Hacker News Reader

Comment by shas3 | Hacker News Reader

Earnest question: on the presumption that Free Basics (FB) will become popular if launched, trying to shoot it down means that many people (mostly poor) will not get access to the internet. How does one address this? Now, this activism can do two things: 1. Force FB's hand to make it truly open, 2. Delay universal access by regulation that prevents FB from starting up. If the result turns out to be the former, well and good. If the latter ends up happening, many people will be deprived of internet access and the opportunities for social and economic growth that come with it.

A corporation is well ahead of the rest of the community in its ability to deliver quasi-philanthropic internet to the poor. I wish more of these articles mentioned alternatives (any solutions from FOSS, for example or free 2G and older network services?)

View on HN

There are alternative schemes which are already live and running:

- Aircel launched free data to all websites/apps at 64kbps.

- Airtel launched a cashback scheme for data usage in off-peak hours.

- Gigato which gives cashback for using certain apps is in grey area but definitely more neutral because you can use the cash to access the entire Internet.

- Google has launched Free WiFi in multiple places. Their Project Loon is also starting up and remains completely neutral.

- Mozilla has recommended to TRAI an ad-supported free data plan like Grameenphone (which has seen good success in Bangladesh) but granted, it hasn't yet been launched in India

Facebook doesn't need to do this.

They have a huge market share on the real internet, they could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow.

The fact that are attempting this means that they obviously don't believe in the longevity of their product on its own merits, so they are going to try to lock in a few users while they can.

> could simply give more people neutral internet access, and they would still grow.

By giving data without any restriction would result in its consumption via video content (e.g. Youtube) and will not be of any use to facebook.

Facebook also host videos

Not in the free basics version, just text content.

Agreed, free-as-in-beer internet is a pretty compelling deal for poor people, even if it's limited. And Free Basics has real benefits for governments and internet carriers. Wrote more about it here[1].

It's hard to imagine (but maybe possible?) there could be a comparable quality, net-neutral alternative. What would the model be?

[1]: http://www.thebenedict.com/posts/2015/12/26/free-basics-alte...

The said millions of people will get internet access in 2 years ANYWAY. look at India's Internet adoption rate

Reply on news.ycombinator.com