6 ms·

> The backlash was the argument that Zuckerberg was only giving access to a few websites (mostly Facebook) in order to get more control of the internet without

> The backlash was the argument that Zuckerberg was only giving access to a few websites (mostly Facebook) in order to get more control of the internet without following net neutrality. To me this seems to be an oversimplified and overly pessimistic view of what happened I'm Indian – and if you are someone here who ordinarily can't afford any sort of Internet access, Facebook and the other e-commerce websites that were on the Free Basics platform weren't exactly the first things you'd want to access. They made zero effort to make things like government websites, local newspapers, utility websites etc. accessible through this platform. If they had done so, I bet they would have had a lot more support from the intended target audience of this platform. Please note that they also were MITMing people's traffic using a dual-certificate model. [1] "When people use the Free Basics mobile website, information is temporarily decrypted on our secure servers to ensure proper functionality of the services and to avoid unexpected charges to people." This was part of the reason people were more pessimistic about it and viewed it as a way for Facebook to cheaply acquire a lot more users and a ton of free user data about them. Google on the other hand seems to be basically giving unrestricted access, albeit at specific spots to whatever people want to access, which is (in my opinion) way better than the sort of AOL-style walled garden Facebook was trying to create in India. [1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...

fossuser 10y ago
Government website access sounds like one of those things that's nice in theory, but in practice something people don't really use that often and don't care about that much. The websites in Free Basics are websites that many people use all of the time. Though including utility type sites may have been the right call from a marketing perspective. Not sure what the reasons were behind the MiTM - possible it was to prevent people using Free Basics to access everything by spoofing the domains and encrypting the traffic? Not everything is a conspiracy. Definitely agree that access to everything is better, but wifi hotspots are nothing new and require you to actually go to them. Plus if you had Free Basics you could still use the wifi hotspots anyway - now those people have nothing.
0xmohit 10y ago
With majority using Android devices, if Google were to MITM the traffic, you would never know about it. If Chrome can include unique identifiers, what could one say of Android?
mmmBacon 10y ago
If what you are saying is true that sites that Indians want are not available on FB Basics, then FB won't get traction because it's not what Indian people want. Recall FB Basics is an on-ramp to give people a place to start so they can choose whether paying for Internet is something that's important for them. I say let the users decide with their feet and not some government bureaucrat. Also regarding what Google is doing, the key difference is scale. Google Wifi will be limited and reach relatively few. So I ask is it better to have a few people served with everything or is it better to give a little to everyone?
- vertex-four 10y ago
  It's generally not better to artificially prop up a single company, no.
  - tim333 10y ago
    They wouldn't have had to prop up a single company. Just let any company provide whatever data services and let the users decide what they want to use. If the Indian government want to help their people they could focus more on stopping slavery rather than free internet access http://qz.com/695565/india-has-18-million-modern-slaves-at-least-five-times-more-than-any-other-country-in-the-world/ http://qz.com/695565/india-has-18-million-modern-slaves-at-l...
    - vertex-four 10y ago
      So - let me get this straight - if I want to provide VoIP services to India, I'd have to make deals with all my competitors - the telecoms companies - to do so? Where's their incentive to do that? What if I'm running a personal blog, or small informational site? It becomes even harder to do than today. The Internet, as it stands, with some hiccups, allows anyone to put up a website and have the globe be able to access it. If you have to make deals with ISPs to allow their customers to see your content, or never be seen because nobody will pay for "the real Internet" as long as they have Facebook and Wikipedia and Amazon... the result of that is that the Internet becomes a means of commerce, not a means of communication. Another system by which companies and Governments and the rich can market to people, but people are silenced from criticizing them and building alternatives. Stop twisting words - this isn't about "free Internet access", this is about free access to specific websites as chosen by the telecoms companies.
wyldfire 10y ago
Thanks, this was very informative. Based on this, I think the Indians had good reason to reject FB's offering.
- intended 10y ago
  Its not over yet! The government has now created a Free data consultation paper, which seems to be a way for Fbasics to get in through the back door.

fossuser 10y ago

Government website access sounds like one of those things that's nice in theory, but in practice something people don't really use that often and don't care about that much. The websites in Free Basics are websites that many people use all of the time. Though including utility type sites may have been the right call from a marketing perspective. Not sure what the reasons were behind the MiTM - possible it was to prevent people using Free Basics to access everything by spoofing the domains and encrypting the traffic? Not everything is a conspiracy. Definitely agree that access to everything is better, but wifi hotspots are nothing new and require you to actually go to them. Plus if you had Free Basics you could still use the wifi hotspots anyway - now those people have nothing.

0xmohit 10y ago

With majority using Android devices, if Google were to MITM the traffic, you would never know about it. If Chrome can include unique identifiers, what could one say of Android?

mmmBacon 10y ago

If what you are saying is true that sites that Indians want are not available on FB Basics, then FB won't get traction because it's not what Indian people want. Recall FB Basics is an on-ramp to give people a place to start so they can choose whether paying for Internet is something that's important for them. I say let the users decide with their feet and not some government bureaucrat. Also regarding what Google is doing, the key difference is scale. Google Wifi will be limited and reach relatively few. So I ask is it better to have a few people served with everything or is it better to give a little to everyone?

vertex-four 10y ago
It's generally not better to artificially prop up a single company, no.
- tim333 10y ago
  They wouldn't have had to prop up a single company. Just let any company provide whatever data services and let the users decide what they want to use. If the Indian government want to help their people they could focus more on stopping slavery rather than free internet access http://qz.com/695565/india-has-18-million-modern-slaves-at-least-five-times-more-than-any-other-country-in-the-world/ http://qz.com/695565/india-has-18-million-modern-slaves-at-l...
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    So - let me get this straight - if I want to provide VoIP services to India, I'd have to make deals with all my competitors - the telecoms companies - to do so? Where's their incentive to do that? What if I'm running a personal blog, or small informational site? It becomes even harder to do than today. The Internet, as it stands, with some hiccups, allows anyone to put up a website and have the globe be able to access it. If you have to make deals with ISPs to allow their customers to see your content, or never be seen because nobody will pay for "the real Internet" as long as they have Facebook and Wikipedia and Amazon... the result of that is that the Internet becomes a means of commerce, not a means of communication. Another system by which companies and Governments and the rich can market to people, but people are silenced from criticizing them and building alternatives. Stop twisting words - this isn't about "free Internet access", this is about free access to specific websites as chosen by the telecoms companies.

wyldfire 10y ago

Thanks, this was very informative. Based on this, I think the Indians had good reason to reject FB's offering.

intended 10y ago
Its not over yet! The government has now created a Free data consultation paper, which seems to be a way for Fbasics to get in through the back door.