Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India | Hacker News Reader

Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

economist.com

394 pointsrachellaw237 comments

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken.

I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector, he needs to be pouring money into local infrastructure, subsidizing open source routing software, lobbying worldwide against entrenched bureaucracy and corporate obstructionism. They're doing some of that, sure, but Free Basics is heavy handed and no one trusts Facebook to begin with - it's not strange to think of it as a sort of modern digital imperialist.

Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience. Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as undesirable for the general public either way.

It almost paints a picture of the old AOL and MSN services where you entered some corporation's version of the internet.

I've found that using AOL to make this analogy is helpful in explaining the issues with free basics (and net neutrality in general) to non-technical folks. For example, many people have experience with parents who think the only way to receive their email is by logging in through AOL's desktop application, installed on their Windows computer.

I don't understand what the fuss is over this. Using your analogy, if AOL were legitimately free to non-technical folks, it would be worth it for many of them to have their curated/locked in ecosystem. I can't help but feel the hate for freebasics is an example of the privileged declaring what's best for the unprivileged.

If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing?

In fact the word play now is just ridiculous. When questioned about the above, they point out that this is an open platform now where any service can come in. When questioned on why not simply give free capped bandwidth then, the answer is that "basic internet services" like education, health are more important for poor. And if left to themselves, they will spend all bandwidth on things like porn. (The last statement is not from Facebook but from certain supporters of FreeBasics)

I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Ultimately the target user can choose from whatever options are available to them (apparently freebasics or nothing right now). For a free service there certainly is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It makes sense to ensure that the maximum amount of users get the maximum utility from it, which means preventing the bandwidth sink that porn will be.

Textual porn, at least, is not a significant bandwidth sink...

> If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing?

No, not really. It's giving them an option, and they can decide for themselves.

The way that story played out is that people hooked on AOL validated the concept and paved the way for broadband and Web as we know it, so not sure how it's illustrative of the issues with Internet.org.

That's a fair point. Another way that it played out is that people like my parents were under the impression they still had to pay $9.99/month for AOL email as recently as like 2 years ago.

Microsoft was in a class by themselves in terms of how their ruthlessness played out. Harsh negotiation demands plus technical bullshit like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

I haven't heard stories like this about Facebook, but perhaps they're better at covering their tracks.

Walmart was in the same class

I'm sure you're right, but I'm curious -- in what ways?

All successful companies are part of the class, visible or not.

They did their best to kill Linux:

- Negotiation and "arrangements" with OEMs that they will only pre-install Windows on all devices.

- Allowing "selective piracy" to happen so the masses are addicted only to Windows, while they still earn from corporate clients.

- Making Word/Excel formats not compatible with ODF (Open Document Format), thus making it difficult for OpenOffice/LibreOffice to function.

If I think about it, it seems like a wonder that I even have Linux running on my laptop today!

What Facebook is trying to do is completely different... you were always able to use non-microsoft products/programs on Windows or browse non-microsoft websites... what Facebook is trying to do is much worst (probably evil).

You could also view it as not too different. Windows wanted to be the platform under everything. Now Facebook wants to be the platform under everything, and content/apps will have to go through Facebook (look at the direct publishing stuff they're already doing).

But the big difference is: you could reverse engineer Microsoft Windows to do what you want beyond the APIs provided but you can't reverse engineer Facebook because you don't have the code running on your machine.

You don't have to go through Microsoft to publish Windows apps... not sure if it changed with Windows 10 though... but of course they are trying to change that to be like Android and iOS and get complete control.

Windows 10 for PCs offers the store but does not require you to publish through it.

For now, anyway.

Actually, there's no reason to believe that his effort is sincere. His main company has a pretty bad track record of being sincere or upfront about anything it has ever done. Many on HN are sympathetic to him because he seems to be like us but he isn't. Like you said: he is more like 90s Bill Gates than he is like any of us.

Why do you think many of us are not like 90s Bill Gates?

Zuckerberg is the new Zuckerberg! What's up with all these comparisons? You are trying to make one man into another man, they are different men, with different things going through their heads, stop it.

Let's just grab our wikipedia archive and get off the net; it has been going downhill for a while now.

Time to detach.

>Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

>I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately.

why?

I can't speak for op but I agree with them and can explain why I feel that way.

I believe most humans are inherently not evil even if they don't agree with me. They want to make the world a better place, and they are simply pursuing an agenda that accomplishes that in their eyes.

I don't have any evidence that most people aren't evil, but in my day to day interactions I have yet to meet someone who I believe is sincerely evil. I'm sure they're out there, I just have faith that there's a lot more of the rest of us.

Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world? (For the record I'm opposed to Free Basics)

How much does it really matter, though? I'm sure Kim Jong-Un thinks he's making his country a better place, as thought Hitler.

Perhaps we should focus more on judging the outcomes of people's actions instead of their intent.

I completely agree, results matter. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, as the old saying goes.

This reminds me of the saying, "We judge ourselves by our intentions and others by their behavior."

It is possible that he could see it as a land grab but not see a "land grab" as inherently evil.

"Manifest Destiny"

I believe most humans are inherently not evil even if they don't agree with me.

I believe most people are incapable of recognizing well-intentioned but bad actions when they agree with the intentions. Even when you don't agree with the intentions, it's can still be hard to spot without the benefit of hindsight.

Should you fault someone for being the change they want to see in the world?

"Fault" is quite a slippery word to use in this context. As it means both a failing of character and responsibility for wrongdoing.

Obviously with the second definition it's easy to fault someone when you see their actions as wrongdoing.

With the first it's mixed, and I suspect that's the one you mean. Someone who is "being the change they want to see in the world" is seen as virtuous. But when that virtuous person is also too headstrong to see, acknowledge, and correct the negatives of their plans when they encounter well-articulated resistance? Yes, I would very much fault that person.

You should go deeper. That you believe people aren't evil from experience is not evidence that people do not do evil - it's evidence that nobody does evil knowingly/willingly etc. You can do 'evil' very easily if you don't think it's evil. If you've justified it in some way that makes it good. That's what's so dangerous about it.

I don't know about "evil", but I've met many people that could be described as sociopaths, especially in the VC realm in SV. They will lie, cheat, and steal from you without batting an eye, and smile and shake your hand the next day. It's not far fetched to believe that Zuckerburg, who is tight with that circle, could also exhibit the same behavior. I found the selfish attitudes of those around me rubbing off on me, especially when it felt like morals and ethics were holding me back as a business founder. But I also felt it was making me ill, both psychologically and physically, and decided to pull back from that degradation.

Intent is not magic.

Oh come on, this is a guy who poorly disguises a press release about a restructuring of his finances as a letter to his daughter.

It's much more likely that Zuckerberg realizes his company is overvalued, and that he needs to acquire a massive amount of users to make up for that gap.

Subsidizing a walled-garden version of the Internet where users can only use Facebook in developing countries makes strategic sense for the company.

Facebook doesn't care about "free internet", they care about building their business, and this "free basics" program makes that patently obvious. I don't blame them or necessarily think it's a bad thing , but the propaganda associated with it is ridiculous.

How is not necessarily a bad thing? In what way could it possibly be a good thing for anybody outside of Facebook?

There are some people who are using "free basics" now that wouldn't have any Internet access without it. Now, you could argue and I'd probably agree with you that it's bad in the long term, creates a distorted market etc.

But if a foreign company offers a net subsidy to access a part of the Internet shouldn't that drive down the price of Internet access for everyone? I.e. you could access "free basics" and also have a complimentary Internet subscription that could be offered at a lower price since your Facebook traffic would be subsidized.

The whole "helping the poor" is a red herring.

Facebook could just as easily offer a net neutral internet, but they're not - that's what people are upset about.

In the scenario of free walled-garden internet access vs. no access, how can you justify claiming its not a good thing?

Because it is not a static scenario. Internet users in India grew by ~30% over last one year itself and that growth is not slowing down. And FreeBasics is not limited to people coming on the internet for the first time.

free basics is doing that at a rate of 50% per month. (according to them)

i doubt people would want to shift to free basics from a full internet and if they do then that's what they like, its their choice. We should continue using normal broadband. Now you can argue that telcos will then overcharge for normal broadband, but who knows, they might not and even if they do then TRAI can send them a notice to not do that, and they will stop like they did with the "fast lane" thingy.

That stat is misleading when you compare percentages against raw figures:

1 million: Free Basics users in India in 2015 (source: FB press release)

5.8 million: Data users acquired by Reliance, FB's sole partner in India, in 2015 (source: IAMAI)

109 million: Data users acquired by all telcos in India in 2015 (Sep 2014-Sep 2015, source: same IAMAI report)

So if Free Basics converted 50% of their users to the full Internet, that's about 500k users, or less than 0.5% of the industry's success rate.

Asking for dangerous policy exceptions because your flawed scheme has an actual success rate of 0.5% and presenting this as 50% is disingenuous at best.

50% faster conversion to full, paid Internet. Clearly, these users CAN afford the Internet, hence they are NOT the poor.

In fact, 80% of FreeBasics users are EXISTING Internet users, not NEW.

What I miss from the first line of your response is a source.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/a-letter-to-o...

I'm from India and the conditions of many farmers is pathetic here, poverty isn't a word enough to describe their condition. They are illiterate, exploited by higher-ups in the society and struggle to get even basic necessities in life. Conditions are so gloomy that on average, one farmer commits suicide every thirty minutes in this country!

And these are the people whom Zuckerberg is targeting for the FreeBasics free internet program. Maybe, he thinks that socializing on FB or performing a quick google search on farming methods is going to help them, but that is far from reality and just fascinating thinking. All I know is that the millions that Mr. ZUckerberg spent on displaying FreeBasics ads in the Indian newspapers and TV channels would have been much better spent by actually donating that money to the farmers he intends to help.

>donating that money to the farmers he intends to help.

Donating money directly almost never helps in the long run. I think Zuckerberg is doing what he thinks is good, and I don't think free internet to farmers will do any bad. It might help only a few and by a little amount, but that is still better than nothing. Who are we to decide how somebody else organizes their charity?

> Donating money directly almost never helps in the long run.

What? The debate about the benefits of direct cash-transfers vs. more managed forms of aid is alive and well in 2015.

Do you think donating some money to farmers is going to help in any way? The government has been doing that for a long time (through subsidies and minimum purchase prices), at a much larger scale than any single person is capable of. And it hasn't improved anything much. I think it is clear that the only way to improve conditions is to enable farmers to convert their business into a sustainable one. And for that, cheap/free internet access could prove to be the turnaround factor.

Stop calling it "free internet". That's absolutely not what Facebook is offering.

> Do you think donating some money to farmers is going to help in any way? The government has been doing that for a long time (through subsidies and minimum purchase prices)

You're talking about two different things. Subsidies are different than unconditional cash transfers, the latter of which there has been recent promising research on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_cash_transfer

https://www.princeton.edu/~joha/publications/Haushofer_Shapi...

"Do you think donating some money to farmers is going to help in any way?"

Of course it would. They could buy new, better equipment, tools, fertilizers, seeds, animals etc. My country (Lithuania) joined EU in 2004 and started direct payments to farmers via projects, that helped A LOT. Now we have big, modern cooperatives and companies that sell products worldwide instead of small, inefficient farms. What I don't understand, how could Facebook (and friends) help them? I doubt that even an unlimited Internet would be useful without an extensive education, as most older/uneducated people struggle to use even a simple cell phone.

I fail to realize how facebook itself would be a "basic" service for poor people. Haven't seen a single person who has benefited from using facebook/whatsapp to uplift their social status, that being said, what India needs is a change at a fundamental level, NOT free Internet.

Free Basics has other services apart from just facebook. https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/examples

Change at a fundamental level is a good long-term goal, but do you want to make people wait 5-15 years for that, instead of getting help in the next week? Will getting free internet slow down the fundamental change?

At what cost my dear sir? The cost of FB having access to all the browsing data? and what can they possibly gain by accessing the Internet? Is the Internet going to give water in Drought? I think the people in the land of Gold are trying to solve the right problems using some weird scenario in their heads, honestly if Mr. Zuckerberg had donated the money he is wasting to trying to push free basics down the throats of Indians, then it would have had a larger impact on some of the things he is trying to attain.

I am not saying that donating money is always a good option, but it is better than giving free Internet least of all keeping whatsapp or facebook as a "basic" need.

> I don't think free internet to farmers will do any bad..

Does it intend to serve ads? How does ads work? Isn't one aspect of ads involve creating needs where there were previously none? Does it involve injecting insecurities (Ex: You are a loser if you are not fair) into the minds of the gullible and make them buy buy buy...

So, what If the end result of this is that suddenly the teenage kids of these farmers starts to spend more amount of money on cosmetics (because of Ads or to make them look good in "selfies"). Will that do them good?

No offense to you but when I hear "socialize" it raises my hackles. People at my relatively great employer use this term and for no reason. We can communicate with each other but to use a term like "socialize" is to insult both you and me, for I can find no positive association with its usage.

*and it has nothing to do with politics. I am about as Left as it gets.

No offense to you, but "socializing" means a great deal more than simply "communicating with each other," including joking, touching, laughing, sending body language and simply being in the presence of. You'd do well to not trivialize the nuances of human connection.

> farmers...illiterate, exploited by higher-ups... millions ...would have been much better spent by actually donating that money to the farmers

One of the things you might hope for connecting them is they could educate themselves, organise and fight back against being exploited. Maybe their kids can go online if they are illiterate themselves. That kind of thing is more likely to improve conditions than a modest amount of cash.

Actually it doesn't. There has been quite a bit of research and the most effective form of charity to improve conditions is through direct cash transfers.

Basically, the recipient is the best positioned to identify what will help them improve, not some well meaning remote do-gooder.

Ref: 1. http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/cas... 2. http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/alliancehpsr_dfidevidencepa...

Is there any measure of how advertising affects this?

For example, there are many in the US who are poor, but who often do not allocate the money in ways that serve their best interests, but this may largely be the result of advertisers manipulating what people think is in their best interest. But for the world's poorest, they don't have enough to be worth the investment to inundate with advertisements, so they may have better ability to decide what is in their own best interests.

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

Agreed. Given what we know about his history, he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices. And that the fact that everything they say and do within his realm is relentlessly indexed, analyzed (with literally the most advanced AI techniques money can buy), gleefully pimped out to advertisers -- and at the request of authoritarian governments, outright blocked -- is on balance, all in their best interest.

he also seems to think that most people just aren't nearly as smart as he is... and so it's best not to confuse them, with you know, choices.

It's tragic that this is a mistake we see again and again in tech, even with the presence of anti-authority/countercultural tendencies and groups in this field.

Every day I'm asked to reduce the choices I provide to my users. I work in cryptography infrastructure. And frankly, sometimes it's much better to provide a sane default and let the ones who really care figure out their own path.

Steve Jobs was the same.

Doesn't mean they weren't both right though.

Umm... free internet/basics/walled garden is an additional choice... Not sure how free basics reduces choice.

If you don't know what real shrimp tastes and you are force fed surimi during a massive disinformation campaign that tells surimi is all shrimp you need, would you call that a choice?

I dunno but I can tell you that if I was an indentured servant I would under no circumstances accept a free lobster dinner more than thrice a week.

I hear that Facebook employees don't even have such minimal guarantees as indentured servants who could reasonably expect to bw offered something other than lobster at least 4 times a week.

Zuck has brainwashed people to such a degree that they think this 'lobster' is actually good food.

Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab

Does anyone recall what Zuckerberg said about the people who "trust him"?

Apparently we shouldn't mention this here because he said it when he was young and likely to say reprehensible things.

But, has he ever apologized?

I am discontent to watch the world lay power at his feet, and proud of Indians for standing up to him.

More important than an apology would be a statement that it is no longer true (if that is, in fact, the case).

Anyone have a link to such a statement?

Although it may give some positive press - the reality is that he was a young adult when he said it and he simply can't take it back. We don't need to pretend he's some kind of saint. This fake modesty is seriously nonsense. Zuck is a competitor and a winner and does what is necessary. That's it.

Competing and winning has no dependency on harvesting user data and giving it away to his friends for their own personal use.

I'm quite sure I addressed that in 3/4 sentences in my post. He is no saint.

This is what he said.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/14/facebook_trust_dumb/

And young is when you are in your early teens, I think he was a junior in college when this happened and his frontal cortex should have been fully developed by then.

If you look at every individual decision one makes it's rarely ever malicious. The reason to limit government power isn't necessarily because the government currently is bad, but that over a long period it sets a bad trajectory.

Every decision must be evaluated based on its long term trajectory. For example, giving a benevolent government unchecked powers will actually produce short term efficiency gains. But given infinite time, and the fact that it only takes one Hitler to fuck things up completely, it reasons that giving a government unchecked powers will inevitably lead to that scenario.

In Zuckerberg's case, regardless of his motivations, his plan will most likely have short term benefits. It's unfortunate because that's a great selling point. Unfortunately the net neutrality precedent it sets for the long term is bad, and just like Nazi America with a government with unchecked powers, letting Facebook do this is equivalent to giving them a monopoly because such an action will inevitably converge in abuse at some point in the future by integrating over the individual benevolent actions over an infinite amount of time.

I think there's another motive at play, he's using 3rd-world countries as a proving ground for tiered Internet access. Facebook has already come out against net neutrality, and has billions of dollars to play with. Wouldn't it make sense for them to want to test their theories that have been shot down in their own country? Zuckerberg might be ostensibly altruistic about his lofty goal of bringing Internet access to everyone, but that's not the Internet we know and love. It's only the content that Facebook approves, and if you want more knowledge, you're gonna have to pay. That's not the Web I grew up with, and if I were Indian I would be trying my hardest to figure out a better solution that gives just the same amount of people access without them having to give up their freedom.

Even if there were only one package of internet available globally there would still be tiered internet, you can pay for that one package, or you can not pay for it.

The only way we'd have universal untiered internet is if there was some sort of government fee / tax that you just had to pay to get internet and that was your only option.

Everyone has vastly different (tiered) internet experiences, for example the internet on my phone is faster than the internet on my desktop when uploading.

On my phone I pay for additional data use on my desktop I don't.

The difference is that if you choose to go to any URL, you can (not considering device capability and support; flash etc) from any of your devices. And what you pay to go to one website is the same amount that you pay to go to a different website as long as you use the same amount of data. Data rates being different across networks is a different issue.

He is sincere in making FB the internet. Those are never noble intentions. He is all for the money rather than actually giving a service for the greater good. I am sure he realizes that.

If he was sincere, he would have been truthful rather than using every kind of fallacy from https://signposts02.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/logical-fall....

Thank you for expressing this in a coherent way. I think there are a good number of people in positions of power truly trying to do things for the common good but instead individuals on the outside look at it and think these people are doing them for only corporate gain.

Sincere? Really? I have more of a feeling the guy is a psychopath.

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

Or, is he desperately trying to save his company by getting the last remaining drops of users in a rapidly diminishing market for new user base?

If you think about it, Facebook is not a monopoly that it used to be in the early 2000s, even comparing it Microsoft Windows (like someone did in this thread) is an erroneous exercise.

Windows had a kind of monopoly on PC world that perhaps no other software product in the history of computing ever had. But Facebook has tonnes of alternatives. There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others. Granted that none of them is an exact replacement for FB, but then again, everything has its pros and cons, its a monopolistic competition anyways where each product in a competitive market is a monopoloy in itself.

There weren't many when it began, but today we have Google-plus, twitter, Reddit, Hacker-news and lots of others

That's not the real threat to Facebook's empire. Those are all tools used by people in their late 20s and 30s who came of age in a desktop-first world and Facebook is comfortable coexisting with them.

The thing that is a threat to Facebook long term is mobie apps like Snapchat, YikYak and other things we old farts haven't even heard of. They are used by (and represent) a new generation of truly mobile-first users for whom Facebook is something their parents ("old people") use. The biggest risk Facebook has with these users is not that it just unused, but uncool.

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

> However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken.

Why not just give people free bundles of data and let them gravitate towards Facebook how we do in ie: North America?

Strange that you find the CEO utmost sincere but the company utmost suspicious.

If I were you, I'd question the intentions too. The arguments have been laid out against "Free Basics" but Facebook has refused to engage the community. It continues to push its agenda forward by running dubious ad-campaigns and surveys.

This is the second time Facebook has tried something similar, after having lost the first round of battle that led to many Indians uninstalling apps and boycotting websites that supported/participated in its "internet.org" initiative.

Zuckerberg has managed to PR himself as sincere, honest, noble, altruist and what not... but that PR hasn't worked in India. He, personally, holds no sway unlike, may be, in SV.

"Free Basics" let's not kid ourselves is a move by Facebook to take control of the Internet. It already controls 4 of the most popular apps on mobile in the English speaking world (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Messenger); with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact.

You even see Google trying to do that in a more subtle way... googleweblight, subsidized Nexus line of products, "free and open source" Android with tightly controlled ecosystem, Chrome with properiteary plug-ins, Fiber, Fi, and OnHub to quote a few.

> with "Free Basics" they're taking steps to ensure that dominance stays intact.

It is not just that. The worrying thing is that they are violating net neutrality by making sure that "FB and friends" is the only thing accessible on this free internet. If Mr. Zuckerberg is that altruistic, why not provide proper full internet? Even a limited (say 500MB per person/month) internet for free is better than nothing.

But no, they want to violate net neutrality by disallowing everyone else. They don't want to provide HTTPS security, but again snoop around their user's data so monies could be made out of that. Is this altruism, Mr. Zuckerberg?

Facebook is blatantly violating net neutrality.

I'm surprised this isn't in headlines. Imagine the backlash if Comcast charged you to access Netflix but gave you free NBC.com streaming.

I thought that Facebook claimed that anyone can make apps available in Free Basics:

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org

> Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it.

> In order to make your website display properly within the Free Basics Platform and be accessible to people on all types of phones and data plans, your mobile website(s) must meet certain technical conditions created by the Free Basics proxy. [...]

Granted, I don't know how difficult it is to get a service included, but I've seen them mention a number of times that they intend enrollment to be open to anyone. The participation page seems focused primarily on technical issues like how easy the site is to proxy and cache, in order to serve a bandwidth-light version.

Facebook competitors like Google, Twitter, Telegram are all conspicuously absent from such a good opportunity. Could it be because the terms and conditions are actually prohibitive?

The content of your app is also subject to Facebook's Terms of Use:

> Developer participation on the Free Basics Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms. Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Free Basics, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook.

Which essentially makes FB the gatekeeper of the internet.

It's irrelevant - they're selling it as "the internet", but this is actually a regulated walled garden over which they have complete control. You may want to have a read about Net Neutrality and what it means - if your ISP can choose which sites you can and can't visit, can choose which content you can and can't read - that's not "free" or "open". It's "closed" and "closed".

African here (WE are poor too, "Free Basics" will serve us as well)

> Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.

I personally think you're a lobbyist or you just like Mark (I mean who wouldn't, eccentric billionaire who gave MOST of his fortune away to a good cause. How could he possibly want to make MORE money)

> But he is looking from the inside out.

Yeah, EXACTLY, ask US (poor people) what we want! --- WE want our Mellenia to use snapchat (with the effects & everything), Netflix & Chill...oh my bad, I lost my train of thought. What I wanted to say was that, WE want you people (first world) to donate to UNICEF so the starving child with a fly on his eye can eat --- that was my outside-in view.

Edit: to all the poor Indians who fought against "free basics", my upmost respect & gratitude --- I hope someday we can all Netflix & Chill instead of just pocking ;)

IF he is so sincere, then why not give the whole internet free? Why route all the traffic via fb servers ? Why force no encryption?

people who have no access to wifi or 3G internet would be the most likely users of free basics. And infrastructure in form of pathetic internet connectivity in form of 2g or edge or even gprs would be the given. Heartening thing I would look up to is if this would compel telcos to improve infra

I like Eben Moglen's and Mishi Choudhary's take on this situation:

    Faced with the dawning public recognition that this 
    so-called philanthropy is nothing but an attempt to buy 
    the de-anonymised packets of the Indian poor at a bulk 
    rate, breaking their security in the process of 
    destroying their privacy, Facebook has no alternative 
    but to change the subject.

http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly...

"Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it."

Basic internet service. Ok. One app constitutes basic internet according to Zuckerborg.

> Your service can be part of it.

This part is my favorite. I know that my personal website is ineligible because it contains some JavaScript code that handles the navigation, but I submitted it regardlessly just to see how complicated the process is (and to write a blog post about my experience so that others would know what to expect).

That was like 20 days ago. I'm still waiting for someone from Facebook to contact me.

You weren't joking. Should be as dumb as getting your webpage crawled by google: https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url?pli=1

Why all the wording:

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-sub...

Few points here:

1. It's not really internet. It's a set of 100 sites that includes a real estate portal and a personal blog. If you are talking about connecting the unconnected with essential services, why have these on your list? On the other hand, chennairains.org, a website that helped people during extreme floods in chennai was not on that list.

2. There is no proof that "free basics" actually improves internet connectivity. In fact, Facebook's telecom partner (Reliance Comm) advertises it as a way to save money for surfing on facebook and whatsapp.

3. None of the traffic must be encrypted

4. All traffic flows through facebook's servers

5. It's not an open platform. Facebook and Telcos reserve the right to accept or deny websites on "Free Basics"

The above points make it clear that "free internet" is a facade and it's more of a walled garden that makes facebook the gatekeeper. Another Telco launched something similar a few months ago and was scrapped because it violated net neutrality.

Arguments that "free basics" is required for internet to grow in India are ridiculous. India added _52 Million_ internet users in the first six months of 2015 (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news...)

Even though it seems a big number, 52 million is nothing compared to the people who still do not have access. I think the growth rate is not fast enough. We should be doubling the installed base every year. 52 million is just about 1/6 of the total number of users. And I'm inclined to believe that this sluggishness is due in part to the cost of access.

Once you reach a certain scale of users, percentage growth don't matter because it's hard to hit big absolute numbers. In whichever way you look at it, 52Mn is a freakishly huge number. And this timeline is 6 months, not a year.

Further "Free basics" has been launched in other countries. But there is not proof that it results in more internet connectivity. (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ther...)

I do not see any proof that such a correlation does not exist. Your link contains an offhand remark that does not cite any study or data. I think it's common sense that if you offer something for free, more people will use it.

It's not common sense. A good example is the vast number of open source projects that are never used. Or free books that are never read. Also, I would like to remind you that, it's not the internet that facebook is giving access to. It's sites that have paid facebook to be on it.

Cost of access would come into picture when they have a medium to access it. Even with low cost Android been available most might not be be to afford it. I see still a good number of middle class people using mobiles which don't access to Internet.

At that rate, India would have ubiquitous internet penetration in next 10 years. I think it would happen much sooner. It would definitely not happen due to Free basics. It would happen as people would see value in it. India has 1 bn mobile phone connections BTW.

Agree with most but to be fair, although currently the program is limited to few 100 sites, the way the program works is if you own a website, you can register it with Freebasics and they will provide free access. And to this the sites cannot be encrypted. For information like e.g. what helps Farmers, encryption need not be a blocker.

Two points to this argument:

1. what about farmer details. If you want to personalise info for farmers, you will need to register them and capture info. W/o encryption, fb has access to it and is likely to sell it to advertisers.

2. The argument that "Free basics" is essential for farmer is wrong. Reuters has a paid product for farmers (http://www.rmlglobal.com/) and is used by over 1.4 Million farmers in India.

So I can beg Facebook for permission to be on the Internet. Wow, wonderful!

There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article.

I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that position.

Instead, the critics are imposing their preference on the users here, who are poor and (in this article) unheard. Can we please see an article where such people are quoted, and perhaps some numbers about usage, revealing their empirical preferences?

It does seem that people in India are speaking up against this. Now you will quip that these activists must already have internet access, otherwise they would not even know to speak up. But the activists are at least from the same communities as the target market for this program. They are fighting for their families and friends. This seems very genuine and selfless in comparison to the motivations of the company and ego they are fighting against.

The alternative would be to ignore the activists and see if people like a free thing they have minimal understanding of. I think that they will, at least we both suspect they will. But I don't think this will make it right. That they will like the free thing does not make it good for the community. For instance, how many people would like free cigarettes or alcohol after their first few exposures? Many. Would their distribution be good for the community in the long run? No. But who would speak up? It won't be the uninitiated, and it won't be the company distributing the goods.

>They are fighting for their families and friends.

The less charitable explanation is that they're fighting to keep their leg up on the less fortunate population. The gap between those with Internet access and without is absolutely enormous. If everyone has Internet access, this untaps incredible amount of people resources, which would drive down the demand for those who currently have Internet access. These "activists" have a lot to lose if the poor get allowed into the cool kids' treehouse.

I really don't think the activists have any such motive.

Especially because they laud and welcome steps like Aircel's free Internet, Airtel's cashback scheme, Google'e free wi-fi, Project Loon, Gigato, and even facebook's own cheap wi-fi installations.

How is a poor Indian citizen supposed to make a judgment on if having a locked down Internet where they can only use Facebook is better than this Internet they might not have even heard of with millions of websites? They only see one side of this argument if any at all. From their perspective they do not know alternatives even exist.

It's not that they don't see other alternatives. This is true, but the reality is that other realistic alternatives don't even exist.

Their realistic option set is: (a) free access to an incredibly valuable set of resources, or (b) nothing.

I would take (a) over (b) any day. I would hope that broader alternatives would eventually come along (and history tells us it will), but the crowd that wants the Indian poor to have nothing until that day comes is, in my opinion, despicable. Heck, I might not even mind some gated internet in the US if I was free to opt-in/out of it and it reduced my internet costs.

>Heck, I might not even mind some gated internet in the US if I was free to opt-in/out of it and it reduced my internet costs.

The key difference is you would still have choice in the US and people in India would not.

I want people in India to have a choice. They can choose to accept Zuckerburg's free internet or they can wait for something else to come along.

It's Zuckerburg's critics that want to deny Indians their right to choose by taking away their free service and leaving them without internet in the present. As was noted earlier, the most vocal critics in this situation are not the poor people in India that are most directly impacted by this situation.

This issue is not about having a particular choice or not having anything. Accepting this paves the way for facebook to control the internet that a majority of people are seeing for the first time. Also, it is not really a land-grab as the title says, it is grabbing an untapped market with millions of new users. Facebook most likely wants to mine data from a new potential market.

It sounds like Indians are being forced to choose between two sides of a false dichotomy. Aren't cellular data networks realistic?

It's not an either/or. You're drawing a false dichotomy and then choosing the lesser of two evils. There is a third possibility as others have pointed out which is to actually lobby for improving all the basic infrastructure so that the real internet and not some hobbled version of it is available and accessible to everyone.

Lobbying is not a legitimate option as it comes with an open ended timeframe for success.

I'm talking about right at this immediate moment. You're correct they can lobby, but while they take the time to engage in that process, they will either have Zuckerburg's free internet or they will have nothing. The dichotomy is very real in the present.

It's not a false dichotomy. No one is offering to improve the basic infrastructure, nor lobby for it. The actual choices are the ones he outlined above.

Do you ascribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...

Yes, but false dichotomy does not mean you can't make up a valid third option. I don't know about the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics.

"Internet they might not have even heard of with millions of websites?"

If they haven't even heard of it then it doesn't sound like its a viable alternative does it?

"How is a poor American citizen supposed to make a judgment on if having a locked down Internet where they can only use AOL is better than this Internet they might not have even heard of with millions of websites? They only see one side of this argument if any at all. From their perspective they do not know alternatives even exist."

1999 called and wants it's keywords back...

It's fine to go around saying we're offering free facebook to users who want it. That's the big mistake that Zuckerborg made. It should be free facebook.

Do you want free facebook? Many people would say yes.

"Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it. "

The fb site makes it "free access to basic internet" which it is not. It's free access to facebook. Just say that, and maybe you won't get all the push back.

It's not the critics who made this distinction or picked this fight. It's Zuckerborg.

If you really want to offer free basic internet, then do that. I am sure fb could if it wanted to offer a limited amount of bandwidth to any user who wants it for free to do with as they choose. Then they might actually be doing something positive for the poor of India, rather than trying to corral them into fb in the name of free basic internet.

Okay, let’s give the users of Facebook predecessors of Free Basic a voice.

Here am I, a German who used to use Facebook Zero (free access to Facebook via 3G) while I was in middle (and later high) school.

As soon as it became available, I – and some of my friends – stopped using SchuelerVZ, the social network most people used to use at the time – and instead actually tried to convince others to switch to Facebook, too.

"It’s free! You don’t need to pay anything!"

We tried to get as much content as possible inside the network, and never actually left it – because we had literally no money on our prepaid SIMs, and therefore couldn’t access other pages. Everything that wasn’t on Facebook didn’t exist for us.

In only a few months after Facebook Zero launched, the user numbers of SchuelerVZ and StudiVZ rapidly declined.

Today, we don’t have a choice for social networks anymore, Facebook has a monopoly.

    ----------------

Facebook Zero: http://0.facebook.com/

Are you happy with the outcome? Would you make the same decision knowing what you know now?

No, I’m not really happy. With the unability to turn the news feed to a normal setting, with the huge privacy issues with Facebook, etc I wouldn’t have done the same again.

But by now they have a next to monopoly, and a new competitor can’t fairly win on the market anymore, and would have to resort to the very same tricks.

I know plenty of people who think Facebook is the Internet, and wouldn't even notice if their access to everything not-Facebook was blocked, let alone care. Facebook is today's AOL.

Exactly this. It is downright appalling every time I see someone from a place of privilege declare what's best for the unprivileged. All this vitriol against FreeBasics is exactly that. Until I see a mass of extremely poor indians with no internet access reject FreeBasics because they don't want facebook to have their "data", all this hate is just self-serving bluster in my eyes.

You speak as if those not on the internet can not already joining it in hordes. And those opposed to FreeBasics are somehow holding the keys.

When looking at the two camps here, you seriously believe the motives of Facebook and Telecom companies that have clear business interest in having users locked up in their walled gardens but doubt the intentions of a motley group of activists including startup founders, university professors, policy experts among others who do not have any direct incentive to oppose people coming on to internet and also do not control that access in anyway?

>can not already joining it in hordes.

Sorry, I can't figure out what you meant here.

>you seriously believe the motives of Facebook and Telecom companies that have clear business interest

I'm absolutely 100% convinced FB is doing this to be in on the ground floor of the explosion of internet access in India. And I don't see that as a bad thing. AOL happened, and it helped get a lot of people online earlier than they would have otherwise (AOL was my first foray online). The free and open internet will survive. But getting poor people online ASAP is the far more important concern for them than ensuring that their access is completely open when they do.

Furthermore, I'm not questioning the motives of those that are loudly against this. Their motives are crystal clear. It's those very motives that are misplaced. The values of the privileged are entirely different from the unprivileged. The problem is that the privileged tend to have a tragically narrow perspective and assume that their values are universally correct.

I mean, how easy is it to say "free and open access or nothing (for them)!" when you're not personally giving up anything? It's absurd on its face.

>> can not already joining it in hordes. > Sorry, I can't figure out what you meant here.

Yes, typos are hard to process, especially when you have context. I meant "are not already joining."

Are you defining privileged as those people who do not agree with you? Because in economic, social and other terms, I fail to see how those supporting FreeBasics are any less privileged. In fact, they are the top of the privilege pyramid.

And here's the thing. All these bleeding heart pro-poor telcos in fact want differential pricing so that they can charge more for VoIP services. How does that tie-in with this narrative of poor people?

Replace FreeBasics by a targeted scheme with measurable outcomes and provisions for how it will auto dismantle as it achieves its goals, and then let's talk. Otherwise it is all baloney.

So what you are saying is that this article is worthless because it doesn't contain anecdotal opinions of the people who would be served?

Going back in history, there were plenty of woman during the suffrage who stood up and proclaimed they should not be given the vote. Further back, there were plenty of abused wives who proclaimed they should not be allowed to divorce their husbands. Further back, there were plenty of slaves who proclaimed they should not be given freedom.

Now we have a class of highly exploited individuals and an organization that wants to give "internet" access to these individuals but only if their personal data can always be exploited over that highly manicured network. The government cannot shirk its duty to protect these individuals. They will need to monitor "Free Basics" for abuse. The service will not be free from the public perspective and their are better things the government could do for those people.

The critical difference is that those fighting for suffrage were fighting to increase women's choices. Any woman who thought women shouldn't vote was free to not vote. In this case, people are lobbying to prevent people from having the choice.

Do you think that there are no issues with information asymmetry between Facebook and the people who they are trying to co-opt into their programme?

You appear to believe that the motivations of the Internet-literate about the consequences of Facebook's programme are more nefarious than the motivations of Facebook itself, which is contractually bound to operate in the interests of its shareholders.

Not nefarious, but rather misguided. Those speaking out against freebasics are judging it based on their own value system, which is going to be entirely different than the people such a program is targeting. And so the conclusions they draw are not valid for the people they are project them on to.

I don't think any transaction with information asymmetry is inherently exploitative. But more generally, I think the concern about who is doing what with your "data" is the concern of the relatively privileged. No one is going to be concerned about behavioral profiling when they're concerned about where their next meal is coming from. These people are concerned with the latter, while the activists are valuing the former which has little to no value to someone in the latter condition (their condition may not be that bad, but its a poignant example).

I'm personally disappointed by the comments in this article and others, specifically from people here in the Western world, that portray the fight by the internet activists as a fight against internet access to the poor. No one would make arguments like that here. Almost everyone rallied behind Net-Neutrality. Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can get something of value in return? "beggars cannot be choosers"? Come on - no one is begging for internet.

what exactly are the poor giving up?

>>Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can get something of value in return?

In this case, choosing how to access the Internet.

I don't see how anyone is giving up the choice of how to access the Internet. Opposing Free Basics is opposing that choice. Free Basics is offering a new choice, and more choices is always a rationally better thing.

What is your position on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics? http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethi...

Nobody is giving up a choice at the moment, but if Free Basic becomes a thing, there won't be a choice in the future. That is the problem people have with it. Almost everyday I hear people complaining about how Comcast/ATT have monopoly in the US and how they are exploiting the helplessness of people. How is FreeBasic any different? For a lot of people, the only internet they will know will be the version that FB thinks is right for them. This is less a question about choice, more about net neutrality.

About the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics, I am not knowledgeable enough to form an opinion yet. I'll get back to you on that.

It's ok for the poor to 'give up their' liberty by using crappy free internet in the same way it's ok for me to 'give up my liberty' by watching crappy free TV. It's not perfect but it's not the end of the world either.

http://www.theopeninter.net/

Though the Indian situation isn't really like that, being charged for access to certain services. It's more crappy internet for $0/month or open access for like $5/month. I'm not convinced banning the $0 option helps the people you take that choice from.

Data infrastructure should be controlled by the government only.

Why? Well, imagine that every transport company had to support their own road network... Alternatively, imagine that one company controlled the roads, creating effectively a controlled market nested inside a free market.

For the "last mile" this should certainly be true. We drive on public infrastructure to get to the airport. To continue this analogy: Any party could then maintain private infrastructure in India (or anywhere) for free public consumption. Like a local retailer. They could pay for "international shipping" to keep these services supplied with fresh data. This would allow Facebook to accomplish its ostensible goals. Without becoming the governor of a walled garden.

Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side by side in less space than a single water pipe.

And for the same reason, the companies vs government dichotomy is invalid here as well. Even if we want to provide a public service to avoid private monopolization, there's absolutely no reason to forbid private companies from competing with it.

After all, if the problem is that private companies are greedy, a public ISP funded only by their customers' fees and without profit-seeking shareholders should solve the problem within a system of fair competition.

It is still hugely expensive to have redundant infrastructure, and that has real economic consequence to a country who decides to have private companies lay their own independent wires than at least compelling price controlled renting of those lines.

But there is the other side of the equation that matters too. If you have complete government control there is no more market pressure on innovation at all. Nobody would have a reason to develop faster consumer fiber systems since there is no money to be made.

The market has already converged on essentially this reality. We have cable and fiber monopolies controlling the local networks. These used to be more open when DSL was the prevalent technology. This allowed a variety of ISPs to utilize that shared infrastructure. The telcos didn't care about the Internet before. Once there was apparently money to be made they changed their game. They developed faster connections on closed infrastructure and displaced the smaller players. The only way to compete is with new infrastructure. The incumbent monopoly has a massive advantage overcoming this barrier to entry. They have, and need only maintain, dominance. It takes a massive initiative (like Google Fiber) to provide a threat and revive genuine competition. The "free market" isn't optimal here. Google is taking one for the team. We can't always count on this sort of thing. Without public ownership and regulation of monopolies there's no "free" market. There is of course but the entirety of the market is the only object for sale. Once privatized it becomes anything but free. Government ownership mitigates this problem by allowing the public to assert further market freedom via regulation. Like net neutrality. As we are beginning to see, without owning the infrastructure, we can't make this regulation stick.

When a monopoly is the optimal solution, it ought to be the government. If it isn't then it will be a private company. The former can be shaped by public vote in order to enforce an optimal solution. That is: solve the problems that require a monopoly and give the rest back to the free market. The latter has impunity and seeks to monetize it. That is: to control access to the market.

The logic would be funny if it wasn't sad. The government creates a monopoly (AT&T). That company uses that power and money accumulated through decades to extend its reach into the cable system (current "Comcast" is actually the merger of a medium provider with AT&T Broadband, which held dozens of millions of cable subscribers). Then that is used to show that a government monopoly is needed.

Maybe you could actually decide to try a free market before declaring it a failure?

I thought it was utterly obvious that a monopoly should provide and service the local infrastructure. Would you also like free market roads? How about the electrical grid? Water? Sewage? Local infrastructure isn't a fungible commodity. If it were then traffic jams and blackouts wouldn't be a thing. Also, local demand isn't scalable. You only need one road outside your house. Several competing roads would be horribly underutilized on the low end of scale. On the high end you're maybe onto something. Private bridges and freeways may be a decent idea. Private airlines certainly are. But then you're right back to what I'm advocating.

My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe. Governments provide the "last mile" connectivity. ISPs compete to provide access to the outside world. This competition isn't possible if the local infrastructure is owned by an ISP. They are incentivized to shut down the free market and reap their monopolistic rewards. They lock down their infrastructure. This creates a huge barrier to entry. They can then: Overcharge. Inspire competition. Crush them with their accumulated capital. Overcharge... Anyone attempting to compete is necessarily constructing redundant infrastructure. The "zero government involvement" thing actually hinders the free market here. Our road system enables tremendous free market enterprise. If retailers had to pay a road cartel for the right to do business it would be a disaster. Walmart would take over the roads and overpower anything it cared to which depended on them. Basically what Facebook is trying to do in India.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, I don't agree that fiber cables are anything like roads (or sewage, for that matter). "Infrastructure" means many things, and it's certainly not obvious that the same solution is the best for all.

My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe.

I live in a Western European country. This is not how it works here. ISPs own their own cables. Yet I have four of them offering me service, four of them over fiber, but also cable, DSL and 4G. Yes, it's expensive. Many private investments are, yet they still get made. Yes, it's redundant. Reliability depends on it.

From what I've read, our situation is hardly atypical, as private installation seems to be the case in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Moldova, Slovakia and others.

The US case, on the other hand, it's hardly representative of a free market, and your problems can not be attribute to it.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, I don't agree that fiber cables are anything like roads

The earlier post:

Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side by side in less space than a single water pipe.

Ah. That's a great point actually. Maybe the solution is just to have the public provide and support this "fiber pipe". Not the fiber; Just the pipe. This would lower the barriers to competition for last mile connectivity. I still think this ought to be insulated from the upstream connectivity providers. To continue the analogy: The cables are self-driving uber-like taxies and the pipe is the rode. I want regulation to ensure every taxi is totally interoperable with every private freeway/bridge/airline in a given area. I also want the option to just use the taxi for local services. I don't want a taxi cartel to tell me where to shop.

I live in a Western European country. This is not how it works here.

Okay. I'm pretty ignorant about these issues. I'm operating from a cached worldview. I did some searching and I'll concede this point. I'm a sucker for "Europe has this figured out already" narratives. I still like the idea. In general I'm opposed to government protected monopolies. If monopoly is the emergent reality then it should be reduced to the narrowest causal factor and kept under government control. Everything that remains should be returned to the free market.

Ah. That's a great point actually. Maybe the solution is just to have the public provide and support this "fiber pipe". Not the fiber; Just the pipe.

You're in luck :) that's exactly what the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act is all about.

Yeah, but you have to dig up roads to put new fiber down.

Nope, you just install plastic tubing which you can then use to run the fiber. The US federal government has already passed the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act to that end.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/05/new-bill-wants-fi...

You should have both public and private options.

If you have exclusive state ownership of wired infrastructure like that, consumers have no state-agonistic means to correct if the state themselves starts breaking net neutrality or just simply do not maintain the network to a standard the consumers of it want.

If you were operating in a society where democracy worked flawlessly, it might work, but thats theoretical. We need to acknowledge the realities of the states we are talking about controlling our network infrastructure here, especially in the US. Since you make the comparison to road networks... mine is incredibly bad. And not just in condition or wear, but in scaling to meet needs. I live in central PA where a lot of businesses have migrated shipping and processing facilities, but there is extremely little budget to expand highways to compensate for heavily increased truck traffic. Now its just hell, and if I ever needed to work a commuter job I would instantly move because the traffic is so bad.

I'm not saying private roads could fix that - if residents didn't want to sell land to build roads, the private company would be screwed without recourse - but there should be huge market pressure around my area for highway expansion that is not being met because of dysfunctional bureaucracy in the state government due to many causes. Can you imagine those people having to build and manage a fiber network, and expand it as technology improves, for the next fifty years?

>Data infrastructure should be controlled by the government only.

That's what the Chinese government thinks too.

Ideally, the government should stay as far away from the Internet as possible. The conflict of interest is too damn high.

Some people on HN must be to young to remember government owned telecom monopolies and trying to get services from them.

For the people arguing that rich people are preventing the poor from getting internet access, please read about the Nestlé baby formula scandal. This is exactly the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue

It is somewhat similar because the long-term effects were malicious/not known in the short term. But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch internet carriers at any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics).

'Facebook addiction' isn't as objectively proven as the side effects mentioned in the article. 'Tracking usage data and privacy snooping' isn't as harmful as the side effects mentioned, because poor people probably value their 'usage data' less and access to basic resources like Wikipedia/job posting sites/health and weather reports more. (and its just fear and speculation that facebook will maliciously track all data passing through its servers, but we are treating it like inevitable fact)

>But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch internet carriers at any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics)

Given how there is no alternative, it is pretty much facebook or nothing.

The content creators need to be separate from the content distributers. This way there is lower incentive for either to perform manipulative actions. With Facebook providing the content and the service at a low price (free in this case) they are setting up a model where the poor are funneled into there definition of applicable content. Sure some people upgrade, it is there argument, but at what cost. If Facebook really is trying to improve the world, they they should invest in a sustainable infrastructure for the poor with full access to the internet. Is it going to piss of people who pay for it, yes, but does it empower the poor to have tools they didn't have before and give everyone an opportunity to improve these regions, yes it does. The cynic in me though thinks its just gonna create a generation of poor people addicted to Facebook and online video. I just spent 4 months living in Shenzhen China and man are the shopkeepers addicted to playing video games and watching soap operas on there computers.Thats all they do.... all day. The internet is really only a tool for businesses and motivated individuals, for the rest its just another way to be manipulated.

wow, reading your comment, one would believe we were in the decade prior the iPhone years, where the carriers were trying to take control of all content, giving priority and exclusive access to their own content and services. Another decade later, the same temptation has survived. If history repeats itself: it will fail. Let's wish ourselves good luck!

Its important to note that WhatsApp is not part of Internet.org. The telecom providers in India are not happy with messaging apps as they are cutting into their text messaging revenues. And they want to charge people for WhatsApp access (its already happening). With Facebook's help they get to create a tiered internet under the guise of "helping the poor".

It seems kind of unlikely that facebook would cooperate on an intentional goal to reduce access to WhatsApp, when Facebook owns WhatsApp. But maybe. Or maybe that was the telecom's motivation, if not facebook's.

Free internet is basically a deal that FB did with some carriers to provide some of their resources in exchange for some kick ass promises and possibly funds.

The easy way to do this for ANY government would be to force all wireless carriers to provide 200 MB free internet to all citizens in exchange for license to broadcast.

This happened once in Poland for example when government provided frequencies in exchange of forcing the company to provide unlimited, but slow internet to all citizens through mobiles.

completely agree and this will make a good start for lot of people.

What humors me most is that no one is up in arms against Reliance. On top of it, no one is suggesting Reliance whose owner is a billionaire long before Zukerberg was, to give free interwebs to his fellow Indians.

India has 80% adults with no access to Interwebs, how are you going to solve this problem in next 5 years?

*Do not tell me INR 20 dataplan, I know its there and I would not wish it on my worst enemy.

You could solve this problem if the govt provides more spectrum to the telco companies and in turn ask them to subsidize it to the poor. In this day and age, its not tough to do it. Just because it's tough, you would not want to accept some unfair offering.

So why is it not being done? From my previous life spent in India, government subsidies are guaranteed income for politically connected.

The fb's attempt to control the internet in third world country brings this quote to mind...

  When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that 
  name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, 
  Planet Starbucks.

In this day and age, Internet should be a utility, with government subsidizing it if required while preventing _walled gardens_.

More likely a Microsoft Surface in a Samsung Galaxy :-)

It's unbecoming of a large corporation that "wants to work for connecting people" to make statements like these against net neutrality advocates :

"Facebook has been urging users to sign a petition that claims that “a small, vocal group of critics… demand that people pay equally to access all Internet services, even if that means one billion people can’t afford to access any services,” and that “unless you take action now, India could lose access to free basic Internet services, delaying progress towards digital equality for all Indians."

Facebook has resorted to slander when they can't give transparent answers to the issues raised against Free Basics.

Quote Source : https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-...

AOL should get in on this. They could put all of those old CDs to good use.

Free internet program from the late 90's: "1000 hours free! Sign on today!" :)

It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Of course it's a land grab. The same way Google Fiber is trying grab North American broadband.

It's not in the same way at all.

Google Fiber is real internet; 'free internet basics' are an attempt to turn the internet into a walled garden.

> Google Fiber is real internet

Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you to host game servers, for Minecraft, for example.

Their Fiber team heavily opposes Net Neutrality, too. Sadly.

"Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you to host game servers, for Minecraft, for example. "

Basically no residential ISP in the US i'm aware of allows server hosting. Certainly no major ones :)

If this is true then they must be doing a pretty good job of turning a blind eye.

Just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it’s good.

Now, that IPv6 is becoming more popular, and we might be able to provide globally unique IPs for every end device, and that 24/7 connected internet is standard, it should be a thing of 2 or 3 clicks to host a webserver.

It should be a no-op to set up a raspberry pi to serve websites – and it would definitely provide a lot of kids and students the ability to experiment a lot easier.

Remember, Facebook in its early days was hosted from a dorm room at college. Google from a garage.

As stated, the Google Fiber restrictions seem more like a QoS and bandwidth concern rather than a content concern.

Their ban on the hosting of servers – despite a common concept in the US, as it seems from sibling comments – is a content concern. They directly say if you wish to do say, you should pay extra for this extra feature.

It’s exactly the "Pay 5$ extra for Netflix on Verizon" concept we all complain about, but which everyone somehow accepts here.

> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators it works with.

How does that even work? Why would the telecoms agree to pay the bill on behalf of Facebook? Surely there must be some money from Facebook back to the telecom, to make it worthwhile for them.

Edit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero

http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-...

I guess because it leads to "full" internet subscription which generates revenue (assumedly profits) for them.

This makes a big difference to me. I was actually for Facebook basics, when I thought Facebook picked up the bill so that poor people could access at least some internet. But if the operators are paying for this ... then what value is Facebook actually providing?

They say they provide the platform and guidelines and works with telcos across the world. But it's not a convincing answer to a normal user. Thing is, if FB can do it, certainly Google and other major companies can do it.

If free basics get through then telecome operators could potentially come with up Netflix package, Youtube package like TV packages.

Too all the oh-India-is-so-poor-needs-charity-for-everything people out there, digest this: India has 1bn live mobile phone connections (live month on month and not just issued). It has been done by cut throat competition between private phone players, such as airtel, vodafone, reliance, tata among others, and supportive government measures such a giving spectrum for cheap. No verizon needed to come here with their charity plate, giving away restricted free phone connections.

Free Basics, if legalized, sets a precedent for ISPs to offer zero-rated plans which affects everyone. You don't want a huge market with more than half a billion users (by 2020) where zero-rated plans are commonplace. Everyone loses out in such a situation except the ISPs. Netflix was just launched in India, and Reliance (the carrier that supports Free Basics) has a similar offering called Bigflix, which they can zero-rate to eliminate Netflix. Airtel, another huge operator can zero-rate their messaging application Hike to eliminate WhatsApp/Snapchat. Their music offering can eliminate Spotify (if they do come to India) or any other music streaming startup. Flipkart, an e-commerce player can eliminate every other niche e-commerce startups in India by zero-rating their services, which they tried last year.

Sadly, all the campaigns are focused on Facebook/Zuckerberg and people calling for a ban on Free Basics when they should actually be campaigning against zero-rating.

Free Basics might be a great gateway drug to the internet, but what good is it if the internet as we know today will not exist when the poor decide to get a "complete" internet connection?

I don't understand why this is restricted to Facebook. If the telco is providing no-cost data to poor consumers, why does it matter which websites they go to? That's the suspicious thing about this, not the simple fact that Facebook is involved.

The Internet only blossomed after it was freed from proprietary access by AOL.

Zuckerberg plans to move the internet back to the dark ages.

First of all, this is not "free internet" they are trying to provide. Second point - if they were trying to genuinely provide a free internet service, nothing is stoping them from doing it without all the legalise TOS that surrounds it at the moment. Third point - Free 200MB or 500MB data per month for each person is the best way to do it(no video streaming/big files download), if "helping" was the actual intention. If the only services that is accessible through it will be the ones approved by facebook, stop calling it "free internet".

Also the cost of providing the service is on the ISP/carrier that FB ties up with.

The key factor that is glossed over is:

> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators.

I was all for facebook basics when I thought Facebook was paying for poor people to access at least some restricted internet access. But its actually the operators that are paying for this. Giving away free access to some sites in a walled garden, hoping those same users will pay to access other sites at some points.

So Facebook is just a beneficiary in all of this. Getting new users at no cost. Taking the credit for it, while operators are actually paying the bills.

The poor also deserve privacy and actual internet instead of being snooped up on and fed by "internet for the poor".

The internet is difficult to describe to someone who has no experience with it. It's like "There's this flibity divit called Google that lets you search for hurgfbr and find veruhryhr written by people you like." If someone has no way to conceptually anchor terms like "search engine", "web pages" or "blogs" then it will be difficult for them to understand what's being said, much less know what they're missing out on.

With bare minimum exposure to the ideas via Free Basics, people will be able to imagine what else is out there. It becomes "Google is like when you type words into the search box on facebook, except you get more results and they're more relevant." I would imagine that once exposed to even a limited version of the internet, people will quickly demand unrestricted access from their local government. But they have to know what they don't have before they can ask for it.

If this is all an Evil Plan by Mark Zuckerberg to set up an internet monopoly in India, then it's a very stupid plan. Facebook is a communication platform. People will use it to communicate with people who have normal internet, and will no doubt hear about all the things that they don't have access to. It's only a matter of time before "Free Basics" becomes "Low Cost Government Internet Access For All".

For many people from my generation, AOL was the internet. It was all we knew. But eventually we figured out that there was more out there, and the people of India are capable of doing that as well. There are hackers in every culture, at every social strata. If you give them an inch, they'll turn it into a mile or more. Free Basics isn't perfect, but for many people it's better than nothing.

One more reason to stop using facebook.

Free basic internet may include Google search, Wikipedia, email of choice, access to all pages that Google suggests in first two pages. But I think Facebook should not be part of basic internet.

"And if Free Basics proved popular there would be little to stop India’s big media and e-commerce groups from creating rival offerings, to drive first-time surfers towards their web offerings."

And that's precisely the problem. Most advocates for Net Neutrality are afraid of exactly this: the death of the free and open internet for those who can't afford it, replaced by some fragmented collection of services offered in a bundle package like some Cable Television plan.

Rich people limiting poor peoples options, again.

It's much better they eat cake, than this "free internet"

More like rich people preventing a richer person from force feeding the poor with what makes him the most money. Exactly like Nestlé giving baby formula for the first few days for free in poor african countries so that they become dependent on it.

This is probably the most idiotic argument against the critics of Facebook and it is not even original.

People would actually benefit from the free (limited) internet. In fact most people are also ok if Facebook gets something back in return. It would have definitely helped if it was clearly stated as a commercial program and not an altruistic venture.

I honestly think Facebook would have done well by providing access to the full internet but making Facebook the start page / captive portal.

You will bow down to anything. What about your private data? You want facebook to decide what you want to see on internet? Start a day with friend's like and share!!! I think your internet means facebook.

When did facebook become non-profit to give away things for free? fcuk zcuk, stay away from India.

Even though it's obviously a land grab... no one other than massive corporations is capable or willing to provide this. I don't like it either, but that's how corporatocracy works. Might as well fight against gravity.

Humanity have a long and distinct history of fighting against gravity.

Exactly! That too, a democracy like India would never approve something so capitalistic with a pro-poor cover.

And yet gravity is still going strong...

Make an ally out of gravity and you can use its strength for something half-decent instead of all-bad.

I think this land grab by Facebook is half-decent instead of all-bad. Facebook is treating the poor better than the Indian government has, at least. Neither institution really gives a fuck about them.

Facebook is treating the farmers better by giving them access to facebook. What has the government done except no interest loans, free seeds and fertilizers, subsidies and free training programs.

Sounds about right

You aren't expecting much from the government. Who has more resources and power than the government? If Zuck had that much power I'm sure he would do a lot more than just give free internet.

Why are there no other companies offering the same?

Exactly, why don't people who oppose this provide unlimited internet to the poor people for free? Put their money where their mouth is.

Pretty heavily editorialized headline, not at all in the economists style. Original title:

Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics, and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is a cover for a land-grab".

There is a significant difference between a headline that reads, "Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab" and "Critics say Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab". But both titles are sensational click-bait.

I agree with you (such_a_casual). I think my judgement was skewed because I'm one of those critics.

It's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the article agrees with one quoted source in the article.

One quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey print.

Seems fair game to me.

It's not fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters not do this exact thing; instead, you're to use the article's original headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait.

People who submit stories don't own the stories on HN; stories are community property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special privileges to reframe the story for everyone else.

In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does not.

I see what you're saying, I was wrong about using the subheading for the title instead of the title.

Your statement that the OP was "overtly dishonest" is ridiculous, come on.

Right, the submitted title ("Facebook's “free internet” programme is a cover for a land-grab") broke the HN guidelines by editorializing. That's bad. Submitters: please don't change titles unless they are misleading or linkbait (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). If you want to present an argument, do so in the thread, on a level playing field with other users. On HN, submitting an article confers no special right to opine.

The subtitle ("Critics argue") would have been ok, but is less informative, and there's nothing wrong with the article's main headline, so we've put that in above.

I wonder it it would be feasible to tunnel the "real internet" through Facebook using (for example) their chat client (you'd need something on the other end to make the connection). Like tunneling a VPN over DNS queries. That would be a clever work-around.

Probably violates the TOS, or if it doesn't right now, as soon as it's implemented, it will. Not that I have any moral opposition, but it'd be risking a pretty quick account ban.

It doesn't have to be facebook, any of the whitelisted websites could potentially be used as a proxy.

Since they have their advertising bots and learning machines reading all that stuff all of the time, it would only be a matter of time before they shut that hole (if it gained a decent amount of popularity)

https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-tunnel

I heard about some more, but didn't bookmark them :<

Sadly this doesn’t work with http://0.facebook.com/, the version of Free Basics available in Germany.

Maybe this one http://code.kryo.se/iodine/ ?

Well, there you go! It _was_ a good idea.

I was considering doing something similar a while ago, since here in New Zealand, we get free facebook on mobile (0.facebook.com).

I'm fairly sure that FB has things in place to stop you from using bots to send messages though, in an attempt to stop spam.

Egregiously editorialized title; the actual title is:

Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

Reply on news.ycombinator.com