Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 243 posts

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#131

Post by prostoalex »

everly wrote: post #76
circuitslave wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.

I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.

The way that story played out is that people hooked on AOL validated the concept and paved the way for broadband and Web as we know it, so not sure how it's illustrative of the issues with Internet.org.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#132

Post by MawNicker »

icebraining wrote: post #117
MawNicker wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market has already converged on essentially this reality. We have cable and fiber monopolies controlling the local networks. These used to be more open when DSL was the prevalent technology. This allowed a variety of ISPs to utilize that shared infrastructure. The telcos didn't care about the Internet before. Once there was apparently money to be made they changed their game. They developed faster connections on…

The logic would be funny if it wasn't sad. The government creates a monopoly (AT&T). That company uses that power and money accumulated through decades to extend its reach into the cable system (current "Comcast" is actually the merger of a medium provider with AT&T Broadband, which held dozens of millions of cable subscribers). Then that is used to show that a government monopoly is needed. Maybe you could actually…

I thought it was utterly obvious that a monopoly should provide and service the local infrastructure. Would you also like free market roads? How about the electrical grid? Water? Sewage? Local infrastructure isn't a fungible commodity. If it were then traffic jams and blackouts wouldn't be a thing. Also, local demand isn't scalable. You only need one road outside your house. Several competing roads would be horribly underutilized on the low end of scale. On the high end you're maybe onto something. Private bridges and freeways may be a decent idea. Private airlines certainly are. But then you're right back to what I'm advocating.

My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe. Governments provide the "last mile" connectivity. ISPs compete to provide access to the outside world. This competition isn't possible if the local infrastructure is owned by an ISP. They are incentivized to shut down the free market and reap their monopolistic rewards. They lock down their infrastructure. This creates a huge barrier to entry. They can then: Overcharge. Inspire competition. Crush them with their accumulated capital. Overcharge... Anyone attempting to compete is necessarily constructing redundant infrastructure. The "zero government involvement" thing actually hinders the free market here. Our road system enables tremendous free market enterprise. If retailers had to pay a road cartel for the right to do business it would be a disaster. Walmart would take over the roads and overpower anything it cared to which depended on them. Basically what Facebook is trying to do in India.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#133

Post by abhaga »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #126
everly wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.

I don't understand what the fuss is over this. Using your analogy, if AOL were legitimately free to non-technical folks, it would be worth it for many of them to have their curated/locked in ecosystem. I can't help but feel the hate for freebasics is an example of the privileged declaring what's best for the unprivileged.

If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing?

In fact the word play now is just ridiculous. When questioned about the above, they point out that this is an open platform now where any service can come in. When questioned on why not simply give free capped bandwidth then, the answer is that "basic internet services" like education, health are more important for poor. And if left to themselves, they will spend all bandwidth on things like porn. (The last statement is not from Facebook but from certain supporters of FreeBasics)

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#134

Post by zouhair »

devindotcom wrote: post #15

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector,…

Sincere? Really? I have more of a feeling the guy is a psychopath.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#135

Post by r3bl »

x5n1 wrote: post #69
jordigh wrote: post #31

I like Eben Moglen's and Mishi Choudhary's take on this situation: Faced with the dawning public recognition that this so-called philanthropy is nothing but an attempt to buy the de-anonymised packets of the Indian poor at a bulk rate, breaking their security in the process of destroying their privacy, Facebook has no alternative but to change the subject. http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly.…

"Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it." Basic internet service. Ok. One app constitutes basic internet according to Zuckerborg.

> Your service can be part of it.

This part is my favorite. I know that my personal website is ineligible because it contains some JavaScript code that handles the navigation, but I submitted it regardlessly just to see how complicated the process is (and to write a blog post about my experience so that others would know what to expect).

That was like 20 days ago. I'm still waiting for someone from Facebook to contact me.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#136

Post by abhaga »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #128
tylermauthe wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is not necessarily a bad thing? In what way could it possibly be a good thing for anybody outside of Facebook?

In the scenario of free walled-garden internet access vs. no access, how can you justify claiming its not a good thing?

Because it is not a static scenario. Internet users in India grew by ~30% over last one year itself and that growth is not slowing down. And FreeBasics is not limited to people coming on the internet for the first time.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#137

Post by abhaga »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #129
mwsherman wrote: post #38

There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article. I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that posi…

Exactly this. It is downright appalling every time I see someone from a place of privilege declare what's best for the unprivileged. All this vitriol against FreeBasics is exactly that. Until I see a mass of extremely poor indians with no internet access reject FreeBasics because they don't want facebook to have their "data", all this hate is just self-serving bluster in my eyes.

You speak as if those not on the internet can not already joining it in hordes. And those opposed to FreeBasics are somehow holding the keys.

When looking at the two camps here, you seriously believe the motives of Facebook and Telecom companies that have clear business interest in having users locked up in their walled gardens but doubt the intentions of a motley group of activists including startup founders, university professors, policy experts among others who do not have any direct incentive to oppose people coming on to internet and also do not control that access in anyway?

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#138

Post by icebraining »

MawNicker wrote: post #132
icebraining wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logic would be funny if it wasn't sad. The government creates a monopoly (AT&T). That company uses that power and money accumulated through decades to extend its reach into the cable system (current "Comcast" is actually the merger of a medium provider with AT&T Broadband, which held dozens of millions of cable subscribers). Then that is used to show that a government monopoly is needed. Maybe you could actually…

I thought it was utterly obvious that a monopoly should provide and service the local infrastructure. Would you also like free market roads? How about the electrical grid? Water? Sewage? Local infrastructure isn't a fungible commodity. If it were then traffic jams and blackouts wouldn't be a thing. Also, local demand isn't scalable. You only need one road outside your house. Several competing roads would be horribly…

As I pointed out in my earlier post, I don't agree that fiber cables are anything like roads (or sewage, for that matter). "Infrastructure" means many things, and it's certainly not obvious that the same solution is the best for all.

My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe.

I live in a Western European country. This is not how it works here. ISPs own their own cables. Yet I have four of them offering me service, four of them over fiber, but also cable, DSL and 4G. Yes, it's expensive. Many private investments are, yet they still get made. Yes, it's redundant. Reliability depends on it.

From what I've read, our situation is hardly atypical, as private installation seems to be the case in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Moldova, Slovakia and others.

The US case, on the other hand, it's hardly representative of a free market, and your problems can not be attribute to it.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#139

Post by rms_returns »

devindotcom wrote: post #15

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector,…

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

Or, is he desperately trying to save his company by getting the last remaining drops of users in a rapidly diminishing market for new user base?

If you think about it, Facebook is not a monopoly that it used to be in the early 2000s, even comparing it Microsoft Windows (like someone did in this thread) is an erroneous exercise.

Windows had a kind of monopoly on PC world that perhaps no other software product in the history of computing ever had. But Facebook has tonnes of alternatives. There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others. Granted that none of them is an exact replacement for FB, but then again, everything has its pros and cons, its a monopolistic competition anyways where each product in a competitive market is a monopoloy in itself.

Re: Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

#140

Post by RodericDay »

devindotcom wrote: post #15

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other. However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken. I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector,…

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

> However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken.

Why not just give people free bundles of data and let them gravitate towards Facebook how we do in ie: North America?

Post reply on HN