Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukevdp | Hacker News Reader

Internet.org is offering a free service to people who would otherwise have no access to the Internet. Net neutrality on a free service in a developing country is an entirely different issue than net neutrality in developed countries with high Internet access rates.

I see similarities between this and GMO in developing countries, where rich, well fed people in developed countries oppose gmo in countries that can't feed themselves because "corporations evil".

People for whom Internet access is a normal part of society are in an ivory tower on this issue.

View on HN

If internet.org was really about providing internet access to people who otherwise can't access it, what is stopping Facebook from making it open? In current form lets say internet.org allows access to 100+ websites. I assume speed will be slow anyways. So make it open. Speed and data cap will be a deterrent for people wanting to abuse the platform (and things like torrent etc can be blocked anyways)

But I guess that will not serve facebook's interests. As an Indian, I actually prefer no internet at all compared to a moderated list that I am allowed to access. The way things are moving - Govt. has to act to provide internet in India for the last mile consumers anyways. With curated access there is a danger of wanting to maintain status quo because that kind of access - checks a tickbox.

I believe the price is stopping it. Getting a telco to give you massively reduced rates on a few domains is drastically different than paying for internet access for everybody. Also, please correct me if I am mistaken, but I.org doesn't prevent you actually paying for full internet access?

They could put data caps. They could support it with ads. Both of which give neutral access to full open internet. If it has to be _few_ domains only, they could let the user chose his preferred domains on the 1st of every month.

But no, they want to sell the poor out to the highest bidders.

adding ads will just make the already slow internet slower. loading content + ads is not good for the customer.

Only if the ads are loaded in parallel with the content. The ads can very well be like TV or YouTube ads.

There is nothing more costly about providing open internet than closed internet. If you only look at certain domains, those domains will subsidize the price. It's pushing two things unnecarily into one. It's like, if you can pay for internet if you sell your kidney, then saying internet access with kidneys is too expensive.

You should read Cleartrip's statement when they exited internet.org today. Especially, this bit: "So while our original intent was noble, it is impossible to pretend there is no conflict of interest (both real and perceived) in our decision to be a participant in Internet.org."

The protests are not against free data at all. Internet.org could have very well given 100megabytes/month free. They could support it with ads, which is perfectly neutral, if they wanted.

Saying that "the poor don't/can't make the right choice for themselves so let us chose for them" - now, THAT IS ivory tower thinking.

I am happy that the service providers in India will continue forth expanding into poor and under-serviced areas without a large subsidy to free them of cost-benefit decisions.

I'm sure they will operate in the best interest of the public.

That's what competition does. :)

I don't want to argue with you since I don't know much about it, but it seems the backlash came from India itself, not from developed countries.

India has plenty of its own middle-class neck beards who don't see why their cleaners, taxi drivers, and street sweepers need Facebook access.

While I think open access to the Internet probably should probably be considered a human right, it's not on the same tier in Maslow's pyramid as the right to not starve.

As for opposing GMOs -- one needs to consider why certain countries "can't feed themselves", and if maybe food cartels might have something to do with it.

For the record, I'm deeply sceptical to GMOs for two reasons: 1) I don't think allowing patent on life/genes to be a good idea -- and find the idea that you're not allowed to plant crops you buy (eg: not being legally allowed to plant a potato, because you didn't buy it "with intent to plant", but paid the "lower" price for "intent to consume") -- or not being able to because of second generation being sterile -- 2) I worry about the pesticides, the interplay between evolution (super bugs), monoculture etc.

[ed: To add: I think the choice between starve like now, and be forever beholden to foreign corporations and their patents is a false choice. Similarly, I think no Internet like now, and be beholden to Facebook is a false choice too.

Setting up local (eg: village-size) mesh-nets, allowing intranets to form, and then slowly connecting those to the bigger Internet, should be entirely viable. Allow for free text (xmpp), voice (sip etc) as well as browsing (maybe initially favouring usenet groups, as that is resilient and works well on low bandwidth links) -- and allow it to grow organically. No need to try and bootstrap straight to the first-world, balkanized Internet of lobotomized, centralized, content-silo-oriented services...]

I think you're going on an irrelevant tangent with GMOs; the OP simply used the argument as a comparison not to prop up a soapbox for you to recite your GMO views.

This is nothing like the GMO debate.

GMOs are not giving a curated list of seeds away for free to make the farmers dependent on them.

GMOs sell their product like every body else in the free market.

Not true. Monsanto "donates" seeds to Haiti

Reply on news.ycombinator.com