettes or alcohol after their first few exposures? Many. Would their distribution be good for the community in the long run? No. But who would speak up? It won't be the uninitiated, and it won't be the company distributing the goods.
- Grue3 11y ago
  >They are fighting for their families and friends. The less charitable explanation is that they're fighting to keep their leg up on the less fortunate population. The gap between those with Internet access and without is absolutely enormous. If everyone has Internet access, this untaps incredible amount of people resources, which would drive down the demand for those who currently have Internet access. These "activists" have a lot to lose if the poor get allowed into the cool kids' treehouse.

sremani 11y ago

What humors me most is that no one is up in arms against Reliance. On top of it, no one is suggesting Reliance whose owner is a billionaire long before Zukerberg was, to give free interwebs to his fellow Indians. India has 80% adults with no access to Interwebs, how are you going to solve this problem in next 5 years? *Do not tell me INR 20 dataplan, I know its there and I would not wish it on my worst enemy.

vthallam 11y ago
You could solve this problem if the govt provides more spectrum to the telco companies and in turn ask them to subsidize it to the poor. In this day and age, its not tough to do it. Just because it's tough, you would not want to accept some unfair offering.
- sremani 11y ago
  So why is it not being done? From my previous life spent in India, government subsidies are guaranteed income for politically connected.

ecobiker 11y ago

I'm personally disappointed by the comments in this article and others, specifically from people here in the Western world, that portray the fight by the internet activists as a fight against internet access to the poor. No one would make arguments like that here. Almost everyone rallied behind Net-Neutrality. Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can get something of value in return? "beggars cannot be choosers"? Come on - no one is begging for internet.

polyomino 11y ago
what exactly are the poor giving up?
- vaishaksuresh 11y ago
  >>Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can get something of value in return? In this case, choosing how to access the Internet.
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    I don't see how anyone is giving up the choice of how to access the Internet. Opposing Free Basics is opposing that choice. Free Basics is offering a new choice, and more choices is always a rationally better thing. What is your position on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/ http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...
    - vaishaksuresh 11y ago
      Nobody is giving up a choice at the moment, but if Free Basic becomes a thing, there won't be a choice in the future. That is the problem people have with it. Almost everyday I hear people complaining about how Comcast/ATT have monopoly in the US and how they are exploiting the helplessness of people. How is FreeBasic any different? For a lot of people, the only internet they will know will be the version that FB thinks is right for them. This is less a question about choice, more about net neutrality. About the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics, I am not knowledgeable enough to form an opinion yet. I'll get back to you on that.

tptacek 11y ago

Egregiously editorialized title; the actual title is: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

drcube 11y ago

I don't understand why this is restricted to Facebook. If the telco is providing no-cost data to poor consumers, why does it matter which websites they go to? That's the suspicious thing about this, not the simple fact that Facebook is involved.

dhawalhs 11y ago

Its important to note that WhatsApp is not part of Internet.org. The telecom providers in India are not happy with messaging apps as they are cutting into their text messaging revenues. And they want to charge people for WhatsApp access (its already happening). With Facebook's help they get to create a tiered internet under the guise of "helping the poor".

jrochkind1 11y ago
It seems kind of unlikely that facebook would cooperate on an intentional goal to reduce access to WhatsApp, when Facebook owns WhatsApp. But maybe. Or maybe that was the telecom's motivation, if not facebook's.

myth_buster 11y ago

The fb's attempt to control the internet in third world country brings this quote to mind... When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks. In this day and age, Internet should be a utility, with government subsidizing it if required while preventing _walled gardens_.

cvs268 11y ago
More likely a Microsoft Surface in a Samsung Galaxy :-)

bedros 11y ago

The Internet only blossomed after it was freed from proprietary access by AOL. Zuckerberg plans to move the internet back to the dark ages.

aaron695 11y ago

Rich people limiting poor peoples options, again. It's much better they eat cake, than this "free internet"

vaishaksuresh 11y ago
More like rich people preventing a richer person from force feeding the poor with what makes him the most money. Exactly like Nestlé giving baby formula for the first few days for free in poor african countries so that they become dependent on it.
pavanky 11y ago
This is probably the most idiotic argument against the critics of Facebook and it is not even original.

funkyy 11y ago

Free internet is basically a deal that FB did with some carriers to provide some of their resources in exchange for some kick ass promises and possibly funds. The easy way to do this for ANY government would be to force all wireless carriers to provide 200 MB free internet to all citizens in exchange for license to broadcast. This happened once in Poland for example when government provided frequencies in exchange of forcing the company to provide unlimited, but slow internet to all citizens through mobiles.

mailmrg 11y ago
completely agree and this will make a good start for lot of people.

vaishaksuresh 11y ago

For the people arguing that rich people are preventing the poor from getting internet access, please read about the Nestlé baby formula scandal. This is exactly the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue

sidthekid 11y ago
It is somewhat similar because the long-term effects were malicious/not known in the short term. But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch internet carriers at any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics). 'Facebook addiction' isn't as objectively proven as the side effects mentioned in the article. 'Tracking usage data and privacy snooping' isn't as harmful as the side effects mentioned, because poor people probably value their 'usage data' less and access to basic resources like Wikipedia/job posting sites/health and weather reports more. (and its just fear and speculation that facebook will maliciously track all data passing through its servers, but we are treating it like inevitable fact)
- vaishaksuresh 11y ago
  >But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch internet carriers at any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics) Given how there is no alternative, it is pretty much facebook or nothing.

slaxman 11y ago

Few points here: 1. It's not really internet. It's a set of 100 sites that includes a real estate portal and a personal blog. If you are talking about connecting the unconnected with essential services, why have these on your list? On the other hand, chennairains.org, a website that helped people during extreme floods in chennai was not on that list. 2. There is no proof that "free basics" actually improves internet connectivity. In fact, Facebook's telecom partner (Reliance Comm) advertises it as a way to save money for surfing on facebook and whatsapp. 3. None of the traffic must be encrypted 4. All traffic flows through facebook's servers 5. It's not an open platform. Facebook and Telcos reserve the right to accept or deny websites on "Free Basics" The above points make it clear that "free internet" is a facade and it's more of a walled garden that makes facebook the gatekeeper. Another Telco launched something similar a few months ago and was scrapped because it violated net neutrality. Arguments that "free basics" is required for internet to grow in India are ridiculous. India added _52 Million_ internet users in the first six months of 2015 (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178659_1_user-base-iamai-internet-and-mobile-association http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news...)

dingo_bat 11y ago
Even though it seems a big number, 52 million is nothing compared to the people who still do not have access. I think the growth rate is not fast enough. We should be doubling the installed base every year. 52 million is just about 1/6 of the total number of users. And I'm inclined to believe that this sluggishness is due in part to the cost of access.
- slaxman 11y ago
  Once you reach a certain scale of users, percentage growth don't matter because it's hard to hit big absolute numbers. In whichever way you look at it, 52Mn is a freakishly huge number. And this timeline is 6 months, not a year. Further "Free basics" has been launched in other countries. But there is not proof that it results in more internet connectivity. (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/there-is-no-correlation-between-reducing-digital-divide-differential-pricing-r-s-sharma-115123100461_1.html http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ther...)

seshagiric 11y ago

People would actually benefit from the free (limited) internet. In fact most people are also ok if Facebook gets something back in return. It would have definitely helped if it was clearly stated as a commercial program and not an altruistic venture.

HappyTypist 11y ago

I honestly think Facebook would have done well by providing access to the full internet but making Facebook the start page / captive portal.

5_5 11y ago
You will bow down to anything. What about your private data? You want facebook to decide what you want to see on internet? Start a day with friend's like and share!!! I think your internet means facebook.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

csgrad12 11y ago

Free Basics, if legalized, sets a precedent for ISPs to offer zero-rated plans which affects everyone. You don't want a huge market with more than half a billion users (by 2020) where zero-rated plans are commonplace. Everyone loses out in such a situation except the ISPs. Netflix was just launched in India, and Reliance (the carrier that supports Free Basics) has a similar offering called Bigflix, which they can zero-rate to eliminate Netflix. Airtel, another huge operator can zero-rate their messaging application Hike to eliminate WhatsApp/Snapchat. Their music offering can eliminate Spotify (if they do come to India) or any other music streaming startup. Flipkart, an e-commerce player can eliminate every other niche e-commerce startups in India by zero-rating their services, which they tried last year. Sadly, all the campaigns are focused on Facebook/Zuckerberg and people calling for a ban on Free Basics when they should actually be campaigning against zero-rating. Free Basics might be a great gateway drug to the internet, but what good is it if the internet as we know today will not exist when the poor decide to get a "complete" internet connection?

chdir 11y ago

It's unbecoming of a large corporation that "wants to work for connecting people" to make statements like these against net neutrality advocates : "Facebook has been urging users to sign a petition that claims that “a small, vocal group of critics… demand that people pay equally to access all Internet services, even if that means one billion people can’t afford to access any services,” and that “unless you take action now, India could lose access to free basic Internet services, delaying progress towards digital equality for all Indians." Facebook has resorted to slander when they can't give transparent answers to the issues raised against Free Basics. Quote Source : https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-net-neutrality-in-india/ https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-...

samikc 11y ago

Free basic internet may include Google search, Wikipedia, email of choice, access to all pages that Google suggests in first two pages. But I think Facebook should not be part of basic internet.

prabuinet 11y ago

When did facebook become non-profit to give away things for free? fcuk zcuk, stay away from India.

karmacondon 11y ago

The internet is difficult to describe to someone who has no experience with it. It's like "There's this flibity divit called Google that lets you search for hurgfbr and find veruhryhr written by people you like." If someone has no way to conceptually anchor terms like "search engine", "web pages" or "blogs" then it will be difficult for them to understand what's being said, much less know what they're missing out on. With bare minimum exposure to the ideas via Free Basics, people will be able to imagine what else is out there. It becomes "Google is like when you type words into the search box on facebook, except you get more results and they're more relevant." I would imagine that once exposed to even a limited version of the internet, people will quickly demand unrestricted access from their local government. But they have to know what they don't have before they can ask for it. If this is all an Evil Plan by Mark Zuckerberg to set up an internet monopoly in India, then it's a very stupid plan. Facebook is a communication platform. People will use it to communicate with people who have normal internet, and will no doubt hear about all the things that they don't have access to. It's only a matter of time before "Free Basics" becomes "Low Cost Government Internet Access For All". For many people from my generation, AOL was the internet. It was all we knew. But eventually we figured out that there was more out there, and the people of India are capable of doing that as well. There are hackers in every culture, at every social strata. If you give them an inch, they'll turn it into a mile or more. Free Basics isn't perfect, but for many people it's better than nothing.

piyushpr134 11y ago

Too all the oh-India-is-so-poor-needs-charity-for-everything people out there, digest this: India has 1bn live mobile phone connections (live month on month and not just issued). It has been done by cut throat competition between private phone players, such as airtel, vodafone, reliance, tata among others, and supportive government measures such a giving spectrum for cheap. No verizon needed to come here with their charity plate, giving away restricted free phone connections.

zeta0134 11y ago

"And if Free Basics proved popular there would be little to stop India’s big media and e-commerce groups from creating rival offerings, to drive first-time surfers towards their web offerings." And that's precisely the problem. Most advocates for Net Neutrality are afraid of exactly this: the death of the free and open internet for those who can't afford it, replaced by some fragmented collection of services offered in a bundle package like some Cable Television plan.

rubberstamp 11y ago

First of all, this is not "free internet" they are trying to provide. Second point - if they were trying to genuinely provide a free internet service, nothing is stoping them from doing it without all the legalise TOS that surrounds it at the moment. Third point - Free 200MB or 500MB data per month for each person is the best way to do it(no video streaming/big files download), if "helping" was the actual intention. If the only services that is accessible through it will be the ones approved by facebook, stop calling it "free internet". Also the cost of providing the service is on the ISP/carrier that FB ties up with. The key factor that is glossed over is: > Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators. I was all for facebook basics when I thought Facebook was paying for poor people to access at least some restricted internet access. But its actually the operators that are paying for this. Giving away free access to some sites in a walled garden, hoping those same users will pay to access other sites at some points. So Facebook is just a beneficiary in all of this. Getting new users at no cost. Taking the credit for it, while operators are actually paying the bills.

rubberstamp 11y ago
The poor also deserve privacy and actual internet instead of being snooped up on and fed by "internet for the poor".