This is not an effort to provide the full internet. See this critique by the EFF for more details: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/05/internetorg-not-neutra...
"Maguire told Quartz that the company intends to provide “the full internet,” but also noted that it will work with network operators’ bandwidth needs and business models."
http://qz.com/468376/facebooks-internet-beaming-drone-is-rea...
We (fairly rich, definitely reasonably connected, people) cannot allow the third world to enjoy something as humiliating as imperfect internet (to a standard we barely enjoy ourselves, however immensely beneficial our connections are in spite of this) and we certainly can't allow some of the richest corporations in the world investing in it - after all, the result might not end up perfect.
It's much better potential beneficiaries (you know, some of the worlds poorest and most disadvantaged people) for us to complain, dismiss and and wait until someone will roll out a 100% neutral network, unencumbered by any commercial interests.
I have 7 years of experience working in telco business. I don't mind "rich" companies investing in this solution (something else you got wrong), what I mind is telcos in the loop.
Oh, BTW, besides the experience with the soul-crushing telco business, I also have experience at that third world thingy... You see, I've grown in a third world country. Born '85, had no idea that compact discs (CD) existed until '94.
We can substitute (no internet + desire for internet) in for the right side, and I think that's better than (some internet + lessened desire for full internet)
Result: Yes, some internet is better than no internet.
Nowadays, where I stopped using facebook mostly, I just buy like the tiniest data package my provider supports, wait for it to throttle to 64kbps, and just use IRC, the web without JS, etc.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebo...
</nitpick>
There are no perfect options, only trade offs. FB can provide a service, and if people don't use it, fine. But, let them decide.
If they were providing full internet, that would be an incredibly charitable, generous, and positive thing. As it stands, it's just another business venture - which is fine, but not great.
This is so far removed from the truth. What about blogs? Academic papers? Journalistic articles? Mailing list threads? Even paper books!
The name "Internet.org" is grossly misleading. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Willingly giving a service effective control of the present yields dastardly results.
Just having some applications is not the same as being online, it's just a way for those companies to short-circuit the wait before they can add those users to their 'inventory'.
As a result the incentive to roll out the remainder is for a large part removed. This is the corporate wet-dream for the net: just a couple of big data silos. And where better to trial this idea and lock in the users as much as possible.
What prevents someone(s) from launching a competing service? Some of the answers to that are obvious, given what you've written.
What are we to do?
That's because FT had the government as their shareholder and they were trying to protect their investment. That's definitely another important factor but the fact that minitel actually worked was definitely a detriment.
I remember visiting France during the Internet boom in the rest of Europe and people there were proudly showing off their minitel terminals (tiny little screens with a slide-out keyboard) and what they could do with it and how they didn't need this newfangled American nonsense in their houses.
Of course that didn't hold in the longer term but it certainly did not help early adoption.
I remember in 2002, when my family, and all my friends' families had an unlimited internet connection, having to use the minitel to register to some exams for some Universities. It felt like an anachronism. So unconvenient. I wouldn't be surprised if the government played its part in leaving it that way.
The next year though, they changed it and we could register through internet.
Now, today the internet obviously exists, but there's a eye-watering amount of capital investment to be made in third world countries not generally well suited for capital investment, and largely populated by people with very little money, before "the whole internet" is broadly available.
So the situation is more akin to standing around in France in say, 1992 and arguing for shutting down Minitel because in 1997, there will be awesome, real internet, and having Minitel around will be an impediment to quick adoption.
Sellers on second hand trading site leboncoin.com keep saying to use the phone and not email (I.e. I presume they don't have a smart phone and data connection).
One place I stayed at had been trying to get ADSL for two years, even though it was reasonably built up.
As a NZer that travels a lot, the internet infrastructure appears less than 1st world to me.
I've got unlimited call + sms + 4G data (limited bandwidth after 20Gb) for 20€/month, and 300Mb/s fibre connection for 35€/month. I have not seen similar rates in the UK/US.