India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content • Hacker News Board

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#151

Post by bduerst » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:37 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #118

anon1385 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has a list of all current and future job search sites that anybody in India might want to use? What about job adverts that are just posted on the employers own website? Unless you meant "Facebook wants to monopolise the entire Indian job search market with their own job search site while preventing people from accessing any competitors". That's more believable but hardly undermines the original quote.

Babajob is not Facebook's job search site (nor is the other job search site I just noticed on the list, Times Jobs). Only a couple things on the list of sites included in the program are Facebook's. Here is the list (as of a few months ago): Aaj Tak AccuWeather Amarujala.com AP Speaks Babajob BabyCenter & MAMA BBC News Bing Search Cleartrip Daily Bhaskar Dictionary.com ESPN Cricinfo Facebook Facebook Messenger Facts…

Is Facebook being transparent about which of these websites are paying for inclusion in the free tier?

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#152

Post by dang » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:38 PM UTC

manish_gill wrote: post #69

Sven7 wrote: post #68

This has been like watching one form of misinformation battling another form of misinformation. One set of misguided people battling another set of misguided people. NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies. It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context. Activists in the West (who's rep a…

Wow, such holier than thou attitude. Anything thinking the problem is that the poor people aren't connected enough is seriously misinformed. India connected over 300mil people last year, and guess what, Facebook's effort only contributed ~1% of that number. Not to mention, over the long term, the very real problem that the Facebook walled garden of apps would present in terms of opportunities for entrepreneurs is muc…

> such holier than thou attitude [...] your condescending comparison

Please edit such personal rudeness out of your posts to HN. It's not allowed, even when someone else is condescending and wrong.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#153

Post by dang » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:39 PM UTC

scorpion032 wrote: post #98

Sven7 wrote: post #68

This has been like watching one form of misinformation battling another form of misinformation. One set of misguided people battling another set of misguided people. NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies. It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context. Activists in the West (who's rep a…

Could you please share what you are smoking, that has got you this high to be so far disconnected from reality. Here is a concise set of carefully articulated arguments: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1Yfbhrlb7a_z-pQytLPwE... which are very true in the Indian context. Also your argument on free-market ignores, assumes the absence of a regulator. It might hold when no regulator exists. But under the given cond…

> Could you please share what you are smoking, that has got you this high to be so far disconnected from reality.

You can't comment like this here. Please post civilly or not at all.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#154

Post by splintercell » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:42 PM UTC

ignoramous wrote: post #146

splintercell wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What Facebook wants is our less fortunate brothers and sisters should be able to poke each other and play Candy Crush, but not be able to look up a fact on Google, or learn something on Khan Academy or sell their produce on a commodity market or even search for a job," he said. Indians use connectivity very differently than the rest of the world(or at least different from the developed countries). To Indians, phon…

The closed nature of the internet is dangerous for reasons far beyond "mom and pop can't use the rest of the internet anyway" argument: 1. Content Quality reduces due to lack of choice, and lack of exposure: Closed-groups are places where spam, false information, propaganda breed to a high degree. Other parts of internet help verify claims/suspicions/hypothesis. 2. Sets up a monopoly, vendor-lock-in, changes habits:…

> Sets up a monopoly, vendor-lock-in, changes habits: Facebook would hold immeasurable power, once they've got people hooked onto thinking that there's nothing beyond their apps. I wanna deal with this monopoly argument I keep hearing everywhere in this thread.

Can there be a monopoly of a web service? Facebook dethrowned MySpace, did myspace have a monopoly? MySpace dethrowned Friendster.

If Google has a monopoly in Search and email then what use is it when it can't push Google Plus? Even with Youtube integration FORCED upon people, nobody used Google plus.

Pretty much every single product other than social networks which Facebook has launched, has been a failure. It couldn't replace Gmail, Snapchat, Instagram.

Microsoft couldn't compete with iPod, Apple couldn't compete on Maps.

It just doesn't matter how much is your market share in a certain existing technology, people judge things based on the products (considering there is no 'price' to lure people away with).

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#155

Post by splintercell » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:45 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #128

sremani wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the Ghosts of East India Company are always invoked when a foreign company enters India with heft, this was said of Coke, Pepsi and now when referring to Facebook Basics and Amazon. Of course, the stone walling of Foreign Retailers like Walmart. Anybody who talks about EIC is a protectionist trying to play on Colonial insecurities. Having grown up in Socialist India, the demagogue who summons East India Compan…

People who opposed coke were a minority, who weren't taken seriously by their own political representatives. Slow adoption of technology had more to do with fear of automation and job losses, than anything.

> People who opposed coke were a minority, who weren't taken seriously by their own political representatives. Well then why Coca Cola and IBM were forced to leave the country? George Fernandes was Union minister when he ordered them to leave India. I don't think you can get any more high profile than that.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#156

Post by splintercell » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:47 PM UTC

Perixoog wrote: post #119

splintercell wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What Facebook wants is our less fortunate brothers and sisters should be able to poke each other and play Candy Crush, but not be able to look up a fact on Google, or learn something on Khan Academy or sell their produce on a commodity market or even search for a job," he said. Indians use connectivity very differently than the rest of the world(or at least different from the developed countries). To Indians, phon…

Does she use email?

I don't think she does. Never really thought of that. She's on WhatsApp like all the time, posting at least 20-200 messages a day. That's not just her, a lot of people in my family do the same thing with WhatsApp. And my mom is the smart one in the family (of her generation). She made everyone learn things like the app.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#157

Post by mpnordland » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:50 PM UTC

splintercell wrote: post #147

shubhamjain wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read a book called "Economics in One Lesson" [1] which is quite in few ways similar to your arguments. The gist of the book is Government should avoid doing anything in capitalistic market, goes on to argue against Minimum wage Laws, Labour unions, Price control etc. and how a free market will solve every economic problem. The problem with your arguments / analogies and of that book, is that they tell a simplistic…

> You say that a 'no-blocked sites package' and 'whitelisted site package' could co-exist but fail to see that, the former one could be priced so high (once the latter gains a very large market share) that it becomes necessary for an ordinary person to limit his choices. See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement. P…

No. Net Neutrality protects what we already have. We already pay for access to the entire internet. Customers pay ISPs for this access. When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#158

Post by splintercell » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:51 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #133

splintercell wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same place where France's Google, Germany's Amazon is at, they don't need it. China is wasting effort by creating things because they don't wanna use the things rest of the world uses, and the rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy.

> Same place where France's Google, Germany's Amazon is at, they don't need it. Germany and France are 1/10 the population of India or smaller. India is 2x+ USA populations. > China is wasting effort by creating things because they don't wanna use the things rest of the world uses, and the rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy. Then of course US c…

> Germany and France are 1/10 the population of India or smaller. India is 2x+ USA populations. All I am saying is that there is no need of creating the same piece of software by a different team of people just because of NIH Syndrome (Not Invented Here). India should spend time in creating other things.

China created its own search engine because they want a feature i.e. censorship, which Google doesn't offer them. France and Germany don't need their own search engines because there is nothing in Google which they want but latter doesn't offer.

All I am saying is that India should focus on making unique things specific to Indian population only. For instance create a Horoscope matching service similar to OkCupid, now that makes sense. Housing.com makes sense. Indian Facebook doesn't make sense.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#159

Post by shostack » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 9:51 PM UTC

intended wrote: post #11

scorpion032 wrote: post #2

Probably the most progressive regulation among anywhere in the world. Enforcement of these #NetNeutrality principles is the literal granting of the Liberties and Equalities of opportunities, granted to individuals and as such this is a landmark order that will have far reaching repercussions. Worth noting how this played out. A bunch of folks on the internet, organised themselves and campaigned to stop a $300B market…

While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors. We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.

Fair point and you can look at examples elsewhere in politics and business. TPP is a great example of something that went through iteration after iteration before finally being rammed through.

CISPA and its predecessors were similar. The entities with a vested interest in having these things come to pass have essentially endless coffers to take the long view. All they need is to succeed once whereas we need to succeed in stopping these things each and every time. It is a war of attrition.

Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

#160

Post by splintercell » Mon, Feb 08, 2016, 10:02 PM UTC

mpnordland wrote: post #157

splintercell wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You say that a 'no-blocked sites package' and 'whitelisted site package' could co-exist but fail to see that, the former one could be priced so high (once the latter gains a very large market share) that it becomes necessary for an ordinary person to limit his choices. See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement. P…

No. Net Neutrality protects what we already have. We already pay for access to the entire internet. Customers pay ISPs for this access. When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide.

How is it different than saying "Defense of Marriage Act protects what we already have"?

> When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide. Every country has consumer protection clause. IF ISPs promise you full internet, but they don't offer you that, then they can be sued under most jurisdictions.

The fact is, you know that this is not what it is about. There is no fraud involved. ISPs want to offer a certain kind of service and you're afraid that most people would take it and you'd be at the losing end, so you want to use the government to force the market to move in a certain direction.