3 ms·

I can't believe this story is not getting more traction on HN. My submission was like the fourth one... $12 for access to one app/website? How is this even any

I can't believe this story is not getting more traction on HN. My submission was like the fourth one... $12 for access to one app/website? How is this even any kind of deal? I pay $32 for the whole Internet on a T-Mobile plan that is unlimited (OK capped at 5GB). Worse, it's no deal for the poor who now will be conditioned that Facebook is the "Internet". EDIT: This submission has made the HN front page but then the url and title was changed. Go figure...

kevando 12y ago
I think this might be something that we continue to deal with. If people just want to use Facebook on their phone, then that's what the carriers will give them. Just because the tech community thinks that is dumb; if 10 million "poor" people want that service, they'll get it.
- beamatronic 12y ago
  My concern is, in 10 years, a generation of people will think this is how it has always been.
  - VLM 12y ago
    And the only way it should be.
- opendais 12y ago
  There is no reason that can't be done by just selling them bandwidth, regardless. Facebook isn't a massive bandwidth cost.
- 01Michael10 12y ago
  I hardy think it is only the "tech" community that will realize this plan is "dumb". Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are an idiot... The real fear is other carriers will adopt this idea and then jack up the prices on normal data plans which will railroad poorer people into these types of plans.
  - B-Con 12y ago
    Journalists have been blaming Google for removing their articles from search results due to the "Right to be Forgotten". Horrible display of ignorance. It is tempting to overestimate the public's technical understanding. The prevailing mindset is: Out of site is out of mind, and any problems with a website is the fault of the website. My fear is that communicating information about background forces and decisions to the public will be ineffective. It already doesn't work well in other areas of politics.
  - kevando 12y ago
    And there's the crux of it. It's balancing consumer protection with providing the best service and experience. My example: If I'm on a crowded train on my way to meet someone and I want to look up the location on maps, but service is congested because people are browsing FB or HN; I would like priority to my request. I'm not saying this is right, but I do see some justification to "tiering" different services and if customers start demanding it (maybe it starts with poor people and Facebook), the carriers will be more than happy to deliver.
Istof 12y ago
Facebook now needs to proxy the real Internet and profit from it...
jauer 12y ago
Awesome deal if the one app is my VPN endpoint
- bduerst 12y ago
  Would it be possible to create a facebook app that acts as a proxy / vpn? (As in, Facebook doesn't have a policy against it) It would essentially channel all traffic through facebook servers and back out to the internet.
  - bobbles 12y ago
    I wonder what happens now. If i only have 'facebook' access, can I use their app? Their app has the browser built in right. So i could potentially just have a link in my profile to a pinboard/bookmark-like service, and see if it allows me full access. Not really something I'd bother with but for people that want the cheapest rate possible it might be an interesting workaround
    - XorNot 12y ago
      IP-over-Facebook Status I very much suspect Facebook will end up playing whack-a-mole with crazy schemes to tunnel the internet over different parts of its service.
pinkyand 12y ago
It's even cheaper - you can get calls+text+3G for $25 at republic wireless - which has same coverage areas as sprint. And once you add calls+text to the sprint plans it will not be much cheaper than $25 , surely.
- bigtunacan 12y ago
  Yeah; Republic Wireless is a great deal. I have the $10 dollar plan. Unlimited calls + texting; internet on Wifi only.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  This is the plan I have and it works great. Also republic wireless has the coverage areas as sprint because they use the sprint network.
prostoalex 12y ago
It's a non-story because Facebook launched 0.facebook.com four and a half years ago http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/16/facebook-launches-zero-a-text-only-mobile-site-for-carriers/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/16/facebook-launches-zero-a-te... so this is a story only to the effect that a US carrier now signed up for a variant of it.
nickysielicki 12y ago
Picture yourself as a parent of a 12 year old getting their first cell phone. I would probably not buy my child this just out of principle of not supporting anything anti-net-neutraility, but I can certainly see why this plan would make sense for people that aren't poor or stupid.
- slg 12y ago
  I agree. I have said elsewhere in this thread it is the ideal kids phone. They get to stay in contact with their friends on Facebook and Twitter. They have limited text and voice connectivity to reach out to their parents in an emergency. Plus the limited internet connection serves as a form of parental control. If you help them setup privacy settings before hand, they can't really get into too much trouble on Facebook and Twitter. Facebook is pretty good about keeping out adult content and the adult content on Twitter generally links offsite. The funny thing is that if this was marketed as a kid's phone from the start, Sprint probably wouldn't see the same type of net neutrality backlash that they will likely see from this.
  - Aaron1011 12y ago
    It's not at all the ideal "kids phone". Crippling the access kids have to the Internet, through parental control and the like, is part of the reason why so many kids have so little interest in porgramming.
deathanatos 12y ago
> $12 for access to one app/website? How is this even any kind of deal? I pay $32 for the whole Internet on a T-Mobile plan that is unlimited (OK capped at 5GB). I pay $10, also with T-Mobile, however, I only get 3GB of data. I want to note this, because I think 3 GB/month would satisfy a lot of people's needs: I tether daily on my commute, and have never breached 3GB¹. Most of the rest of my time (and, I suspect, most people's) is at work or home, both of which data is covered by WiFi. I also want to point out that T-Mobile isn't exactly clean either: they're currently heavily promoting that you get "free" data to certain music providers (e.g., Pandora), which also very anti-net-neutral in my opinion. ¹Also, should I actually use that much, T-mobile just slows data down to 2G speeds.

kevando 12y ago

I think this might be something that we continue to deal with. If people just want to use Facebook on their phone, then that's what the carriers will give them. Just because the tech community thinks that is dumb; if 10 million "poor" people want that service, they'll get it.

beamatronic 12y ago
My concern is, in 10 years, a generation of people will think this is how it has always been.
- VLM 12y ago
  And the only way it should be.
opendais 12y ago
There is no reason that can't be done by just selling them bandwidth, regardless. Facebook isn't a massive bandwidth cost.
01Michael10 12y ago
I hardy think it is only the "tech" community that will realize this plan is "dumb". Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are an idiot... The real fear is other carriers will adopt this idea and then jack up the prices on normal data plans which will railroad poorer people into these types of plans.
- B-Con 12y ago
  Journalists have been blaming Google for removing their articles from search results due to the "Right to be Forgotten". Horrible display of ignorance. It is tempting to overestimate the public's technical understanding. The prevailing mindset is: Out of site is out of mind, and any problems with a website is the fault of the website. My fear is that communicating information about background forces and decisions to the public will be ineffective. It already doesn't work well in other areas of politics.
- kevando 12y ago
  And there's the crux of it. It's balancing consumer protection with providing the best service and experience. My example: If I'm on a crowded train on my way to meet someone and I want to look up the location on maps, but service is congested because people are browsing FB or HN; I would like priority to my request. I'm not saying this is right, but I do see some justification to "tiering" different services and if customers start demanding it (maybe it starts with poor people and Facebook), the carriers will be more than happy to deliver.

Istof 12y ago

Facebook now needs to proxy the real Internet and profit from it...

jauer 12y ago

Awesome deal if the one app is my VPN endpoint

bduerst 12y ago
Would it be possible to create a facebook app that acts as a proxy / vpn? (As in, Facebook doesn't have a policy against it) It would essentially channel all traffic through facebook servers and back out to the internet.
- bobbles 12y ago
  I wonder what happens now. If i only have 'facebook' access, can I use their app? Their app has the browser built in right. So i could potentially just have a link in my profile to a pinboard/bookmark-like service, and see if it allows me full access. Not really something I'd bother with but for people that want the cheapest rate possible it might be an interesting workaround
  - XorNot 12y ago
    IP-over-Facebook Status I very much suspect Facebook will end up playing whack-a-mole with crazy schemes to tunnel the internet over different parts of its service.

pinkyand 12y ago

It's even cheaper - you can get calls+text+3G for $25 at republic wireless - which has same coverage areas as sprint. And once you add calls+text to the sprint plans it will not be much cheaper than $25 , surely.

bigtunacan 12y ago
Yeah; Republic Wireless is a great deal. I have the $10 dollar plan. Unlimited calls + texting; internet on Wifi only.
seanflyon 12y ago
This is the plan I have and it works great. Also republic wireless has the coverage areas as sprint because they use the sprint network.

prostoalex 12y ago

It's a non-story because Facebook launched 0.facebook.com four and a half years ago http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/16/facebook-launches-zero-a-text-only-mobile-site-for-carriers/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/02/16/facebook-launches-zero-a-te... so this is a story only to the effect that a US carrier now signed up for a variant of it.

nickysielicki 12y ago

Picture yourself as a parent of a 12 year old getting their first cell phone. I would probably not buy my child this just out of principle of not supporting anything anti-net-neutraility, but I can certainly see why this plan would make sense for people that aren't poor or stupid.

slg 12y ago
I agree. I have said elsewhere in this thread it is the ideal kids phone. They get to stay in contact with their friends on Facebook and Twitter. They have limited text and voice connectivity to reach out to their parents in an emergency. Plus the limited internet connection serves as a form of parental control. If you help them setup privacy settings before hand, they can't really get into too much trouble on Facebook and Twitter. Facebook is pretty good about keeping out adult content and the adult content on Twitter generally links offsite. The funny thing is that if this was marketed as a kid's phone from the start, Sprint probably wouldn't see the same type of net neutrality backlash that they will likely see from this.
- Aaron1011 12y ago
  It's not at all the ideal "kids phone". Crippling the access kids have to the Internet, through parental control and the like, is part of the reason why so many kids have so little interest in porgramming.

deathanatos 12y ago

> $12 for access to one app/website? How is this even any kind of deal? I pay $32 for the whole Internet on a T-Mobile plan that is unlimited (OK capped at 5GB). I pay $10, also with T-Mobile, however, I only get 3GB of data. I want to note this, because I think 3 GB/month would satisfy a lot of people's needs: I tether daily on my commute, and have never breached 3GB¹. Most of the rest of my time (and, I suspect, most people's) is at work or home, both of which data is covered by WiFi. I also want to point out that T-Mobile isn't exactly clean either: they're currently heavily promoting that you get "free" data to certain music providers (e.g., Pandora), which also very anti-net-neutral in my opinion. ¹Also, should I actually use that much, T-mobile just slows data down to 2G speeds.