4 ms·

If you are a startup trying to compete with any of those 38 sites, thrn you start with a massive disadvantage. Zuckerberg is essentialy creating a massive walle

If you are a startup trying to compete with any of those 38 sites, thrn you start with a massive disadvantage. Zuckerberg is essentialy creating a massive walled garden where the walls are held in place by economic pressure.

x0x0 12y ago
but are people better off or worse? Should fb be forced to subsidize access to competitors? Does India have an effective internet access monopoly (occasionally a duopoly) ala the us, which is why I supported fcc regulations?
- danielam 12y ago
  This. I favor net neutrality, but I think much of the "moral outrage" comes from a combination of paternalism, self-serving attitudes and petty, pampered middle class arrogance and not a discerning realism. Vacuous and self-righteous sloganeering do not impress me. Luxuries are not a given. The question that should be asked (which you bring up) from the position of those who receive the service: does it help or hurt them in the here-and-now? Are they better or worse off, on the whole, than they would have been without the service? I also presume this service is being offered in a relatively free market.
eklavya 12y ago
It's not like people will stop getting an internet connection. They will still have it. They will open other websites as well. The traffic from a particular website is not significant anyway so I don't think they will go to/prefer websites with free access only. Facebook right now has no competition, they would have used it anyway and it something better comes along people won't care about the few MBs/month it costs them. ISPs have already been giving free WhatsApp plans and all, nothing changed for telegram et al I suppose.
- svarog 12y ago
  Just google "Net Nutrality" and see what's so wrong about this initiative. People smarter than me have talked about the matter, so better read what they have to say, but I'll just say that the reason the Internet is so successful in bringing all sorts of ideas to fruition is that it doesn't discriminate ideas, and lets all information flow equally. If there are companies whose ideas are worth more than others, or are cheaper to reach - you no longer have a free(as in free speach) internet.
  - eklavya 12y ago
    I know(I think) about "Net Neutrality". There is a difference between discriminating between packets and charging more for particular traffic and providing access to some sites for free. They are not charging more for a particular kind of traffic and so I assume they are Net Neutral. Did I miss something?
    - DanBC 12y ago
      They are charging more for particular types of traffic! Anything other than a select few sites is being charged.
      - eklavya 12y ago
        No, you are bending it. They are charging the same they were before and there is no change in that regard. They are still charging same regardless of what the packet contains. Some sites are paying to be subsidised. They are paying for a service, what's wrong? You want to compete? Get your site subsidise as well. Someone has to pay either the customer or the provider, customer doesn't have to pay more for particular traffic. Do you expect ISPs to provide all data for free?
        rakoo 12y ago
        > They are still charging same regardless of what the packet contains. The issue here is that this is not internet. Facebook has partnered with a local ISP that decided that some packets (say, those from Wikipedia) can pass for free but others (say, those from GMail) cannot. Wikipedia is not (AFAIK) an AS; as such it doesn't have a deal with Reliance Communications at the internet level. And yet, there is now some business for Reliance to transport Wikipedia's packets. This is completely breaking the internet as it is designed (and as it works best) All the chatter we've seen with ISPs and content providers is because AS interco is highly contentious. In this case we're not talking (only) about AS; we're talking about websites having to bend to an ISP for it to behave as expected. It's absolutely not ok. > customer doesn't have to pay more for particular traffic Of course he doesn't have to, because he doesn't even have access to it, whether there is a route from website to ISP or not. That's the horrible part of it: now peering with an AS is not enough, you need some other arrangement. > Do you expect ISPs to provide all data for free? I expect users to pay for laying cables, then everyone peers with everyone else and traffic is free. But we're not there yet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%...
- weland 12y ago
  IMHO, the "connectivity for everyone" thing is a thin cover of "controlled distribution channels for anyone who can't afford better". > people won't care about the few MBs/month it costs them. This initiative is targeted at the very broad population who can barely afford an Internet connection and computers of any kind. The cost of a few MB/month is something they do worry about. Besides: > The traffic from a particular website is not significant anyway so I don't think they will go to/prefer websites with free access only. The traffic from accessing a particular website once, in a "typical" browsing session, seems insignificant to you. I don't think the traffic from today's ad-ridden news websites is so insignificant for someone who doesn't surf the web all day. In typical Facebook fashion, they describe this as something meant to "bring connectivity for everyone", when what it really aims to "bring a certain kind of connectivity, to a few certain websites, for everyone". If you have a look at the list of websites included there, this is more than "but they'll only use Facebook for social networking, which they're already doing". They'll also only use BBC, Reuters and Times of India to read news and political opinions, TimesJobs and Babajob to look for jobs and so on. I.e. there will be only a few select information sources and sources of employment in this "connectivity for everyone" thing. This has considerable consequences, e.g. no (cheap!) way to check sources on science-related news or blacklisting "unwanted" companies from the only two widely-available job-seeking websites.

x0x0 12y ago

but are people better off or worse? Should fb be forced to subsidize access to competitors? Does India have an effective internet access monopoly (occasionally a duopoly) ala the us, which is why I supported fcc regulations?

danielam 12y ago
This. I favor net neutrality, but I think much of the "moral outrage" comes from a combination of paternalism, self-serving attitudes and petty, pampered middle class arrogance and not a discerning realism. Vacuous and self-righteous sloganeering do not impress me. Luxuries are not a given. The question that should be asked (which you bring up) from the position of those who receive the service: does it help or hurt them in the here-and-now? Are they better or worse off, on the whole, than they would have been without the service? I also presume this service is being offered in a relatively free market.

eklavya 12y ago

It's not like people will stop getting an internet connection. They will still have it. They will open other websites as well. The traffic from a particular website is not significant anyway so I don't think they will go to/prefer websites with free access only. Facebook right now has no competition, they would have used it anyway and it something better comes along people won't care about the few MBs/month it costs them. ISPs have already been giving free WhatsApp plans and all, nothing changed for telegram et al I suppose.

svarog 12y ago
Just google "Net Nutrality" and see what's so wrong about this initiative. People smarter than me have talked about the matter, so better read what they have to say, but I'll just say that the reason the Internet is so successful in bringing all sorts of ideas to fruition is that it doesn't discriminate ideas, and lets all information flow equally. If there are companies whose ideas are worth more than others, or are cheaper to reach - you no longer have a free(as in free speach) internet.
- eklavya 12y ago
  I know(I think) about "Net Neutrality". There is a difference between discriminating between packets and charging more for particular traffic and providing access to some sites for free. They are not charging more for a particular kind of traffic and so I assume they are Net Neutral. Did I miss something?
  - DanBC 12y ago
    They are charging more for particular types of traffic! Anything other than a select few sites is being charged.
    - eklavya 12y ago
      No, you are bending it. They are charging the same they were before and there is no change in that regard. They are still charging same regardless of what the packet contains. Some sites are paying to be subsidised. They are paying for a service, what's wrong? You want to compete? Get your site subsidise as well. Someone has to pay either the customer or the provider, customer doesn't have to pay more for particular traffic. Do you expect ISPs to provide all data for free?
      - rakoo 12y ago
        > They are still charging same regardless of what the packet contains. The issue here is that this is not internet. Facebook has partnered with a local ISP that decided that some packets (say, those from Wikipedia) can pass for free but others (say, those from GMail) cannot. Wikipedia is not (AFAIK) an AS; as such it doesn't have a deal with Reliance Communications at the internet level. And yet, there is now some business for Reliance to transport Wikipedia's packets. This is completely breaking the internet as it is designed (and as it works best) All the chatter we've seen with ISPs and content providers is because AS interco is highly contentious. In this case we're not talking (only) about AS; we're talking about websites having to bend to an ISP for it to behave as expected. It's absolutely not ok. > customer doesn't have to pay more for particular traffic Of course he doesn't have to, because he doesn't even have access to it, whether there is a route from website to ISP or not. That's the horrible part of it: now peering with an AS is not enough, you need some other arrangement. > Do you expect ISPs to provide all data for free? I expect users to pay for laying cables, then everyone peers with everyone else and traffic is free. But we're not there yet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_system_%28Internet%...
weland 12y ago
IMHO, the "connectivity for everyone" thing is a thin cover of "controlled distribution channels for anyone who can't afford better". > people won't care about the few MBs/month it costs them. This initiative is targeted at the very broad population who can barely afford an Internet connection and computers of any kind. The cost of a few MB/month is something they do worry about. Besides: > The traffic from a particular website is not significant anyway so I don't think they will go to/prefer websites with free access only. The traffic from accessing a particular website once, in a "typical" browsing session, seems insignificant to you. I don't think the traffic from today's ad-ridden news websites is so insignificant for someone who doesn't surf the web all day. In typical Facebook fashion, they describe this as something meant to "bring connectivity for everyone", when what it really aims to "bring a certain kind of connectivity, to a few certain websites, for everyone". If you have a look at the list of websites included there, this is more than "but they'll only use Facebook for social networking, which they're already doing". They'll also only use BBC, Reuters and Times of India to read news and political opinions, TimesJobs and Babajob to look for jobs and so on. I.e. there will be only a few select information sources and sources of employment in this "connectivity for everyone" thing. This has considerable consequences, e.g. no (cheap!) way to check sources on science-related news or blacklisting "unwanted" companies from the only two widely-available job-seeking websites.