Hacker News Reader

The average web page size in 2016 is 2.2MB. Which means that 500MB plan can only load 227 first load web pages (excluding secondary pages on the same site with cached CSS, JS and images for navigation and title/footer). This is entirely excluding any video or audio or any real photo downloads or uploads.

500MB may be enough for you who is a light LTE user and who has access to separate free wifi at work and separately paid for wifi at home. But if your phone is your only access to the internet, 500MB can't do much. Unless you consider loading 7 web pages per day a reasonable restriction.

The average income in India was $1,497 in 2013 or $124.75 a month. So that $2 for 500MB means 1.6% of your monthly income is spent on internet to download a few hundred individual pages with no audio or video. In the US, with an average income of $3,769 a month, the equivalent 1.6% of monthly income ($60) can get you unlimited LTE data on a lower-tier provider or MVNO. Quite a big difference between 500MB and unlimited.

So, yes, internet access in India is comparably much more expensive than it is in the US.

The average income in India was $1,497 in 2013 or $124.75 a month. So that $2 for 500MB means 1.6% of your monthly income is spent on internet to download a few hundred individual pages with no audio or video. In the US, with an average income of $3,769 a month, the equivalent 1.6% of monthly income ($60) can get you unlimited LTE data on a lower-tier provider or MVNO. Quite a big difference between 500MB and unlimited.

This shows just how much we're getting ripped off here in Canada. For a 1GB plan from Rogers you're looking at $90/mo! [0] Rogers doesn't even offer an unlimited data plan; their largest plan is $385/mo for 60GB.

[0] http://www.rogers.com/consumer/wireless/smartphone-plans?ipn...

In Romania I got a special offer on a prepaid card for 10 GB of bandwidth for 6 EUR per month.

And my regular contract is 24 EUR per month and includes 3 GB, in addition to unlimited national calls and SMS in any network and included international and roaming minutes. And for the first year I paid only 12 EUR due to special offer. Data is 4G of course and works well.

I pay 25€ for unlimited 100Mbps (up and down) Internet, plus landline and cable, and another 5 for phone with unlimited calls and SMS and 1gb LTE.

Where do you live? Thats a very good plan. Whats your carrier's name. Is the plan truly unlimited or does it have reduced speed once it hits fair usage limits

I see that CAN$90/month is for a plan that subsidizes the phone. Bring your own phone, it's... $80/month for 1GB. That's awful, but it does include unlimited calling. Here in New Zealand, which also has a low population density (though 4x higher than Canada), you would pay around CAN$20-30/month for 1GB depending on the company.

(But most Canada is uninhabited, isn't it? So NZ might actually have a lower average density in inhabited areas.)

This March, I got a 30 day tourist 3G SIM card in Taiwan and used 304GB of data. It cost under $30 CAD.

You're probably disconnected from limited data plans. The average web page size may be 2.2MB, but this number requires a source. I find it hard to believe that 2.2MB is the average for mobile websites or the actual download payload that mobile phones actually have to pull.

The reason is that for mobile websites bandwidth is not the only bottleneck. I assume you're talking about a gzipped payload, along with images. Feed a megabyte of compressed HTML, CSS and Javascript to your average feature smartphone and you'll find that the phone's CPU and RAM can be an even bigger bottleneck than bandwidth. Therefore webmasters have a serious incentive to cut down on the download size. Also popular Javascript libraries, like JQuery and Angular get served by Google's CDN or cdnjs.com and thus cached locally and reused across websites. Even more, static assets on a website get reused between visits, and if say, you're vising a news website regularly, you're not going to receive the whole payload every time, just the HTML.

The reason for why I object to your claim is that I've lived with a 500MB data plan for the whole of last year, consuming between 10 and 30 MB per day chatting, reading/writing email and yes, visiting a lot of websites. And I still experience what it's like to have such limitations when in roaming, as I do a fair amount of traveling in Europe. As long as you don't stream videos or music or download apps, it's totally fine.

source: http://mobile.httparchive.org/trends.php#bytesTotal&reqTotal

My plan on China Unicom is 300 MB and I rarely go over. Many of the sites I want to visit are blocked of course, but for my daily needs, it is more than adequate.

> The average web page size in 2016 is 2.2MB.

The average web page that an Indian mobile user is downloading is CERTAINLY not 2.2 MB. You can't just take a statistic from desktop US-centric sites and generalize it to other nations and usage patterns. Keep in mind that a lot of the advantages of bringing mobile phones and mobile Internet to developing nations is simple text communication -- 500 MB is essentially an unlimited number of texts through apps like WhatsApp.

And anyway, I am a heavy smartphone user here in the US on a data plan I don't pay for (i.e. I never think twice about accessing anything on my phone), and I average 2-3 GB per month, most of which is mobile games (Ingress and Pokemon Go) and viewing images and videos on Reddit. I could easily make do on 500 MB/month if I had to, and the only thing that would be affected is entertainment.

Web page sizes are heavy tailed. The average may not be a good estimator of what is "common" in this case.

$2 for you monthly is cheap. but not for people being targeted by facebook.

People don't even recharge their phones so that they can do voice calls. people like farmers who buys some low end feature phone but wont top up so that they can call others, instead they just load some songs in their low end phones and chill sleeping in their farms. Similarly I can see people who buy phones but wont topup their internet monthly thinking there is no use or not worth it.

facebook wanting to provide free internet for people already having smart phones or internet enabled phones is not without basis..

I got my uncle a smartphone.. he fills data once in some 3-4 months.. and pings me in whatsapp.. hi hello tata bye bye see you.. and does the same thing after 3-4 months.

These are all anecdotal experiences.. but I also would like to see some related stats..

This is where Facebook messaging and actual the Free Basics program are at odds. Free basics is basically 30+ websites which includes Facebook.

Whatsapp is not a part of free basics. Your uncle would have to buy a special'Whatsapp upgrade' if he wanted to message you on Whatsapp.

It's a clear violation of Net Neutrality principles and Facebook spent over $40 million trying to lobby for this to happen.

Net neutrality applies when your network provider holds destinations hostage. It doesn't apply when the destination volunteers to pay for your connectivity.

You accidentally approached the net neutrality mindset from an utility maximizing point of view.

A central premise of its advocats is that net neutrality is a value on its own. (More like a natural right.) Therefore, utility arguments that might favor a position in disagreement with netneutrality don't apply simply on a value basis.

That's probably the reason you got downvoted.

edit: There do exist a lot of utility arguments in favor of net neutrality. But most advocats use them as parallel constructs for their deeper reason of believe. A simple emotional test one could exercise: If you can not construct a case in which the violation of net neutrality could lead to a greater overall benefit, your position is probably more a believe than a result of rational consideration.

When the only journalism you see is from BuzzFeed, you know this world is really fucked up.

Buzzfeed does a surprisingly good line in actual journalism these days. When it's good it's amazing.

I remember thinking Buzzfeed's long form articles (I think they have a name, but I forgot it) are actually really good. Not just "good for Buzzfeed", but legitimately interesting, insightful and well written.

I've had someone who has worked as a journalist assure em that BuzzFeed isn't all garbage. I think the perception of the quality of Buzzfeed content is out of whack with the actual quality. I assure you I have no skin in the game. Admittedly the name literally does not inspire confidence and they do seem to have a ridiculously high clickbaity noise to signal ratio so you'd be easily forgiven for jumping to the wrong conclusion.

While we could go on and on about how MZ doesn't live on the same planet than the rest of us, and how we don't buy MZ's pseudo-philanthropic PR, strictly speaking, that 2 USD/month is comparable to the paying capability and cost of living over there vs. the USA. The average income is $130/month in India ($4,500 in the US), which means that the ratios between incomes (34-fold), or internet affordability (41-fold, if using your $2000), are similar (I am talking cost here, not quality or quantity of service).

The major problem with Internet service providers in India is the way they set their pricing. They put huge caps on mobile internet data. I pay like $40 for my high speed internet connection(our internet speeds are very poor compared to the rest of the world), which is on the higher side in India, but the download cap restriction is at 60GB. I work mostly from home and I am living in a shared accommodation with 1 other person, so effectively 30GB per person which I feel is very low. The ISP's in India still use the pricing model based on voice calls that they use to do 30 years back. They seriously need to re-evaluate the way the pricing should work for internet.

Also, see the two expansions of the ISPs' FUP (1st one being so-called "Fair Use Policy").

Who is your ISP and which town are you in?

500MB doesn't really get you that far on the modern web though

Remember the target demographic though. These are people who presumable require internet access first and foremost simply to access some basic online data; not to stream youtube/netflix.

Some basic online data such as?

I'd wager these people still want to be able to view pics, watch videos and download music like anyone else.

And in any case, what does "basic online data" even mean today when you consider the size of the average javascript-laden site.

Basic online usage like web searches, text messages, emails, etc. None of which are data-intensive.

It's almost unbelievable how disconnected from reality we've become if we think that 500 MB per month is useless. Ignoring gaming and media, 500 MB is more than I use per month on my phone, and I use it a lot every day. I remember when the web first became a thing and I was first able to contact people using IMs and emails. It was a huge, life-changing deal. You need to think back to your own experience with this, assuming you lived through it anyway. The difference between no Internet at all and 500 MB of Internet per month easily captures 95% of the total value that the Internet actually delivers to your daily life compared to the difference between 500 MB and unlimited.

Whatsapp. A lot of people I know use data just for Whatsapp.

Rubbish. As long as you don't watch YouTube or listen to music via the cloud, 500 MB will be plenty for most people.

I get a 120MB monthly plan when I travel internationally. Yes, I use it judiciously and don't do big downloads or stream audio/video but it suits me fine for email and looking up info.

The folks who are downvoting you are likely not considering the fact that (1) the average web page size in 2016 is now up to 2.2MB and (2) if your phone is your sole source of internet access, you'll use a lot more data than you would somewhere where you have wifi access at home and work which aren't counting against your 500MB limit per month.

This is not true. Were you in India when FB launched Free Basics? Lot of journalists covered it. AIB channel's video, for instance, actually made it simple for non-tech people to understand. Major TV channels covered it critically.

Sorry, I meant to say US/Tech media. Most of them re-wrote what Facebook told them.

Yup, for example I specifically remember the New York Times rolling out a persistent campaign of pro-Facebook articles, several on the front page.

Well Local Media channels are viewed/heard much more than NYT or BBC. Thankfully ;)

Facebook may have self-interest but Indian elites unilaterally deciding what is good for poorer Indians is far more obnoxious.

The ARPU for telecom companies in India is $2/month. So calling cost of internet really low in India shows you are a part of know it all Indian elites who have no clue what low cost for most of Indians means.

> Facebook may have self-interest but Indian elites unilaterally deciding what is good for poorer Indians is far more obnoxious.

I may be lacking local context. Where do I find out more about your reference to "Indian elites unilaterally deciding"?