4 ms·

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 sho

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...)
- dingo_bat 11y ago
  I do not see any proof that such a correlation does not exist. Your link contains an offhand remark that does not cite any study or data. I think it's common sense that if you offer something for free, more people will use it.
  - slaxman 11y ago
    It's not common sense. A good example is the vast number of open source projects that are never used. Or free books that are never read. Also, I would like to remind you that, it's not the internet that facebook is giving access to. It's sites that have paid facebook to be on it.
ocean3 11y ago
Cost of access would come into picture when they have a medium to access it. Even with low cost Android been available most might not be be to afford it. I see still a good number of middle class people using mobiles which don't access to Internet.
piyushpr134 11y ago
At that rate, India would have ubiquitous internet penetration in next 10 years. I think it would happen much sooner. It would definitely not happen due to Free basics. It would happen as people would see value in it. India has 1 bn mobile phone connections BTW.

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...)

dingo_bat 11y ago
I do not see any proof that such a correlation does not exist. Your link contains an offhand remark that does not cite any study or data. I think it's common sense that if you offer something for free, more people will use it.
- slaxman 11y ago
  It's not common sense. A good example is the vast number of open source projects that are never used. Or free books that are never read. Also, I would like to remind you that, it's not the internet that facebook is giving access to. It's sites that have paid facebook to be on it.

ocean3 11y ago

Cost of access would come into picture when they have a medium to access it. Even with low cost Android been available most might not be be to afford it. I see still a good number of middle class people using mobiles which don't access to Internet.

piyushpr134 11y ago

At that rate, India would have ubiquitous internet penetration in next 10 years. I think it would happen much sooner. It would definitely not happen due to Free basics. It would happen as people would see value in it. India has 1 bn mobile phone connections BTW.