6 ms·

As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more, which is being universally applauded as a good thing. But isn't this contrar

by retube 11y ago

As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more, which is being universally applauded as a good thing. But isn't this contrary to the whole inequality issue? Shouldn't richer people be charged more? Richer people are being charged more for state infrastructure via higher taxes - which is also generally applauded as a good thing amongst the young/liberal demographic (in fact it doesn't go far enough many would argue). So why is it bad for companies to charge more to certain demographics? If people are prepared to pay why's that wrong? Isn't value pricing actually intrinsically "fair" as richer customers are effectively subsiding poorer customers?

crdoconnor 11y ago
>As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more Price sensitivity != how rich you are
hargup 11y ago
On the issue TRAI said "In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' internet experience. This can prove to be risky in the medium to long term as the knowledge and outlook of those users would be shaped only by the information made available through those select offerings." The full explanation by TRAI is definitely worth reading, it talks about all the issues encompassing differential pricing, i.e., market distortion, information asymmetry, the natural of Internet and the special case of India. http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulati...
rtdp 11y ago
This was not about charging differently based on how much people have. It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. So, if I have much money, I can have my service freely for everyone, while this other startup, unless pays to internet providers, will be available over the paid internet.
- retube 11y ago
  > It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth
  - Manishearth 11y ago
    > Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth Do you have an example of a case where sites rich people use were being priced higher? It's not enough to say "what you use is correlated with wealth" to support "this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more", you need to show where websites being used by rich people were being charged for. This does stop Facebook from giving Free Facebook (+ other services), agreed. Which is a service used by basically everyone.
toyg 11y ago
The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen over and over again, removing cost barriers for utility infrastructure is a tremendous spark for all sorts of economic activity.
- icebraining 11y ago
  This is what the internet should be like. The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that? That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard not to feel like these campaigns are little more than middle-class people patting themselves on the back.
  - jace 11y ago
    This order makes no mention whatsoever of Free Basics. It merely bans price-based discrimination. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Free Basics helps bring people online. Even Facebook was unable to find a single person who was new to the internet courtesy FBS. https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-internet-program-6ae3f9ffd1b4 https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-...
  - shubhamjain 11y ago
    > That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why should Facebook be allowed to give so much power without them investing even a penny to improve the infrastructure. Google's Project Loon is worth applauding, Free Basics is just a ploy to get the next billion users branded as a charity.
ahallock 11y ago
> So why is it bad for companies to charge more to certain demographics? Because that's poor allocation of resources and discriminatory (people are being treated differently for the same products). Paying more than the market value for a product means money is not being allocated elsewhere.

by retube 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago

>As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more Price sensitivity != how rich you are

hargup 11y ago

On the issue TRAI said "In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' internet experience. This can prove to be risky in the medium to long term as the knowledge and outlook of those users would be shaped only by the information made available through those select offerings." The full explanation by TRAI is definitely worth reading, it talks about all the issues encompassing differential pricing, i.e., market distortion, information asymmetry, the natural of Internet and the special case of India. http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulati...

rtdp 11y ago

This was not about charging differently based on how much people have. It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. So, if I have much money, I can have my service freely for everyone, while this other startup, unless pays to internet providers, will be available over the paid internet.

retube 11y ago
> It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth
- Manishearth 11y ago
  > Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth Do you have an example of a case where sites rich people use were being priced higher? It's not enough to say "what you use is correlated with wealth" to support "this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more", you need to show where websites being used by rich people were being charged for. This does stop Facebook from giving Free Facebook (+ other services), agreed. Which is a service used by basically everyone.

toyg 11y ago

The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen over and over again, removing cost barriers for utility infrastructure is a tremendous spark for all sorts of economic activity.

icebraining 11y ago
This is what the internet should be like. The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that? That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard not to feel like these campaigns are little more than middle-class people patting themselves on the back.
- jace 11y ago
  This order makes no mention whatsoever of Free Basics. It merely bans price-based discrimination. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Free Basics helps bring people online. Even Facebook was unable to find a single person who was new to the internet courtesy FBS. https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-internet-program-6ae3f9ffd1b4 https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-...
- shubhamjain 11y ago
  > That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why should Facebook be allowed to give so much power without them investing even a penny to improve the infrastructure. Google's Project Loon is worth applauding, Free Basics is just a ploy to get the next billion users branded as a charity.

ahallock 11y ago

> So why is it bad for companies to charge more to certain demographics? Because that's poor allocation of resources and discriminatory (people are being treated differently for the same products). Paying more than the market value for a product means money is not being allocated elsewhere.