About Internet.org and net neutrality

Oddly, although this is how the NN debate gets talked about (providers limiting consumer access), that's not what the FCC has been arguing about in the US; they've been arguing about whether people can build private fiber between tier 1's and selectively route over it (in practical terms, it's always been "route my own traffic only").

For that matter, in the US an ISP can say "I refuse to route certain traffic to and from certain nodes"; if this were not the case you couldn't have any RBLs. India's legal situation is different from the US's (I've lived in India for the past couple of years and all I can say is that the legal situation is byzantine, confusing, and often self-contradictory) but that same basic capability is there: a provider can refuse to route arbitrary traffic. And this as-implemented is seen as a Good Thing.

So... where's the line for that? Is there a legal difference between a small whitelist and an arbitrarily-large blacklist? Does the intention of the provider matter? (And if it does, how long until "congestion" gets thought up as a way to limit traffic to the 16 walled gardens they want?)

This.

If Mark wanted to do something altruistic, he would not whitelist good sites, he would just blacklist Netflix, YouTube, Spotify, and others. If expensive bandwidth is what's limiting him, he can work around that.

But this isn't an altruistic move. This is a business move.

Here's the full reply from India's SaveTheInternet.in coalition exposing Facebook's chicanery --> http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology-topstories/mr-zucke...

This piece can be instructive and useful to others in US/Europe & any country where such deceptive zerorated plans are trying to make their way in. Be it of FB or anyone else.

Zuck wants a walled-garden version of internet (with FB as gatekeeper) to be made free for the poor. We're saying poor Indians should have access to the same full open globally-connected internet as we all take for granted. And that free & fair competition will & should take care of things like access on the cheap, sachet-mktg etc.

As of today on my Vodafone India plan I can get a 2G plan starting for 22¢. Poor Indians that Zuck wants to target with his zerorated internet dot org spend $0.5 on ringtones. This twitter thread from Andresseen & Horowitz Parner, Benedict Evans has a good discussion about pricing & cheap access --> https://twitter.com/BenedictEvans/status/588511768244162561

I will encourage anyone who is following NetNeutrality debate globally to keep an eye on India. (China is out of bounds). That's where all the action is.

And if you can help us punch above our weight at global level - please connect with us.

I hate it when people answer questions like that. Surely its obvious to Mark that the issue was some entity, be it Facebook or a local government, is making the decision of which services were to be available instead of letting the user decide which service they wish to use.

Yet he decides to side-step the issue. Why bother answering comments if you're not really going to address the issues concerning people?

One issue that it seems like Mark isn't acknowledging is the fact that participating in Internet.org will give a huge competitive advantage to the companies that are able to offer their services through that platform for free, however it is that they're able to arrange that. How could a competitor to one of these websites compete in that market segment when, in order to access it, you need to be on the "paid" Internet, while Facebook and these other services are available for free? How do you compete with free? (For example, a music streaming company HungamaPlay is available through Internet.org. How could a competitor reasonably achieve similar market share when the competitor's service causes users to be charged for data, while HungamaPlay is available for free through Internet.org?)

Will this create a further lock-in effect where, once users become accustomed to the sites they're using on Internet.org, they will keep using them for free even after paid Internet is affordable for them?

> Arguments about net neutrality shouldn’t be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society from gaining access or to deprive people of opportunity. Eliminating programs that bring more people online won’t increase social inclusion or close the digital divide.

Giving things away for free may not be the best way to accomplish that. Especially when the free services seem to favor certain business significantly under terms that appear to be secret. While it's true that some people are saying that no connectivity is preferable, these arguments are false dichotomies. If one's goal is connectivity, then one can provide access to the /entire/ Internet. If sites need to sign up in some program to cover the mobile networks' data transfer charges, or provide an ultra-low-bandwidth version of their site, then so be it -- but be transparent about how those agreements work, and keep the program open to any website to join in a straightforward way. Since Facebook chooses which services are available, Facebook essentially becomes the kingmaker for what services will become popular in those regions. How does Facebook know that it's reasonable to include HungamaPlay, for example? What if they're involved in payola, and they're offering streaming music for free only for artists that pay to have their music circulated widely? Now an artist needs to be available on HungamaPlay in order for their music to be widely known on the Internet in the region.

There are many concerning claustrophobic effects like this.

> It's too expensive to make the whole internet free. Mobile operators spend tens of billions of dollars to support all of internet traffic. If it was all free they'd go out of business.

Mark seems to be implying here that mobile networks are eating the cost today as a form of charity. Is that true? The implication is that scaling up the program will cause mobile networks to lose money. That would be the case if these mobile networks have decided to offer the service as a form of charity, but will not be the case if other companies like Facebook are covering the data transfer charges for Facebook users. What's really going on, and why is it difficult for me to learn about how these deals work? If I want to pay the costs to include my site, why can't I do that? (And if this is an option, then why isn't it a simple part of the dialog around this initiative?) Has anyone said, "Every website is welcome to participate - here's how to do it"? The Internet.org website seems to be largely marketing flash, and scant on real information about how website owners could participate and make their site or app available.

Furthermore, the argument seems shaky. If the mobile network is willing to donate $X worth of data per month per user for use of "basic services", then why not permit a similar amount for any website? With this approach, offering free access to the entire Internet does not need to cost more than the cost they're planning for now -- except the users get more value from unrestricted access. The fact this is not how it works suggests to me that Facebook is paying the mobile network to make it all work out, and is probably bringing in other services besides Facebook in part to legitimize the initiative (the goal being to drive growth in developing countries). Whoever is paying for this believes it's worth their while from the competitive advantage they're getting. Which is fine, but let's not pretend that charity is the primary goal in that case.

Folks might feel like there is less of a "slippy slope problem" if there was more transparency on what it takes for sites to join Internet.org. What are participating sites paying to be part of the program, or are they part of it for free, and if so, who makes the decision to include them, and on what basis? What would it take for me to make my blog available on Internet.org? Are mobile networks or Facebook now in charge of deciding whether there's merit to including a site? They must be, if they're the one deciding which sites to offer, and are covering all the cost themselves. Alternatively, if sites are charged to become members, what are the charges, and how can I choose to participate? Is the program open to any sites, and if not, what are the criteria for inclusion? Are there exclusivity deals?

If the goal of Internet.org is to be taken seriously as a charitable endeavor, all of this information should be publicly available. (And if it is, I would appreciate a pointer to it, since I haven't been able to find anything on Internet.org) And if it's not a charity but a business endeavor, then the principals should understand that folks will be concerned with handing significant "monopoly" power to one entity to define what the Internet is in those areas. The initiative is in danger of seeming like a coalition of companies that have decided that they want to expand into emerging markets, and have banded together to create a monopoly on information by offering it for free there, while excluding competitors from the network and putting them at a disadvantage by forcing them to compete with free.