31–39 of 39 posts
"Facebook launched a print and digital media campaign [...] asking users to give a missed call, automatically sending a message to the regulator in support of Free Basics."
i.e. A lot of those who gave a missed call ended up sending a message to TRAI, likely without their knowledge.
Source : http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/start-up-...
Does anyone know what's in it for Reliance when they offer Free Basics?
I just don't get this. Maybe I haven't read deeply enough, but... - what is preventing the companies signed on to the Free Basics platform from being accessible in India? is it technical? political? - what does Free Basics actually provide if not financial support to end users or carriers for now letting people access these sites? On its face, it looks as is Free Basics is some sort of strong arm technique to get car…
Sites which wants to be part of free basics will have to get facebooks approval, there by making facebook the gatekeeper.
Those sites which get approved can be accessed through free basics, and will have all the traffic go through facebook(lovely, isn't it?). Also the traffic is insecure.
It's remarkable that a company that stands strongly in favour of net neutrality in the US is so strongly against it in India. Speak of double standards. So strong against it, they've spent $44 million in ads to tell the public to oppose net neutrality and instead support something they're calling "digital equality", aka free Facebook (and friends) without data charges. Source for $44 million figure: https://twitter.c…
I fail to understand how its digital equality. I don't wanna give them control over Internet too. Hope trai shows them the door
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>stands strongly in favour of net neutrality in the US Could you provide some sources?
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/08/google-fac... http://mashable.com/2014/05/08/fcc-letter-net-neutrality/#as...
1. “The open architecture of the Internet creates an innovation-without-permission ecosystem. Consumers (and consumers alone) decide the winners and losers on the open Internet.”
2. The brief also describes the dangers of a “walled garden” with a “pre-selected lineup.”
3. “Such an outcome would undo much of the progress of the last two decades. Consumers would lose the ability to choose freely among competitive services and sources of information. It would also significantly decrease the rewards edge providers could realize from innovating, further decreasing consumer choice.”
4. It would also significantly decrease the rewards edge providers could realize from innovating, further decreasing consumer choice.”
Free Basics contradict all these .
As for monopoly fears, well, remember MySpace and AOL? Internet monopolies have so far not been very durable. Technology changes rapidly and organizations frequently can't keep up (remember Bill Gates's infamous Internet letter?). I'd add that Facebook currently has ~1.5B users globally. Can they keep up structurally by adding another 1B? That's an open question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/08/google-fac... http://mashable.com/2014/05/08/fcc-letter-net-neutrality/#as...
None of that is against zero-rating. They specifically mention paid prioritization, which means the data is prioritized, while zero-rating is a billing practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of that is against zero-rating. They specifically mention paid prioritization, which means the data is prioritized, while zero-rating is a billing practice.
The fundamental principle makes this clear: Is the ISP providing competitive advantage to some apps/services/websites, either through pricing or QoS? Zero-rating does violate this.
The letter mentions "to discriminate both technically and financially against Internet companies and to impose new tolls on them."
No technical limitations are placed on internet companies with free basics, they just cost more to the consumer. And as the company isn't charged more to be on free basics, there isn't financial discrimination against the company.
Strictly speaking, that doesn't prohibit zero rating.
I'd be more interested to see a response to the studies that Facebook quoted. Are they taken out of context? If not, they do seem to agree that free basics would help.