Hacker News Reader

Comment by droopyEyelids | Hacker News Reader

I hear people try and describe this Internet.org in terms of how Facebook will have control over what information huge numbers of people can access.

Thats a distortion of the the way Zuckerberg presents the effort though. He seems to really want to give the impression that this is about helping people— and not about the power of being the filter through which all information and commerce has to flow. The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access.

View on HN

Then why can't Facebook give bandwidth instead of access to a limited number of sites. They're already doing it for a few. It wouldn't cost them anything to extend it to the whole internet.

Apps like UC Browser and Opera Mini have been doing it even before we had smartphones. I still use UC Browser here as 2G is really slow. So the bandwidth used will be miniscule.

It's definitely possible for Facebook. In fact they've almost done it. The fact that they won't go the extra step and still insist on calling it "Internet.org" makes me suspicious of their intentions.

Let them go ahead. Call it Facebook.org and cut out the sanctimonious tone of pretending that it's charity.

Well the problem is that carriers would never agree to such a deal. It would, for instance, make generalized instant-messaging work and destroy their SMS revenue. It would also eat into their "real internet" revenues. I doubt the problem there is Facebook.

I feel a bit that people complaining about this service are self-serving. People here are complaining about things that affect them (potential future internet directions) and because of these effects millions (maybe even a billion) should be denied a free service.

I feel very, very uncomfortable with that viewpoint.

Facebook provides messaging, so internet.org will eat into SMS revenue. Carriers might be able to keep call revenue if they don't allow Facebooks' messenger app.

>It wouldn't cost them anything to extend it to the whole internet.

Yes it would, the entire point of the project is to make a subset low-bandwidth standard. Highly optimized from server all the way to device. By not encrypting it they can even use multicast and caching.

When you visit an internet.org site, your phone wont load 30 tracking js files from 30 different companies. It will load the text of the page.

I'm replying to you from UC Browser . It strips all JS and converts everything to plain HTML thats only a few KB. This is nothing new and has been done by many other players.

You are mistaken about the cost structure of the internet.

For all practical purposes, all of the cost for providing internet services at scale is in the last mile. In other words, it would not cost internet.org anything significant to extend the service to cover the whole internet. It makes very little difference in cost whether they backhaul the traffic to their datacenter or their closest peering point.

If the requirement is to only provide a low bandidth service then it is trivial to restrict the bandwidth usage per end-user, even if it provides access to the whole internet.

> The poor in India etc will almost surely have the option of giving up their free plan and paying for the Internet, and then Facebook will have just served as a stepping stone and aid along the way to 'full' Internet access.

This is not going to happen the way the Indian telecoms are screwing up Net Neutrality. Internet.org is only part of the problem. Indian telecoms want to charge extra for OTT (over the top) services. This includes many internet messaging (ex: whatsapp) and VOIP (ex: skype) services. Internet.org sets a bad precedent where the telecoms can come up with various packages that are "free" while charging exorbitant amounts of money for the rest of the internet.

Usually I'm very pro internet.org with the basis for my response being "people who can't afford internet don't care about your politics, why should we get to deprive them of useful services based on a message only we care about." And I still feel thats true.

But your response is definitely the best argument against it I've seen.

I'm all for keeping the net neutral. But let me play the devil's advocate here: When the telecoms have paid for the spectrum (there was an auction for the spectrum), how can you dictate what services they should charge for and what services they shouldn't charge for ? The spectrum is a public resource, but when the telecoms have paid for it, aren't they entitled to charge for the services they provide ?

When the telecoms have paid for the spectrum, why can't they dictate what phone numbers you can call?

they do, long distance are charged differently then local and same network calls, and 1800 reverse the paying party. 100, 101, 191 are free. 5* sms cost extra. You can get a plan which frees few nos. or get unlimited call to 1 no.

I addressed these issues in a sibling comment, but the main gist of the argument is that in telephony within tarrif groups there is no discrimination between different numbers.

There is nothing magical about the IP address of internet.org that makes packets to and from it special. Hence zerorating should be applied to either all IP addresses or none.

To be sure, there are numbers that are toll free and the receiving party is charged for calling, much like the arrangement that Indian telecoms are proposing to get into with e-com sites like Flipkart. Toll-free numbers can be seen as incentives to call a particular number more than others. Aren't they violating the "Telephony Neutrality" principle ?

Yes, I am aware of toll free numbers and the like. The phone number analogy is not quite suitable as a counterargument against internet.org, but it was not meant to be one either. It was more a conter to the devil's advocate line of questions.

The tariff and regulatory structure of telephony is different from internet access. "Telephony Neutrality" basically says that you can call anybody you like as long as you can afford it and you are free to receive phone calls from anybody.

Internet.org is thus more like: "you can call these toll free numbers, but you cannot receive calls from anybody we haven't preapproved".

In my country there are phone plans where you specify few phone numbers (usually your wife or children) and have very low tariffs for calling those numbers.

since they are a utility, they can charge all they want as long as they don't discriminate, they can decide to charge all data at 1000Rs/MB. Even a 1800 kind of service is also ok, wherein service provider will pay for the data and not end user, as long as any business can join in.

Now the question is why should some business be treated as utility, it is because they control access to limited natural resource, which somewhat prevents free competition

Spectrum wasn't sold to them, it was licensed. A list of specific services they are allowed to provide is in the license agreement. Spectrum remains public property leased out for a specific purpose, and not private property; the government is well within its rights to decide what the spectrum should, and should not, be used for.

They knew the license terms when they bid for the spectrum. One of the approved uses is providing internet service, and the license agreement (UASL) specifically says that this entails providing access to all legal websites and services on the internet.

While the intent is clear, it isn't as detailed as net neutrality legislation in other countries — which is why campaigners want new regulations or legislation with similar clarity as laws in Brazil, Chile or the FCC's rules.

The telecoms are still going to provide the internet services. But they want to provide free packages for some of the services. They have the license and they can manage to provide access to some of the sites for free. Of course the access is not really free, just that the party that is receiving the traffic (Flipkart) and the ISP have an arrangement to bear the costs rather than charging the visitor. Whoever wants to access the internet, can still do so by paying for it, as they do now. Are we being fair when we say that we want to call that illegal ? Laws are based on the idea of fairness. We should first debate the fairness of a practice before we push for it to be legislated.

Zero rating is antithetical to the open internet. It causes harm and should be banned. There is no fairness to be debated.

So your complaint is that this will encourage more ISPs to offer free internet packages? Funny, I would have called that the best possible outcome.

I don't see anything in the parent comment indicating that there will be any free internet packages.

If you look up Internet.org free tier screenshots from users all the pics are blurred out with a sales pitch from the carrier to "upgrade to premium Facebook to see this"

> Thats a distortion of the the way Zuckerberg presents the effort though.

1) I don't quite know how to parse this. The EFF isn't characterizing the internet.org plan the same way FB is? It's a FB initiative, and EFF are watchdogs. Should I expect them to share opinions & metrics of value?

2) See also: "Millions of Facebook users have no idea they’re using the internet" - Quartz article discussing the fact that many people don't understand the technical underpinnings (and thus, power dynamics) of the web/internet/API-based applications: http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-ide...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com