Hacker News Reader

Comment by icebraining | Hacker News Reader

Zuck wants a walled-garden version of internet (with FB as gatekeeper) to be made free for the poor. We're saying poor Indians should have access to the same full open globally-connected internet as we all take for granted. And that free & fair competition will & should take care of things like access on the cheap, sachet-mktg etc. (...) As of today on my Vodafone India plan I can get a 2G plan starting for 22¢.

I agree, but then why the wailing and gnashing of teeth? They've released an inferior product for only 22¢ less than the superior alternative, doesn't seem like such a threat. Just let it fail, no?

Personally, I do think the name is fraudulent (and they should be forced to change it), but the service in itself seems like a non-issue to me.

View on HN

You are right. The problem is with the telcos they are partnering with. The spectrum belongs to the public and the license was given with conditions and expectations of good faith (such as neutrality).

Facebook can build a wired network with only FB/Whatsapp available on it. No license required and no expectations of neutrality (they still shouldn't call it an "internet connection" though). It's not the Internet if links don't work or one link costs more than another. The telco can charge for data, the website can charge for its content. The telco should NOT charge a link based on its destination.

"You must be on the Reliance network to use Internet.org. If you'd like to access these websites for free, use a SIM card from Reliance" --

What I see when I visit internet.org from my wired & wireless, non-Reliance telco.

Think of this as FB passing off 'free AOL CDs in the mail' as The Internet in India for millions of first timers who are getting sub-$100 smartphones, using poor villagers--& benevolent Wikipedia to provide covering fire.

Think of this as FB passing off 'free AOL CDs in the mail'

Yeah, and what a stronghold AOL has now over the US market, eh?

Yeah, so let's repeat that - this time in a vastly different market, way crazier demographic variety, far different socio-economic & growth conditions and tech/internet revolution which has exponentially changed for good since then.

What can go wrong? At the most we are risking only a generation of Indians thinking FB as internet (just like Indonesians) who will then graduate to think Chrome icon as the browser (just like people thought of IE shortcuts on their Win95 desktops).

Let's allow the same mistakes but this time execute it better. I can get behind that.

it's not a superior vs inferior product. This was just an example to show that telcos are making money at the entry level too & they should (screenshot - http://i.imgur.com/gpsgRLh.png). This data plan has nothing to do with FB or internet.org.

Just a 2G data plan that I can use to surf any site. Fb/internet.org on the other hand is free to users & paid for (or howsoever they do it), decided by a secret cabal behind the scenes between telcos/FB/govt bodies (mark's words) and whoever else is monopolistic enough to be at the table.

Perhaps I didn't understand your question?

I'm saying that FB/Internet.org is an inferior product (since it's limited to a few services) in the same market as the Vodafone plan, which only costs a few cents more. If so, then what's the problem? FB/Internet.org will likely just fail to attract any significant number of users.

The problem is akin to being a frog in the well.

Millions of first-time internet users will be onboarded (using shady mktg techniques - that's just how things work on the ground where it gets real dirty) onto free flavors of handpicked services.

They have no idea of real internet. Please see the very first link I posted which gives our full reply. It answers your Qn in depth.

Defaults matter. In Europe, 10% people opted in for organ donation. But when the mechanism was switched to an opt-out, only 10% actually opted out.

True - though that's mostly applicable because people don't really care if their organs are donated.

But any case, I don't see the default here; people have to choose the telco(s) that implement Internet.org, and sign up for it, no?

Is that like saying Microsoft shouldn't have been penalized for bundling IE because the user chose the machine which came bundled with Windows which came bundled with IE? (Just so you know, telecom cartels are a reality - at least in India)

I don't see how is it comparable. What is Internet.org bundled with?

Bundled with the mobile service (Reliance in India, for eg)

How is it bundled anymore than any other mobile data package?

@icebraining I can't reply in the thread so posting here.

Other internet data packages are bought explicitly by the user, and treat websites neutrally.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com