4 ms·

I'm all for net neutrality, but I wonder how the currently unconnected people who have a chance at free connectivity feel about this. My guess-- limited Intern

by hsod 12y ago

I'm all for net neutrality, but I wonder how the currently unconnected people who have a chance at free connectivity feel about this. My guess-- limited Internet access is preferable to no Internet access and ideological purity.

nileshtrivedi 12y ago
I can understand. The question then becomes (1) who decides what is included in "limited internet" and (2) who bears the costs? For-profit company making these decisions on the basis of commercial arrangements will take away all the potential of the Internet as we know it. Would there have been a KhanAcademy if ComcastAcademy ("limited internet access") was offered "for free"?
disgruntledphd2 12y ago
Yeah, most of those 620K emails (which isn't a lot at Indian scale) by definition, come from people that already have internet access. Its sad, whatever you think about FB, getting more people access to Wikipedia is clearly a good thing (fixing illiteracy would be better, clearly).
- yellowapple 12y ago
  You can do that by distributing offline copies of Wikipedia.
  - sumedh 12y ago
    How are you going to fit Wikipedia on a cheap smartphone which most poor/lower middle class Indians use. Most of them dont even have a PC.
- nileshtrivedi 12y ago
  Only if you ignore the opportunity cost. If we didn't give free Wikipedia access, we could have given something else for free. Now who should decide what is a better choice? The user of course! This is NOT the case in internet.org. Facebook picks the choices as breadcrumbs for the poor - while there are alternative approaches that can work. Now, combine this with the fact that picking who gets on internet.org gives the telcos and FB huge leverage, the ulterior motives seem much more likely cause.
calbear81 12y ago
Those who don't currently have internet access will be hurt by this in absolute terms but the opposite outcome would be that a dangerous precedence is set that will have a larger impact on competition.
vacri 12y ago
It's not "free connectivity" and shouldn't be discussed as such. It's "free access to a bundle of sites", which isn't the same thing - basically it's a monopoly doing a loss-leader program.

by hsod 12y ago

nileshtrivedi 12y ago

I can understand. The question then becomes (1) who decides what is included in "limited internet" and (2) who bears the costs? For-profit company making these decisions on the basis of commercial arrangements will take away all the potential of the Internet as we know it. Would there have been a KhanAcademy if ComcastAcademy ("limited internet access") was offered "for free"?

disgruntledphd2 12y ago

Yeah, most of those 620K emails (which isn't a lot at Indian scale) by definition, come from people that already have internet access. Its sad, whatever you think about FB, getting more people access to Wikipedia is clearly a good thing (fixing illiteracy would be better, clearly).

yellowapple 12y ago
You can do that by distributing offline copies of Wikipedia.
- sumedh 12y ago
  How are you going to fit Wikipedia on a cheap smartphone which most poor/lower middle class Indians use. Most of them dont even have a PC.
nileshtrivedi 12y ago
Only if you ignore the opportunity cost. If we didn't give free Wikipedia access, we could have given something else for free. Now who should decide what is a better choice? The user of course! This is NOT the case in internet.org. Facebook picks the choices as breadcrumbs for the poor - while there are alternative approaches that can work. Now, combine this with the fact that picking who gets on internet.org gives the telcos and FB huge leverage, the ulterior motives seem much more likely cause.

calbear81 12y ago

Those who don't currently have internet access will be hurt by this in absolute terms but the opposite outcome would be that a dangerous precedence is set that will have a larger impact on competition.

vacri 12y ago

It's not "free connectivity" and shouldn't be discussed as such. It's "free access to a bundle of sites", which isn't the same thing - basically it's a monopoly doing a loss-leader program.