3 ms·

Facebook 0: no data fees for mobile Facebook, say goodbye to competition

20 points by adelevie 16y ago

adelevie 16y ago
That's cool, take away choice in emerging markets so competing social networks don't stand a chance. Let's let the CEOs of the Telcos and Marck Zuckerberg decide which social network everyone in emerging markets will use.
- natrius 16y ago
  "Take away choice"? That is a bizarre characterization of this move.
  - adelevie 16y ago
    Subsidizing access to Facebook makes all competition relatively more expensive.
    - natrius 16y ago
      That is not taking away choice or making any other choice more difficult. Your logic implies that any improvement Facebook makes would "take away choice" by making other products less attractive to choose. You should also consider the fact that there are many people in the developing world who couldn't afford to use any social network on their phone before this. They've gone from zero choices to one.
      - adelevie 16y ago
        Increasing functionality != subsidizing access with the telecommunications provider. Does no one else see this through the lens of net neutrality?
        natrius 16y ago
        Net neutrality is about preventing ISPs from charging companies for preferential access to their customers who already pay the ISP for service. This is about Facebook paying (in some form) for their users' internet access. The customers have paid their ISP nothing. This isn't a new thing. Plenty of WiFi access points allow you to access a subset of the internet while requiring payment for the whole thing. Functionality and subsidization both affect consumer choices. There is nothing in your argument the justifies preventing subsidization while allowing product improvements.
- noelchurchill 16y ago
  Making it free is actually providing an option where there wasn't one before. Many people around the world can't afford data. Facebook hating is trendy lately but not everything they're doing is bad. Be real.
  - adelevie 16y ago
    Your first point is a good point and is good for HN. Can't say the same about your second point.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - adelevie 16y ago
    Let's not resort to ad hominems, please. Do you really think this is so cut and dry great for everyone involved (Telcos, Facebook, consumers)? I'm guessing we simply disagree on how high the lock-in costs are compared to the benefits of getting the free product initially. I believe that for consumers in emerging markets future lock-in costs > initial benefit.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    Subsidizing retail channels to a market you have dominance in can quickly get you into antitrust problems, though. This deal is probably on the okay side of the line, though, as long as the contracts don't have exclusivity provisions. But, it also depends on the antitrust law in all these other countries, some of which is more lenient and some stricter.
    - natrius 16y ago
      Is there any precedent for this kind of situation? The product is free, and Facebook is paying someone else to make access to their product cheaper. The more typical cases of dumping[1] involve companies subsidizing their own products. The net result seems the same, but it feels a little different. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
      - _delirium 16y ago
        Yeah, I'm not aware of any precedent with that specific arrangement (though that doesn't mean there isn't one). My guess (purely a guess) is that US courts wouldn't consider it anticompetitive without more of a smoking gun, especially since Facebook isn't a monopoly (they have strong market position, maybe even dominance, but not anything like what e.g. Microsoft had in late-90s desktop OSs). If you are a monopoly, subsidizing almost anything gets looked at under a microscope.
- rglullis 16y ago
  Please, don't editorialize headlines. Let people get to their own conclusions.
Andys 16y ago
Its not like Facebook uses that much bandwidth. As the price of mobile bandwidth continues to fall, this won't matter.
tbrownaw 16y ago
This is one of the ways the net can be non-neutral. I actually think it's not so clear that this particular way is bad, since there's no meddling with other site's traffic (which would include things like offering pay-for-QOS as this would require to not maintaining enough pipes to serve non-preferred traffic at decent quality).
mikexstudios 16y ago
"If you’re in the United States though, don’t bother pulling out your phone to check out the site for yourself — none of the US carriers are on board." Totally not surprised.
jackowayed 16y ago
Can an admin please fix the title?
sekou 16y ago
It sounds similar to Microsoft making deals with computer companies to have their software installed on consumer machines.

20 points by adelevie 16y ago

That's cool, take away choice in emerging markets so competing social networks don't stand a chance. Let's let the CEOs of the Telcos and Marck Zuckerberg decide which social network everyone in emerging markets will use.

natrius 16y ago
"Take away choice"? That is a bizarre characterization of this move.
- adelevie 16y ago
  Subsidizing access to Facebook makes all competition relatively more expensive.
  - natrius 16y ago
    That is not taking away choice or making any other choice more difficult. Your logic implies that any improvement Facebook makes would "take away choice" by making other products less attractive to choose. You should also consider the fact that there are many people in the developing world who couldn't afford to use any social network on their phone before this. They've gone from zero choices to one.
    - adelevie 16y ago
      Increasing functionality != subsidizing access with the telecommunications provider. Does no one else see this through the lens of net neutrality?
      - natrius 16y ago
        Net neutrality is about preventing ISPs from charging companies for preferential access to their customers who already pay the ISP for service. This is about Facebook paying (in some form) for their users' internet access. The customers have paid their ISP nothing. This isn't a new thing. Plenty of WiFi access points allow you to access a subset of the internet while requiring payment for the whole thing. Functionality and subsidization both affect consumer choices. There is nothing in your argument the justifies preventing subsidization while allowing product improvements.
noelchurchill 16y ago
Making it free is actually providing an option where there wasn't one before. Many people around the world can't afford data. Facebook hating is trendy lately but not everything they're doing is bad. Be real.
- adelevie 16y ago
  Your first point is a good point and is good for HN. Can't say the same about your second point.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- adelevie 16y ago
  Let's not resort to ad hominems, please. Do you really think this is so cut and dry great for everyone involved (Telcos, Facebook, consumers)? I'm guessing we simply disagree on how high the lock-in costs are compared to the benefits of getting the free product initially. I believe that for consumers in emerging markets future lock-in costs > initial benefit.
- _delirium 16y ago
  Subsidizing retail channels to a market you have dominance in can quickly get you into antitrust problems, though. This deal is probably on the okay side of the line, though, as long as the contracts don't have exclusivity provisions. But, it also depends on the antitrust law in all these other countries, some of which is more lenient and some stricter.
  - natrius 16y ago
    Is there any precedent for this kind of situation? The product is free, and Facebook is paying someone else to make access to their product cheaper. The more typical cases of dumping[1] involve companies subsidizing their own products. The net result seems the same, but it feels a little different. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)
    - _delirium 16y ago
      Yeah, I'm not aware of any precedent with that specific arrangement (though that doesn't mean there isn't one). My guess (purely a guess) is that US courts wouldn't consider it anticompetitive without more of a smoking gun, especially since Facebook isn't a monopoly (they have strong market position, maybe even dominance, but not anything like what e.g. Microsoft had in late-90s desktop OSs). If you are a monopoly, subsidizing almost anything gets looked at under a microscope.
rglullis 16y ago
Please, don't editorialize headlines. Let people get to their own conclusions.

Andys 16y ago

Its not like Facebook uses that much bandwidth. As the price of mobile bandwidth continues to fall, this won't matter.

tbrownaw 16y ago

This is one of the ways the net can be non-neutral. I actually think it's not so clear that this particular way is bad, since there's no meddling with other site's traffic (which would include things like offering pay-for-QOS as this would require to not maintaining enough pipes to serve non-preferred traffic at decent quality).

mikexstudios 16y ago

"If you’re in the United States though, don’t bother pulling out your phone to check out the site for yourself — none of the US carriers are on board." Totally not surprised.

jackowayed 16y ago

Can an admin please fix the title?

sekou 16y ago

It sounds similar to Microsoft making deals with computer companies to have their software installed on consumer machines.