51–60 of 203 posts
Happy that someone wrote about this. We don`t need Facebook's walled garden. It is surprising to see "Wikipedia" aka champion of free speech part of internet.org.
So I would argue that Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program, and Facebook the worst.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original consultation paper also had similar figures. I don't remember correctly but telcos are expected to lose $400 billion from call and SMS decline by 2020. However, they are expected to earn $1.2 trillion from data growth.
Projected figures after 5 years? I'd like to see some source on this information please. I know they'll make up for in data, but $1.2 trillion?
Globally, the overall revenues in the telecom/ICT sector are expected to continue rising because of growth in users, traffic and applications. Even though there may be a loss of up to 6.9 per cent in cumulative voice revenues (representing $479 billion) because of OTT services, the total revenue for TSPs is likely to grow to $2.4 trillion in 2019 from $2.1 trillion in 2014
I was way off base. :)
[1] Consultation paper: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Docum...
Today was phenomenal. The campaign has sent more than 620,000 email to TRAI (Indian equivalent of FCC) who wanted public opinion on whether Internet (or as they say, "Over-the-top services") should be regulated or not. Cleartrip showed courage in being the first one to opt out of Internet.org. A few more soon followed. Tomorrow could be amazing! Edit: Very similar to US, comedians played a pivotal role in popularizin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lots of factors at play here. Till a few months ago, India didn't even have a competition commission. We have no anti-trust laws. You also have to understand the history of telecom in India, especially the Value-Added-Services on mobile. They killed startups ( http://rashmiranjanpadhy.com/2015/04/12/airtel-kills-startup... ), they activated services without users' consent and so on. Can you imagine how big this fraud…
India has a Competition Commission since 2002. http://www.cci.gov.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view...
Facebook's internet.org plan to be somewhat hypocritical, given their (correct) stand in favor of net neutrality in the US. internet.org isn't about the internet at all - it's more a proprietary network similar to Compuserve or AOL. It's the same brand of philanthropy that Microsoft practices when it offers discounted Windows and Office to schools.
I'd say Facebook's moves here are more sinister than Microsoft's (or Apple's - they do the same thing). In the MS/Apple cases, it's simply about pushing product. In FB's case it's about pulling up the ladder after they've climbed it (balkanized Internet means dominant services like FB stay dominant). After the fwd.us debacle and now this, why should anyone trust Zuck and Facebook in terms of "philanthropy"?
Happy that someone wrote about this. We don`t need Facebook's walled garden. It is surprising to see "Wikipedia" aka champion of free speech part of internet.org.
Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia run by the non-profit Wikimedia foundation, Facebook is an ad-serving, for-profit social network. So I would argue that Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program, and Facebook the worst.
Just trying to understand from the first principle: If ISPs doesn't charge for facebook usage, then who _actually_ pays? Someone has to...right? Just curious.
Facebook pays. And then owns the user.
Happy that someone wrote about this. We don`t need Facebook's walled garden. It is surprising to see "Wikipedia" aka champion of free speech part of internet.org.
Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia run by the non-profit Wikimedia foundation, Facebook is an ad-serving, for-profit social network. So I would argue that Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program, and Facebook the worst.
Except for the high likelihood of having a pop over of Jimmy Wales asking for money show up on all your content.