3 ms·

Wouldn't it prevent people interested in creating an ISP in any area that has "free" facebooknet? Especially if the services provided by facebooknet is most of

Wouldn't it prevent people interested in creating an ISP in any area that has "free" facebooknet? Especially if the services provided by facebooknet is most of which people would want with an ISP anyway? So not only does it prevent competitor websites, but it stops competitive ISPs, too. It's especially bad if this coporate network is censoring information. No opportunity to even discover non-filtered information outside the info bubble. This triple whammy is the consequence for those involved or not.

girvo 12y ago
Are those competitive ISPs going to give the audience we're talking about access to the net for free as well? Because for a lot of people in this world, they will never be connected to the net unless they don't have to pay; they simply can't afford it.
- danieldk 12y ago
  That's why we need government or non-profit programs, giving general access to the net. Because only then it is a level playing field, and the next Facebook can be from Brasil. This is only an intentional effort to control and shut out competition (e.g. future Facebook competitors) and has the risk of killing local ISPs as a by-product. tl;dr It only serves Facebook. Wikipedia et al. are just thrown into the mix to make it look like a humanitarian effort.
- foiboitoi 12y ago
  Why would they need to be "free?" Not everyone needs personal internet to benefit from a free (as in freedom) internet being available in their area. Unfiltered information spreading in a community is almost guaranteed if it exists. How on earth are we going to get them innovative/affordable internet solutions if no one can compete to get there?
- vegedor 12y ago
  Why can they not afford it, if facebook can grant access for free? Sure, facebook has a lot of economical back up, and construction and maintenance for lines might be considerable, but it's not like ongoing traffic was at all especially expensive. The users, at least some users, are expected to bring in the expenses one way or another, e.g. paying twice on advertised goods. Or something else in the longterm promises revenue, e.g. market dominance. Either way, nothing is going to be free.

girvo 12y ago

Are those competitive ISPs going to give the audience we're talking about access to the net for free as well? Because for a lot of people in this world, they will never be connected to the net unless they don't have to pay; they simply can't afford it.

danieldk 12y ago
That's why we need government or non-profit programs, giving general access to the net. Because only then it is a level playing field, and the next Facebook can be from Brasil. This is only an intentional effort to control and shut out competition (e.g. future Facebook competitors) and has the risk of killing local ISPs as a by-product. tl;dr It only serves Facebook. Wikipedia et al. are just thrown into the mix to make it look like a humanitarian effort.
foiboitoi 12y ago
Why would they need to be "free?" Not everyone needs personal internet to benefit from a free (as in freedom) internet being available in their area. Unfiltered information spreading in a community is almost guaranteed if it exists. How on earth are we going to get them innovative/affordable internet solutions if no one can compete to get there?
vegedor 12y ago
Why can they not afford it, if facebook can grant access for free? Sure, facebook has a lot of economical back up, and construction and maintenance for lines might be considerable, but it's not like ongoing traffic was at all especially expensive. The users, at least some users, are expected to bring in the expenses one way or another, e.g. paying twice on advertised goods. Or something else in the longterm promises revenue, e.g. market dominance. Either way, nothing is going to be free.