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

About Internet.org and net neutrality

facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#61

Post by jace »

zefei wrote: post #31

It seems most people here are against this because of Facebook's (or other service providers') gain from it, but no one is arguing against Mark's actual point: "some access is better than none at all", which I think is more important. Internet.org may not succeed at the end, because of the conflict of interests in many parties (corporate and political) involved in its running. But the idea of providing limited access…

> "some access is better than none at all"

Yup, like an hour a day instead of all day. Or 100 MB instead of 100 GB.

Not: Facebook instead of Google.

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#62

Post by nileshtrivedi »

icebraining wrote: post #57
kamikazi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not a superior vs inferior product. This was just an example to show that telcos are making money at the entry level too & they should (screenshot - http://i.imgur.com/gpsgRLh.png ). This data plan has nothing to do with FB or internet.org. Just a 2G data plan that I can use to surf any site. Fb/internet.org on the other hand is free to users & paid for (or howsoever they do it), decided by a secret cabal behind…

I'm saying that FB/Internet.org is an inferior product (since it's limited to a few services) in the same market as the Vodafone plan, which only costs a few cents more. If so, then what's the problem? FB/Internet.org will likely just fail to attract any significant number of users.

Defaults matter. In Europe, 10% people opted in for organ donation. But when the mechanism was switched to an opt-out, only 10% actually opted out.

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#63

Post by nileshtrivedi »

icebraining wrote: post #54
cmadan wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "some access is better than none at all" Not really. Mark said that governments and telcos decide which services go on internet.org Do you really want the government (or even your telco) deciding which news source that the poor (who are easily influenced) read? Leaving aside the preservation of competition, government deciding what news services to provide to the poor has huge political ramifications, especially wh…

the poor (who are easily influenced) Thanks for making plain what others are implicitly saying. The arguments against zero-rating in general always seem to be based on the argument that the poor are stupid and as their superior, we know better. Paternalism at its finest. In the case of Internet.org, I agree that the name is misleading bordering on fraud, and shouldn't be allowed. But besides that, how about letting p…

No, it's the opposite. They are saying let the poor decide what services are essential for them, and not facebook/telcos/government.

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#64

Post by kamikazi »

Steko wrote: post #56
kamikazi wrote: post #25

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…

> 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. To be honest you are not offering an alternative to Zuck's expanding coverage, you a…

Toll-free analogy doesn't work - https://medium.com/@amod/the-broken-analogy-toll-free-vs-zer...

This post is from CTO of Flipkart (India's #1 ecomm site) who supported NetNeutrality & was opposed to his own org's initial plans of getting into Airtel's zero-rated plans (akin to internet.org).

Two days back Flipkart withdrew themselves from those plans convinced that zerorating violates Net Neutrality.

Here's a (India's #2 probably) travel site withdrawing from internet.org with solid lucid reasoning that answers more of your Qns - http://blog.cleartrip.com/2015/04/15/cleartrip-is-standing-u...

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#65

Post by icebraining »

kamikazi wrote: post #58
icebraining wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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¢. I ag…

"You must be on the Reliance network to use Internet.org. If you'd like to access these websites for free, use a SIM card from Reliance" -- What I see when I visit internet.org from my wired & wireless, non-Reliance telco. Think of this as FB passing off 'free AOL CDs in the mail' as The Internet in India for millions of first timers who are getting sub-$100 smartphones, using poor villagers--& benevolent Wikipedia t…

Think of this as FB passing off 'free AOL CDs in the mail'

Yeah, and what a stronghold AOL has now over the US market, eh?

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#66

Post by icebraining »

nileshtrivedi wrote: post #63
icebraining wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the poor (who are easily influenced) Thanks for making plain what others are implicitly saying. The arguments against zero-rating in general always seem to be based on the argument that the poor are stupid and as their superior, we know better. Paternalism at its finest. In the case of Internet.org, I agree that the name is misleading bordering on fraud, and shouldn't be allowed. But besides that, how about letting p…

No, it's the opposite. They are saying let the poor decide what services are essential for them, and not facebook/telcos/government.

The poor already decide by choosing between Internet.org and other plans, like the Vodafone one someone posted in another comment.

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#67

Post by kamikazi »

icebraining wrote: post #65
kamikazi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You must be on the Reliance network to use Internet.org. If you'd like to access these websites for free, use a SIM card from Reliance" -- What I see when I visit internet.org from my wired & wireless, non-Reliance telco. Think of this as FB passing off 'free AOL CDs in the mail' as The Internet in India for millions of first timers who are getting sub-$100 smartphones, using poor villagers--& benevolent Wikipedia t…

Think of this as FB passing off 'free AOL CDs in the mail' Yeah, and what a stronghold AOL has now over the US market, eh?

Yeah, so let's repeat that - this time in a vastly different market, way crazier demographic variety, far different socio-economic & growth conditions and tech/internet revolution which has exponentially changed for good since then.

What can go wrong? At the most we are risking only a generation of Indians thinking FB as internet (just like Indonesians) who will then graduate to think Chrome icon as the browser (just like people thought of IE shortcuts on their Win95 desktops).

Let's allow the same mistakes but this time execute it better. I can get behind that.

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#68

Post by icebraining »

nileshtrivedi wrote: post #62
icebraining wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that FB/Internet.org is an inferior product (since it's limited to a few services) in the same market as the Vodafone plan, which only costs a few cents more. If so, then what's the problem? FB/Internet.org will likely just fail to attract any significant number of users.

Defaults matter. In Europe, 10% people opted in for organ donation. But when the mechanism was switched to an opt-out, only 10% actually opted out.

True - though that's mostly applicable because people don't really care if their organs are donated.

But any case, I don't see the default here; people have to choose the telco(s) that implement Internet.org, and sign up for it, no?

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#69

Post by nileshtrivedi »

icebraining wrote: post #68
nileshtrivedi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defaults matter. In Europe, 10% people opted in for organ donation. But when the mechanism was switched to an opt-out, only 10% actually opted out.

True - though that's mostly applicable because people don't really care if their organs are donated. But any case, I don't see the default here; people have to choose the telco(s) that implement Internet.org, and sign up for it, no?

Is that like saying Microsoft shouldn't have been penalized for bundling IE because the user chose the machine which came bundled with Windows which came bundled with IE? (Just so you know, telecom cartels are a reality - at least in India)

Re: About Internet.org and net neutrality

#70

Post by icebraining »

nileshtrivedi wrote: post #69
icebraining wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True - though that's mostly applicable because people don't really care if their organs are donated. But any case, I don't see the default here; people have to choose the telco(s) that implement Internet.org, and sign up for it, no?

Is that like saying Microsoft shouldn't have been penalized for bundling IE because the user chose the machine which came bundled with Windows which came bundled with IE? (Just so you know, telecom cartels are a reality - at least in India)

I don't see how is it comparable. What is Internet.org bundled with?
Post reply on HN