Hacker News Reader

Comment by atroyn | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

If their motive were genuinely connectivity, as they advertised it, they can still do it. #EqualRating is allowed, so are charitable initiatives such as Free Data to everyone.

But what do they really want? The next billion internet users hooked onto their platform. That's what they paid Whatsapp a whooping $19B for.

I can't presume to know for sure. We'll both see what will they do of their Freebasics program now.

But won't they be just as hooked as in markets where Facebook has already penetrated? Seems like the smart play is just getting people on-line, and getting them onto Facebook the same way they always have.

Why wouldn't that work in India?

It would. But why not cheat if you can get away with it?

Facebook in others markets isn't paying for the Internet connections of their clients.

I don't believe they ever had any intention of getting the poor online. They have so far never released ANY data regarding how many of the users of Free Basics are first time Internet users despite it being one of the top demands of critics of the Free Basics program. Some independent third party analysis suggest that the overwhelming majority of users of Free Basics are existing Internet users, many of them who have no idea they are on Free Basics.

Reliance (the telco that Facebook has partnered with) doesn't advertise the Free Basics program as "access for the poor" but as "Free Facebook" and doesn't even mention the additional websites available for free on Free Basics.

My guess is that with Free Basics rolled out in 36 countries without any issues, Facebook never expected any opposition.

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

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

A friend of mine was on Free Basics. She found out only when she tried to navigate to a video outside of Facebook from a link that she clicked on Facebook and was prompted to purchase a data plan.

Aircel provide a fully-free low-speed internet in some regions.

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

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

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com