5 ms·

This is already reality in some countries. Like India for instance. 1st Indian entrepreneur: I plan to launch a search engine that understands Indian languages

by r0h1n 13y ago

This is already reality in some countries. Like India for instance. 1st Indian entrepreneur: I plan to launch a search engine that understands Indian languages and contexts better than Google. VC: Well since Google has already paid telcos like Airtel (http://www.airtel.in/free-zone/ http://www.airtel.in/free-zone/) so their searches and even some results don't use up any of the data plan, we are passing. 2nd Indian entrepreneur: I have an idea for a social network that is better than Facebook. VC: Sorry, Well since Facebook has already paid telcos like Airtel (http://www.medianama.com/2014/01/223-airtel-facebook-free-hindi/ http://www.medianama.com/2014/01/223-airtel-facebook-free-hi...) so their site/app doesn't consume data while being used, we are passing.

wslh 13y ago
In Latin America too, and Facebook was part of that. I don't know why this issue was not discussed earlier. If I remember well, it started with the facebook applications for mobiles more than 3 years ago. Just a few times less developed countries predict what will happen in US (technologically speaking!)
Grue3 13y ago
Enterpreneur: I plan to launch an encyclopedia that people can edit, and it's better than Wikipedia VC: Well, since Wikimedia Foundation has already convinces telcos to provide their data for free (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships), we are passing. Now wait a goddamn minute. This doesn't make any sense. The alternative is even worse: no free access to Wikipedia. Is this what you're arguing for?
- nightpool 13y ago
  The difference is Wikimedia doesn't pay for this benefit, the telcos are doing it because they support Wikimedia's mission. Any company with a similar mission and better execution has a chance of talking the telcos into a similar deal. The argument is that the paid types of mobile partnerships add another cost onto the already high barrier to entry into the market. This supports monopolistic practices by these companies, and reduces competition in the industry. That's the problem with removing Net Neutrality.
  - wdewind 13y ago
    But this still breaks net neutrality. You don't get to treat some traffic differently because it's served by a 501c3.
  - prostoalex 13y ago
    > The difference is Wikimedia doesn't pay for this benefit, In some markets Facebook, Twitter or YouTube don't pay for this benefit either - the free data deal runs as a free trial for limited time with the hope of converting you into a paid data customer. > the telcos are doing it because they support Wikimedia's mission. Maybe. Or in markets where data packages are still not widespread (even in smartphone era), using Wikipedia, Twitter or Facebook allows the telco to showcase the benefits of buying a data plan.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- wpietri 13y ago
  Is this trolling? Or a serious question where you just don't understand the difference between collaboration with non-profits to provide a public good and for-profit companies selling their customers to the highest bidder?
- cwp 13y ago
  Yes. I'd rather have "better than Wikipedia" than "Wikipedia for free." If browsing Wikipedia is too expensive, let's work on lowering data rates for all content, rather than giving Wikipedia special privileges.
  - mjn 13y ago
    That's been a view of some Wikipedians as well. The Wikipedia Zero program is generally popular, but has still caused some worry. One reason is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be only the website, but a free-as-in-freedom encyclopedia project that can be improved, reused, remixed, adapted, etc. Sort of how OpenStreetMap is not just the Mapnik renderer on openstreetmap.org, but the map data that can be applied to many uses. But when you introduce a data-price differential between the "canonical" and third-party hosts, it strengthens the centralizing tendencies that Wikipedia=wikipedia.org or OSM=osm.org, entrenching them as the correct way to access the data, and discouraging innovation in third-party uses of the data.
  - neilk 13y ago
    Yeah, although Wikipedia Zero does have real benefits, it is a bit problematic. I have wondered if a Creative Commons Zero policy might be better. I'm not for DRM, but if we have to have licensing baked into the web, let's use it for good.
- rodgerd 13y ago
  I'd rather have equitable access to everyone. Why should my traffic to use Wikipedia be supplied by taxing the people reading Fox News?
avemuri 13y ago
In all fairness, these are tactics to get people with no data plan to start using these services. Data is ridiculously cheap (1GB/month is ~ $4). People with data plans don't really care about google or facebook's data usage. Youtube and streaming music services are a big deal though. So yeah, the incumbents have a bigger addressable market in India, but data consumption is not the differentiator for the vast majority of apps.

by r0h1n 13y ago

wslh 13y ago

In Latin America too, and Facebook was part of that. I don't know why this issue was not discussed earlier. If I remember well, it started with the facebook applications for mobiles more than 3 years ago. Just a few times less developed countries predict what will happen in US (technologically speaking!)

Grue3 13y ago

Enterpreneur: I plan to launch an encyclopedia that people can edit, and it's better than Wikipedia VC: Well, since Wikimedia Foundation has already convinces telcos to provide their data for free (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships), we are passing. Now wait a goddamn minute. This doesn't make any sense. The alternative is even worse: no free access to Wikipedia. Is this what you're arguing for?

nightpool 13y ago
The difference is Wikimedia doesn't pay for this benefit, the telcos are doing it because they support Wikimedia's mission. Any company with a similar mission and better execution has a chance of talking the telcos into a similar deal. The argument is that the paid types of mobile partnerships add another cost onto the already high barrier to entry into the market. This supports monopolistic practices by these companies, and reduces competition in the industry. That's the problem with removing Net Neutrality.
- wdewind 13y ago
  But this still breaks net neutrality. You don't get to treat some traffic differently because it's served by a 501c3.
- prostoalex 13y ago
  > The difference is Wikimedia doesn't pay for this benefit, In some markets Facebook, Twitter or YouTube don't pay for this benefit either - the free data deal runs as a free trial for limited time with the hope of converting you into a paid data customer. > the telcos are doing it because they support Wikimedia's mission. Maybe. Or in markets where data packages are still not widespread (even in smartphone era), using Wikipedia, Twitter or Facebook allows the telco to showcase the benefits of buying a data plan.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
wpietri 13y ago
Is this trolling? Or a serious question where you just don't understand the difference between collaboration with non-profits to provide a public good and for-profit companies selling their customers to the highest bidder?
cwp 13y ago
Yes. I'd rather have "better than Wikipedia" than "Wikipedia for free." If browsing Wikipedia is too expensive, let's work on lowering data rates for all content, rather than giving Wikipedia special privileges.
- mjn 13y ago
  That's been a view of some Wikipedians as well. The Wikipedia Zero program is generally popular, but has still caused some worry. One reason is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be only the website, but a free-as-in-freedom encyclopedia project that can be improved, reused, remixed, adapted, etc. Sort of how OpenStreetMap is not just the Mapnik renderer on openstreetmap.org, but the map data that can be applied to many uses. But when you introduce a data-price differential between the "canonical" and third-party hosts, it strengthens the centralizing tendencies that Wikipedia=wikipedia.org or OSM=osm.org, entrenching them as the correct way to access the data, and discouraging innovation in third-party uses of the data.
- neilk 13y ago
  Yeah, although Wikipedia Zero does have real benefits, it is a bit problematic. I have wondered if a Creative Commons Zero policy might be better. I'm not for DRM, but if we have to have licensing baked into the web, let's use it for good.
rodgerd 13y ago
I'd rather have equitable access to everyone. Why should my traffic to use Wikipedia be supplied by taxing the people reading Fox News?

avemuri 13y ago

In all fairness, these are tactics to get people with no data plan to start using these services. Data is ridiculously cheap (1GB/month is ~ $4). People with data plans don't really care about google or facebook's data usage. Youtube and streaming music services are a big deal though. So yeah, the incumbents have a bigger addressable market in India, but data consumption is not the differentiator for the vast majority of apps.