3 ms·

is bad internet really worse than no internet? Sounds like people are letting perfect getting in the way of good enough.

• aravindet 12y ago
  It isn't bad Internet. It is a proprietary network like AOL and CompuServe, and not the Internet at all. The name is intentionally misleading. Allowing such proprietary networks to run over public radio spectrum causes harm to the real internet - and not just by slowing it down and making it more expensive. The main long-term harm is the stifling effect on innovation, especially in businesses that rely on network effects: Even if you are a regular internet user, but some of your friends are on internet.org, you can only use communication, collaboration or social networking apps that are on internet.org. Even in other categories of apps, you might only hear about those that are on internet.org. This means that we will move from an economy where end users decide which apps get popular, to one where facebook picks the winners. This is scary.
  • mkagenius 12y ago
    > Even if you are a regular internet user, but some of your friends are on internet.org, you can only use communication, collaboration or social networking apps that are on internet.org. But before internet.org, you couldn't even communicate with them.
  • wnevets 12y ago
    If the real internet is inherently better than this aol 2.0, shouldn't simple market forces choose the internet as the winner?
    • jace 12y ago
      Wireless spectrum is a scarce public resource, allocated by government license, effectively granting the telco a monopoly. Simple market forces don't apply here.
• mkagenius 12y ago
  yeah, its kind of people stopping Bill Gates to help with Polio eradication since he is not helping with rest of the diseases. (Apparently nobody is doing that, thank god.)
  • jace 12y ago
    Bad analogy, then? (Also, polio workers are getting shot in Pakistan.)