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

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

blog.savetheinternet.in

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 224 posts

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

#41

Post by Manishearth »

atroyn wrote: post #13
chillydawg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zuckerberg said it himself: without the amazing monopolistic properties of the system as proposed, providing free access to everything would not be economically viable. Of course it wouldn't be economically viable, how could it be?

On the revenue side, Facebook doesn't monetize these users (yet), and it's a virtual monopoly in almost every market it's in. On the cost side, one bit costs pretty much the same as any other to serve.

Facebook doesn't actually bear the costs for the data here, btw.

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

#42

Post by Manishearth »

atroyn wrote: post #5

Could Facebook not simply have outmanoeuvred the problem here by providing free access to the wider web, perhaps in a rolling fashion? Does Facebook have any real 'native' competition in India?

Yes, they could have. See: Aircel/Gigato/Grameenphone; which all provide equal+free internet in some form by cutting down on a data cap, speed, or something else.

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

#43

Post by sandGorgon »

cmadan wrote: post #30
dingo_bat wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes How do we know that? And even if they aren't, they will start doing it. This was a great chance to disallow all of that crap but instead TRAI has been tempted to regulate voice apps, a task that they are simply incapable of performing effectively anyway.

The new regulations by TRAI does not mention anything about regulation of voice apps (or about slow/fast lanes). I think you have misinterpreted the comment by SaveTheInternet.in. What they're saying is that while differential pricing has been dealt with in accordance with NN principles, there are two more battles which are going to be fought i.e. i. Defeating the proposal to regulate voice apps ii. Ensuring that no…

I would argue that the voip issue is not a neutrality one but a national security one. The reason for obtaining a license us not financial but law enforcement oversight.

I'm not justifying either way, but I don't think it has anything to do with neutrality in its economic sense

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

#44

Post by Manishearth »

retube wrote: post #27
rtdp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was not about charging differently based on how much people have. It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. So, if I have much money, I can have my service freely for everyone, while this other startup, unless pays to internet providers, will be available over the paid internet.

> It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth

> Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth

Do you have an example of a case where sites rich people use were being priced higher? It's not enough to say "what you use is correlated with wealth" to support "this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more", you need to show where websites being used by rich people were being charged for.

This does stop Facebook from giving Free Facebook (+ other services), agreed. Which is a service used by basically everyone.

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

#45

Post by ikeboy »

mbrutsch wrote: post #23
icebraining wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

You are undermining the popular narrative with your facts and what-not.

I've been here over a year, so I'm allowed [0] to complain that this comment is contributing to HN morphing into reddit.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#46

Post by jiraaya »

It is extremely dubious if someone turns up with a "Knight in shining armor" plan for saving the world. It would be safe to say that outsiders who are not a part of the "plan" do not have all the information to figure out the true motive behind these initiatives. It is also safe to say that direct or indirect monetary profit is almost always behind such initiatives.

First it was monsanto exploiting farmers http://www.globalresearch.ca/independent-india-selling-out-t...

Then came Bill Gates with his vaccines and testing them on tribal children just because the regulatory environment makes it easier to test them in India https://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/

And now comes Mr. Zuckerberg with dubious claims about "one person brought out of poverty for every five people who get access to internet" which seems to be a textbook causation-correlation misinterpretation.

The general public must awaken to the fact that the so called third world is seen as a market with potential for double digit growth and the easiest way to enter them might just be through false pre-texts of heart warming charity.

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

#47

Post by ikeboy »

toyg wrote: post #26
retube wrote: post #24

As 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…

If that's the case, then let providers discriminate all they want, and have the government set up their own competition that does what they want.

I'm perfectly within my rights to buy up a bunch of land, and build a road on it, and only let rich people drive on it. There are plenty of examples, e.g. exclusive clubs and the like. I'm allowed to sell water at whatever price I want: but if I charge too much, cities will use someone else.

The government doesn't have a monopoly on roads, they just built the biggest one (perhaps with eminent domain), and therefore won the competition.

When there is an enforced government monopoly (e.g. post office), they tend to do poorly.

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

#48

Post by spatulan »

jiraaya wrote: post #46

It is extremely dubious if someone turns up with a "Knight in shining armor" plan for saving the world. It would be safe to say that outsiders who are not a part of the "plan" do not have all the information to figure out the true motive behind these initiatives. It is also safe to say that direct or indirect monetary profit is almost always behind such initiatives. First it was monsanto exploiting farmers http://www…

I suspect a website called vactruth may not be the most impartial website around.

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

#49

Post by saalweachter »

cmadan wrote: post #33
atroyn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The "many of whom have no idea they are on free basics" part is a little weird to me. Are these "users" like my father, who technically has internet access but doesn't use it?

Aside from that, I don't think Facebook needs to find "new" internet users to be providing access to the needy. If the users' previous access was the internet equivalent of a polluted river 15 miles away, building a clean well right in the village is still a benefit, even if they're only allowing livestock with an odd number of toes to be watered, which everyone admits is kind of weird.

Post reply on HN