Where does the article mention anything about discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content in the linked article?
India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
31–40 of 224 posts
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#32As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more, which is being universally applauded as a good thing. But isn't this contrary to the whole inequality issue? Shouldn't richer people be charged more? Richer people are being charged more for state infrastructure via higher taxes - which is also generally applauded as a good thing amongst the young/liberal demographic (in fact it doesn'…
The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen…
This is what the internet should be like.
The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that?
That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it).
Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard not to feel like these campaigns are little more than middle-class people patting themselves on the back.
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
If their motive were genuinely connectivity, as they advertised it, they can still do it. #EqualRating is allowed, so are charitable initiatives such as Free Data to everyone. But what do they really want? The next billion internet users hooked onto their platform. That's what they paid Whatsapp a whooping $19B for. I can't presume to know for sure. We'll both see what will they do of their Freebasics program now.
But won't they be just as hooked as in markets where Facebook has already penetrated? Seems like the smart play is just getting people on-line, and getting them onto Facebook the same way they always have. Why wouldn't that work in India?
I don't believe they ever had any intention of getting the poor online. They have so far never released ANY data regarding how many of the users of Free Basics are first time Internet users despite it being one of the top demands of critics of the Free Basics program. Some independent third party analysis suggest that the overwhelming majority of users of Free Basics are existing Internet users, many of them who have no idea they are on Free Basics.
Reliance (the telco that Facebook has partnered with) doesn't advertise the Free Basics program as "access for the poor" but as "Free Facebook" and doesn't even mention the additional websites available for free on Free Basics.
My guess is that with Free Basics rolled out in 36 countries without any issues, Facebook never expected any opposition.
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#34Probably 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.
> 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.
Which is exactly what we will do.
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#35Where does the article mention anything about discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content in the linked article?
Here's the order this article is referring to: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regu...
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen…
This is what the internet should be like. The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that? That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard…
This order makes no mention whatsoever of Free Basics. It merely bans price-based discrimination.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that Free Basics helps bring people online. Even Facebook was unable to find a single person who was new to the internet courtesy FBS. https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-...
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen…
This is what the internet should be like. The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that? That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard…
> That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it).
Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why should Facebook be allowed to give so much power without them investing even a penny to improve the infrastructure.
Google's Project Loon is worth applauding, Free Basics is just a ploy to get the next billion users branded as a charity.
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#38Probably 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…
It does not look as simple to me. From what I hear it's other VC funded e-commerce companies who were most vocal against FB. Using their foreign investors' money to to heavy discount and simultaneously blocking smaller companies does not seem anything right/decent or progressive.
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#39So - I wonder how Facebook will respond to their market penetration and lock-in effort being declared illegal, as granting access to one set of sites for free and not allowing access to others surely falls under this legislation. I expect that they'll continue business as usual, and will drag out the battle until they have a captive and indoctrinated audience (after all, they control the content, so you can be sure f…
they control the content, so you can be sure folks won't be reading about this Unless they just go to https://www.facebook.com/netneutralityin/
I think there were reports of savetheinternet.in posts being shadowbanned (i.e, a post containing this link is not visible in others' TLs) or something, but I don't recall exactly what was happening or if it was verifiable.
Re: India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen…
This is what the internet should be like. The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that? That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it). Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard…
> That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it).
You are assuming that Free Basics is the only way poor people are getting connected. There are several more initiatives, funded both by the public and private. Banning Free Basics ensures that we don't differentiate internet based on an individual's affordability.