Facebook’s Internet.org sees defections over alleged harm to net neutrality

App to get poor people online gives free access, but only to selected websites.

Read the whole story

 

[jdale]

Entegy[/url]":3l4um8yx]I can definitely see both sides of the argument and how much of a grey area this is, similar to Netflix in Australia not counting against your data cap with certain ISPs.

Technically, Facebook's statements are against the strictest definition of net neutrality. But I also agree with the idea of giving a voice to those who can't afford one. It's a little step up. Like anything, we'll have to figure out a healthy balance.

There is definitely some good in their goals. But it's constructed in a way that in the long run will harm people, and will prevent a better, more fair solution from being established. There are other solutions (e.g. provided subsidized or low speed free municipal access) that would not present the same problems, but people are much less likely to pursue those solutions while this is in place.

With this solution, you get a class of people whose access to information and resources is restricted according to the whims of a corporate sponsor, and establish it as a norm. In the long term it's very dangerous.

 

[jdale]

gmerrick[/url]":34nko33t]I'm not quite sure what everyone is screaming and hollering about. From what I can read and googled about folks can afford to save up for a feature phone or a basic android device, but can't afford the cost of a data plan or voice plan. Texting is very popular as the cost is low. Not many people have access to the internet at all.

What Facebook does via internet.org is work with the carrier to provide either web access via feature phone or an android app for "smart" phones. This app or the website provides free access to a limited number of websites. These sites are probably text based to keep costs down. Even the facebook app only provides blurred images.

With access to weather info, job banks, and most importantly sports sites (fooball and cricket!!!) people can become more engaged, better educated or even get jobs.

With jobs comes income. With income means after you have your basics taken care of you might be able to afford a data plan and start to go to other websites.

This is really about providing access to basic services to those who simply could not afford it in the first place. I see nothing wrong with this at all. Without this service many would simply not be able to afford that data plan to start with.

The problem really is that the poorest of poor in India need to start somewhere with access to basic services. Your options for internet access if you don't have a computer of your own, is to go to a cafe and rent one for an amount of time, or have a smart phone and a data plan. If you cannot afford either, but can manage to afford a phone internet.org will give you limited access to certain websites. If you want more then you need to pay for it. This is no different than any other type of service.

Having an open internet is very important. Net Neutrality means that content will not be threatened by a carrier as it passed thru its network to the end user.

Folks are complaining that internet.org limites access to websites that are not whitelisted or have joined internet.org, if this is your complaint, how is this any different than Apple's curated app store?

Complaining that FB is available on this but G+ isn't, is a specious complaint. Perhaps Google isn't interested in this or just the fact that no-one uses it anyway. Seriously, if you are going to do social media you are going to go to Facebook. This is no different than searches. Hell even Bing used google at one point to deliver search info.

This may not be the ideal way of doing things, but at least facebook is trying, even if they do have ulterior motives.

Links to educate yourself with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating

http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis ... 53948.html

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/featur ... now-659505

http://internet.org/press/internet-dot- ... e-in-india

You make it sound like this is the only possible solution. If that was true, sure. But it's not. If internet.org really believes in providing access (and not merely boosting Facebook's bottom line), why not subsidize slow access across the board? Or provide access with a very low data cap, letting the user decide how best to use that data? There are numerous alternatives besides establishing the precedent that corporations should decide what data you can and can't access.