4 ms·

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.

by 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.

by kevando 12y ago

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.