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

Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#41

Post by mkagenius »

aravindet wrote: post #38
wnevets wrote: post #28

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

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 eff…

> 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.

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#42

Post by [deleted] »

spenvo wrote: post #5

- HTTPS is a premium feature not included in Internet.org's package... - Internet services/sites are whitelisted - essentially by Facebook. - ISP tracking is baked into consumers' access. (Like Verizon's SuperCookies, which have just been rolled back for US consumers.) - Select developers get to develop for the web ... but based off permission from higher ups. Because we all trust Facebook as a caretaker of a dev pla…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#43

Post by x0x0 »

spenvo wrote: post #5

- HTTPS is a premium feature not included in Internet.org's package... - Internet services/sites are whitelisted - essentially by Facebook. - ISP tracking is baked into consumers' access. (Like Verizon's SuperCookies, which have just been rolled back for US consumers.) - Select developers get to develop for the web ... but based off permission from higher ups. Because we all trust Facebook as a caretaker of a dev pla…

A free, ad-supported offering has limitations and appears to serve the advertiser, not the "user"? Cue internet outrage!

   If you are not paying for it, you’re not the customer; you’re the product 
   being sold. -- blue_beetle on mefi
It never gets less remarkable that people don't understand that.

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#45

Post by chdir »

I'll campaign for them if they put this in the tag line: "Free internet at the cost of your privacy". And change the domain from "internet.org" to "3rd-world-sucker-book.com" or something. I abhor the "social good" PR spin that Facebook is giving to this initiative. Otherwise, I'm all for providing connectivity to the billions. Just skip the charade. The whole initiative is a great pun on the word "free"

In the real world, this task should be best left to organizations that are truly working to keep the internet free & open (like mozilla).

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#46

Post by dlitz »

spenvo wrote: post #5

- HTTPS is a premium feature not included in Internet.org's package... - Internet services/sites are whitelisted - essentially by Facebook. - ISP tracking is baked into consumers' access. (Like Verizon's SuperCookies, which have just been rolled back for US consumers.) - Select developers get to develop for the web ... but based off permission from higher ups. Because we all trust Facebook as a caretaker of a dev pla…

It's the online services network that telcos have been trying to build since the late 1990s, but nobody wanted because it wasn't the Internet. What irritates me most is that the Wikimedia Foundation is whitewashing the whole effort, and complicating the public understanding of "net neutrality".

I mean, seriously, it would be obvious what a farce this is if it didn't come with Wikipedia access.

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#47

Post by rabbyte »

Quanticles wrote: post #37
_greim_ wrote: post #22

> But Facebook's founder Mark Zuckerberg said it was "not sustainable to offer the whole internet for free". I think that's exactly what they should do, if they're serious about this: just find a way to offer everyone the whole internet for free. If something must be compromised, then compromise speed, not access to sites. Sites that want to reach poor people would just have to practice draconian bandwidth discipline…

Everyone is complaining - why don't other people offer free internet? Just do it yourself

Should we not discuss our concerns for how people around the world connect to the same network? There are a number of people working on this problem, people who can handle the funding and work involved, but that still leaves room for us to comment on policy that will shape the way large populations interact with the rest of the world.

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#48

Post by jace »

mkagenius wrote: post #39
wnevets wrote: post #28

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

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.)

Bad analogy, then? (Also, polio workers are getting shot in Pakistan.)

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#49

Post by jace »

wnevets wrote: post #40
aravindet wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eff…

If the real internet is inherently better than this aol 2.0, shouldn't simple market forces choose the internet as the winner?

Wireless spectrum is a scarce public resource, allocated by government license, effectively granting the telco a monopoly. Simple market forces don't apply here.

Re: Facebook opens up Internet.org amidst net neutrality row

#50

Post by jace »

diminoten3 wrote: post #32
yarrel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this isn't access to the single greatest invention humanity has ever come up with. It's a brand that takes its name and applies it to a surveillance monopoly. It's internet.org that's denying people access to the Internet, not people pointing this fact out.

Internet.org is a set of interconnected computers. You want to get political and philosophical about what is and isn't the Internet, but Mumtaz in Bangalore wants to send $5 to his wife, and doesn't get to do that unless internet.org exists.

Mumtaz is a female name. And since that suggests you aren't very familiar with India, I'll recommend not assuming that Internet.org is the only way people are going to get Internet.

It's not even taken seriously in India and got dragged into this debate only because of other proposals that are actually, intentionally malicious.

Post reply on HN