4 ms·

How is the world with no Facebook plane in any way better than the world with a Facebook plane that provides Facebook access? If you don't want Facebook access,

by baddox 11y ago

How is the world with no Facebook plane in any way better than the world with a Facebook plane that provides Facebook access? If you don't want Facebook access, or you already have it, the two worlds are indistinguishable.

bduerst 11y ago
Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. Even ignoring the massive man-in-the-middle attack problems from running old phones on a proxy, Facebook is positioning themselves to control exclusive access to large number of users for websites. You could argue that Google already does this - but Google has competitors that users could switch to in a heartbeat. Internet.org users don't have options, and websites need to pander to Facebook to be in that walled garden. It also makes it easier for third world countries to censor the internet. In the end, this is damaging to the open internet ecosystem. Facebook could have just implemented a rate-limited or data capped system like other ISPs, but they opted to create a more restrictive system that gives them more power.
- baddox 11y ago
  > Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. You mean control over the internet access they're providing, that otherwise doesn't exist?
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Are you okay with Comcast doing IP shaping and charging Netflix? If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. That's why it's a false dichotomy. Internet.org could very easily be rate and data capped alternatives. >connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access. -Internet.org This would give them monopsonic control over the internet.
    - nostalgiac 11y ago
      > If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. Sorry that is extremely far from the truth. Any of the other major ISPs' would leap at the chance to guzzle up these customers if there was no other competition.
      - bduerst 11y ago
        You're splitting hairs. Most of Comcast's last mile infrastructure was government subsidized, exactly because no-one was "jumping on it". So you're saying that it's okay to ignore net neutrality (charge Netflix) when the government isn't there to help subsidize last-mile infrastructure? When you could just as easily provide a capped alternative? That's the point and splitting hairs doesn't change it.
Sven7 11y ago
Yup. Cant wait for the Youtube, Amazon and Pornhub planes next.
_delirium 11y ago
Depends on precisely where they're deployed, but this kind of thing can damage the local market and slow down the roll-out of normal infrastructure. A zero-cost "Facebook internet" is a partial substitute for real internet, which worsens the market for a local ISP trying to get off the ground. A kind of price-dumping, basically.
- bduerst 11y ago
  The "Tom Shoe's" effect: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/economics-toms-shoes http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/economic...
visarga 11y ago
Because that would centralize too much power into FB's hands.

by baddox 11y ago

bduerst 11y ago

Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. Even ignoring the massive man-in-the-middle attack problems from running old phones on a proxy, Facebook is positioning themselves to control exclusive access to large number of users for websites. You could argue that Google already does this - but Google has competitors that users could switch to in a heartbeat. Internet.org users don't have options, and websites need to pander to Facebook to be in that walled garden. It also makes it easier for third world countries to censor the internet. In the end, this is damaging to the open internet ecosystem. Facebook could have just implemented a rate-limited or data capped system like other ISPs, but they opted to create a more restrictive system that gives them more power.

baddox 11y ago
> Because internet.org's proxy server gives Facebook monopsonic control over the internet. You mean control over the internet access they're providing, that otherwise doesn't exist?
- bduerst 11y ago
  Are you okay with Comcast doing IP shaping and charging Netflix? If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. That's why it's a false dichotomy. Internet.org could very easily be rate and data capped alternatives. >connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access. -Internet.org This would give them monopsonic control over the internet.
  - nostalgiac 11y ago
    > If Comcast didn't exist, internet access wouldn't exist for many people. Sorry that is extremely far from the truth. Any of the other major ISPs' would leap at the chance to guzzle up these customers if there was no other competition.
    - bduerst 11y ago
      You're splitting hairs. Most of Comcast's last mile infrastructure was government subsidized, exactly because no-one was "jumping on it". So you're saying that it's okay to ignore net neutrality (charge Netflix) when the government isn't there to help subsidize last-mile infrastructure? When you could just as easily provide a capped alternative? That's the point and splitting hairs doesn't change it.

Sven7 11y ago

Yup. Cant wait for the Youtube, Amazon and Pornhub planes next.

_delirium 11y ago

Depends on precisely where they're deployed, but this kind of thing can damage the local market and slow down the roll-out of normal infrastructure. A zero-cost "Facebook internet" is a partial substitute for real internet, which worsens the market for a local ISP trying to get off the ground. A kind of price-dumping, basically.

bduerst 11y ago
The "Tom Shoe's" effect: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/economics-toms-shoes http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/10/economic...

visarga 11y ago

Because that would centralize too much power into FB's hands.