5 ms·

Okay, this has nothing to do with supporting the poor as the comments here are suggesting, and as Airtel is trying to paint it. Poor can avail month-long 1GB da

by arihant 12y ago

Okay, this has nothing to do with supporting the poor as the comments here are suggesting, and as Airtel is trying to paint it. Poor can avail month-long 1GB data at $3 in India. All major providers have a plan that makes Facebook, Whatzapp, Google, Twitter, Instagram free for $0.5 a month. We already have plans for the poor, this is not it. This plan is the following - if you take Airtel Zero, you cannot access any other website. Period. That's right, no option to pay for other websites at all. Once you opt-in, your web is restricted. This is not like the plans for poor we already have, where you pay little or nothing for some websites, but can use regular plans to access rest of the web. With the new Airtel Zero, you waive off the rights to rest of the web as soon as you opt-in. This is a net neutrality debate. We have plans for poor, this is not it.

jacquesm 12y ago
One of the participants will sooner or later set up a proxy.
- Tarang 12y ago
  The participants have to pay for the data instead of their clients. A proxy would effectively cost them.
  - mobiplayer 12y ago
    And it could be a good investment in exchange of proxying all your customer's traffic. That's probably the wet dream of some C level executives.
Grue3 12y ago
The difference is marginal. With $0.5/$3 plan, if the person is poor, they can't afford to go to expensive websites, so they're still locked to the cheap websites. It's still a "net neutrality" situation and the two plans have the same effect in practice. The only solution is to make the entire Internet free for everyone, which is, of course, not happening.
- arihant 12y ago
  It's not a scheme for people struggling for food. Airtel Zero is only for companies offering Android and iPhone apps. If a person can afford a $120 phone at minimum, they can pay $3 a month. The "poor" is a marketing stunt here. In no way will this scheme make internet accessible for the next half billion in India.
  - Someone1234 12y ago
    > $120 phone at minimum Uhh, no. I've paid $50 for this (non-contract): http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_blade-3391.php http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_blade-3391.php And that was new and in 2010. There are tons of amazing phones well below $70, in particular in "developing" markets (like India) where they get some exclusive low end phones that are a bargain for the spec. If you go look on Airtel's website right now, go mobile offers, buy now, then uncheck the filter at the top and organise Low->High. They have a 4.5" Android Quad Core, Lollipop phone for $87. If you can live with KitKat then they start at $31.95. If you want a "nice" Kitkat phone then $65.65 will buy you one. So, yeah, $120 is nowhere ballpark near the minimum. The minimum in the literal sense is $10 and the minimum with Android is $28.81. And that's just buying directly from Airtel, new.
drpgq 12y ago
Wow $3 for a GB of data? I'm paying more than three times as much in Canada and that's considered a good deal.
- ForHackernews 12y ago
  Canada happens to be a much wealthier country than India.
- rjuyal 12y ago
  $3/GB => 2G connection
- notahacker 12y ago
  $3 a GB is not cheap when it's 10% of your monthly income, which is the case for somewhere between a quarter and a half of Indian citizens on a dollar a day, depending on whose statistics you regard as the most representative and accurate. And that's a number which has fallen heavily in recent years. That certainly puts things into perspective when talking about the downside to requiring people pay for bandwidth even if the app-owners want them to have it for free...
  - arihant 12y ago
    That quarter and a half billion cannot afford a smartphone yet. So mobile data scheme for apps is not a conversation about them. It is peanuts for people who can afford a smartphone.
    - notahacker 12y ago
      I wouldn't call $3 per gigabyte "peanuts" to someone buying the ~$30 extreme low-end Android phones, or indeed a much poorer person that possesses a battered second-hand feature phone with a Facebook app, which could at least theoretically be covered with this sort of program.
      - arihant 12y ago

by arihant 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

One of the participants will sooner or later set up a proxy.

Tarang 12y ago
The participants have to pay for the data instead of their clients. A proxy would effectively cost them.
- mobiplayer 12y ago
  And it could be a good investment in exchange of proxying all your customer's traffic. That's probably the wet dream of some C level executives.

Grue3 12y ago

The difference is marginal. With $0.5/$3 plan, if the person is poor, they can't afford to go to expensive websites, so they're still locked to the cheap websites. It's still a "net neutrality" situation and the two plans have the same effect in practice. The only solution is to make the entire Internet free for everyone, which is, of course, not happening.

arihant 12y ago
It's not a scheme for people struggling for food. Airtel Zero is only for companies offering Android and iPhone apps. If a person can afford a $120 phone at minimum, they can pay $3 a month. The "poor" is a marketing stunt here. In no way will this scheme make internet accessible for the next half billion in India.
- Someone1234 12y ago
  > $120 phone at minimum Uhh, no. I've paid $50 for this (non-contract): http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_blade-3391.php http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_blade-3391.php And that was new and in 2010. There are tons of amazing phones well below $70, in particular in "developing" markets (like India) where they get some exclusive low end phones that are a bargain for the spec. If you go look on Airtel's website right now, go mobile offers, buy now, then uncheck the filter at the top and organise Low->High. They have a 4.5" Android Quad Core, Lollipop phone for $87. If you can live with KitKat then they start at $31.95. If you want a "nice" Kitkat phone then $65.65 will buy you one. So, yeah, $120 is nowhere ballpark near the minimum. The minimum in the literal sense is $10 and the minimum with Android is $28.81. And that's just buying directly from Airtel, new.

drpgq 12y ago

Wow $3 for a GB of data? I'm paying more than three times as much in Canada and that's considered a good deal.

ForHackernews 12y ago
Canada happens to be a much wealthier country than India.
rjuyal 12y ago
$3/GB => 2G connection
notahacker 12y ago
$3 a GB is not cheap when it's 10% of your monthly income, which is the case for somewhere between a quarter and a half of Indian citizens on a dollar a day, depending on whose statistics you regard as the most representative and accurate. And that's a number which has fallen heavily in recent years. That certainly puts things into perspective when talking about the downside to requiring people pay for bandwidth even if the app-owners want them to have it for free...
- arihant 12y ago
  That quarter and a half billion cannot afford a smartphone yet. So mobile data scheme for apps is not a conversation about them. It is peanuts for people who can afford a smartphone.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    I wouldn't call $3 per gigabyte "peanuts" to someone buying the ~$30 extreme low-end Android phones, or indeed a much poorer person that possesses a battered second-hand feature phone with a Facebook app, which could at least theoretically be covered with this sort of program.
    - arihant 12y ago