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

 

[deletefromcommentswhere1=1]

vlam[/url]":1pwhzpbe]

jeffbax[/url]":1pwhzpbe]Travel over to India some time, and look at the people literally living in dirt with the most fucked up wealth disparity, caste system, and corruption I’ve seen in my life and try to say Facebook is somehow in the wrong here.

You're doing something wrong here, and it's called logic.

If Facebook wants to be philanthropic, they can provide MB/mo (or gb/mo) with some facebook apps pre-installed on devices. If they want to make a savvy business move, they can offer a plan that grants access to facebook without counting against data caps.

I doubt you will find people who think Facebook is in the wrong for offering internet access to people. You will, however, find people who thinks the double speak involved borders on outright lying and because of that, Facebook should be ridiculed for that outright lying (not for services provided).

It's a pretty straightforward concept.

Do you know how many average people don't understand the difference between a computer, a browser, a website, or facebook?

Using the term "internet" colloquially is not as dire as you are making it out to be. Conflating important NN issues with this very technical definition of a common term (internet) only serves to muddy the clarity many of us have been trying to spread about NN.

I see the headlines now: "NN supporters put end to free internet access to millions of World's poor".

 

[vlam]

deletefromcommentswhere1=1[/url]":1gx7j40a]

vlam[/url]":1gx7j40a]

jeffbax[/url]":1gx7j40a]Travel over to India some time, and look at the people literally living in dirt with the most fucked up wealth disparity, caste system, and corruption I’ve seen in my life and try to say Facebook is somehow in the wrong here.

You're doing something wrong here, and it's called logic.

If Facebook wants to be philanthropic, they can provide MB/mo (or gb/mo) with some facebook apps pre-installed on devices. If they want to make a savvy business move, they can offer a plan that grants access to facebook without counting against data caps.

I doubt you will find people who think Facebook is in the wrong for offering internet access to people. You will, however, find people who thinks the double speak involved borders on outright lying and because of that, Facebook should be ridiculed for that outright lying (not for services provided).

It's a pretty straightforward concept.

Do you know how many average people don't understand the difference between a computer, a browser, a website, or facebook?

Using the term "internet" colloquially is not as dire as you are making it out to be. Conflating important NN issues with this very technical definition of a common term (internet) only serves to muddy the clarity many of us have been trying to spread about NN.

I see the headlines now: "NN supporters put end to free internet access to millions of World's poor".

Have you visited Internet.org's website to see what their mission statement is?

Internet.org is a Facebook-led initiative bringing together technology leaders, nonprofits and local communities to connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access.

First statement from their "about" page. This makes it very clear that the project is about connection, not about expanding Facebook services. Next statement:

Only 1 out of every 3 people can go online.
Why aren’t more people connected?
Devices are too expensive.
Service plans are too expensive.
Mobile networks are few and far between.
Content isn’t available in the local language.
People aren't sure what value the internet will bring.
Power sources are limited or costly.
Networks can’t support large amounts of data.

Again, this is very heavily worded towards connectivity. Excerpts from the final statements (all lumped together):

Internet.org supporters will join forces to develop technology that decreases the cost of delivering data to people worldwide ... Partners will invest in tools and software to improve data compression capabilities and make data networks and services run more efficiently.

Yet again, it's about making the internet available, not making Facebook available. Facebook is saying these wonderful things about connecting people to the internet and they are getting partners to collaborate in this endeavor. It's a great endeavor; that is, until you realize that they are simply delivering a few free apps, not the internet.

As I stated before, get Facebook to sponsor 200,500,1000 mb of data per month for these plans, I'm all for it. Have pre-installed Facebook apps on devices given out if you want. But delivering tiered internet access? No. That is not philanthropic. That is a business decision. And Facebook is delivering a business decision while marketing it as a philanthropic action. This is the issue. To correct it, it's very simple: drop the philanthropic coating or make it truly philanthropic.

 

[bobthe]

Entegy[/url]":3jtfv0ep]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.

I agree with you to a point. The problem isn't the high-level idea, it's the details. If a government provided free access to non-commercial websites such as government websites that are deemed necessary for everyone to have access to, then that would probably be fine. For a private company to make the decision on who gets to be visible on this free, limited internet, that is simply not acceptable by any interpretation of net neutrality, not just "strict" interpretations.

 

[Takur]

This only mean one thing, there is a need for a clearer universal definition of Net Neutrality. For now, by definition FB's Internet.org seems to violate net neutrality but we know for a fact that that is not what net neutrality was supposed to prevent.

 

[deletefromcommentswhere1=1]

vlam[/url]":42wujcur]

deletefromcommentswhere1=1[/url]":42wujcur]

vlam[/url]":42wujcur]

jeffbax[/url]":42wujcur]Travel over to India some time, and look at the people literally living in dirt with the most fucked up wealth disparity, caste system, and corruption I’ve seen in my life and try to say Facebook is somehow in the wrong here.

You're doing something wrong here, and it's called logic.

If Facebook wants to be philanthropic, they can provide MB/mo (or gb/mo) with some facebook apps pre-installed on devices. If they want to make a savvy business move, they can offer a plan that grants access to facebook without counting against data caps.

I doubt you will find people who think Facebook is in the wrong for offering internet access to people. You will, however, find people who thinks the double speak involved borders on outright lying and because of that, Facebook should be ridiculed for that outright lying (not for services provided).

It's a pretty straightforward concept.

Do you know how many average people don't understand the difference between a computer, a browser, a website, or facebook?

Using the term "internet" colloquially is not as dire as you are making it out to be. Conflating important NN issues with this very technical definition of a common term (internet) only serves to muddy the clarity many of us have been trying to spread about NN.

I see the headlines now: "NN supporters put end to free internet access to millions of World's poor".

Have you visited Internet.org's website to see what their mission statement is?

Internet.org is a Facebook-led initiative bringing together technology leaders, nonprofits and local communities to connect the two thirds of the world that doesn’t have internet access.

First statement from their "about" page. This makes it very clear that the project is about connection, not about expanding Facebook services. Next statement:

Only 1 out of every 3 people can go online.
Why aren’t more people connected?
Devices are too expensive.
Service plans are too expensive.
Mobile networks are few and far between.
Content isn’t available in the local language.
People aren't sure what value the internet will bring.
Power sources are limited or costly.
Networks can’t support large amounts of data.

Again, this is very heavily worded towards connectivity. Excerpts from the final statements (all lumped together):

Internet.org supporters will join forces to develop technology that decreases the cost of delivering data to people worldwide ... Partners will invest in tools and software to improve data compression capabilities and make data networks and services run more efficiently.

Yet again, it's about making the internet available, not making Facebook available. Facebook is saying these wonderful things about connecting people to the internet and they are getting partners to collaborate in this endeavor. It's a great endeavor; that is, until you realize that they are simply delivering a few free apps, not the internet.

As I stated before, get Facebook to sponsor 200,500,1000 mb of data per month for these plans, I'm all for it. Have pre-installed Facebook apps on devices given out if you want. But delivering tiered internet access? No. That is not philanthropic. That is a business decision. And Facebook is delivering a business decision while marketing it as a philanthropic action. This is the issue. To correct it, it's very simple: drop the philanthropic coating or make it truly philanthropic.

And an inch to the right under projects they state that it is selected apps:

Providing Access to Free Basic Services
The Internet.org app provides free basic services in markets where internet access may be less affordable. It allows people to browse selected health, employment and local information websites without data charges. The app is currently available in parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia, and will continue to expand to more countries around the world.

They have a clear business interest, but it doesn't seem as hidden as you claim.

 

[vlam]

deletefromcommentswhere1=1[/url]":26xhcom1]And an inch to the right under projects they state that it is selected apps:

Providing Access to Free Basic Services
The Internet.org app provides free basic services in markets where internet access may be less affordable. It allows people to browse selected health, employment and local information websites without data charges. The app is currently available in parts of Africa, Latin America and Asia, and will continue to expand to more countries around the world.

They have a clear business interest, but it doesn't seem as hidden as you claim.

Perhaps you can point out how Facebook falls under "basic services" for me? Perhaps you can point out how favoring one website over another isn't very obviously a business decision? You'll also notice that there is absolutely no specifics in how they make this possible. It, again, sounds very philanthropic. They are providing access to basic services for those in need. But the reality is that it is still a business decision wherein a very large portion of those "basic services" are decided based on business agreements, not philanthropic ideals.

I assure you, Time Magazine isn't going to be giving away free access to their websites (in business speak: agreeing to subsidize the cost of the cell data used to access their site) unless they are getting benefit from it. And they get that very plainly in the way of eyeballs. More eyeballs = better numbers for advertisers = more monetization of that website = more $ in the pocket.

 

[georgeh2k]

We [Facebook] fully support net neutrality. We are not blocking any websites. Rather, if you are too poor to get Internet service, we will provide service for free and tell you which websites you can visit.

(sarcasm) What's the problem??? (/sarcasm)

 

[gmerrick]

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

 

[Katana314]

This is a bit troubling, because part of the goal of Net Neutrality is equal access; for instance, to underprivileged or poor customers, yet this definitely goes right against the principles. Zuckerberg claimed that they didn't want to "block certain other services" and yet I'm not sure how he can claim that.

What irks me more is the way the companies pulled out. Usually, these are people I would *not* expect to be closing business deals purely for moral reasons. I'd imagine that it's possible they discovered some part of the deal they didn't like, and then decided Net Neutrality was a better platform under which to throw Zuckerberg under a bus.

It's a sad day for the jobless / homeless people who might have had some utility from this, although I agree it would set a very dangerous precedent to other companies. Hopefully, at the least it provides a quotation sample later on the next time a telecom is complaining about data usage; "Well, you were willing to give unlimited Facebook data to 3 times your userbase for free."

 

[vlam]

gmerrick[/url]":si9ghhng]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?

How is basic internet access different than an app marketplace? Are you really asking this question? Did you really just pose this question then claim that OTHER people were making misleading arguments? How much of an intellectual disconnect did it take to string together these thoughts?

Apparently this "app store" concept is difficult for you, so let us simplify it. An app store is equivalent to a Walmart; the app store sells programs, walmart sells physical things. Net Neutrality doesn't say that Walmart must carry every single possible physical object that can be purchased (or in this case, that Apple must carry every single app submitted). Net Neutrality says that people should be able to just as easily make their way to Walmart as they can to Target or Home Depot (or insert store here). Or, the e-quivalent (har har), travel to www.google.com should be just as easy as travel to www.arstechnica.com. That is, companies, including ISPs, should not be able to put up a road block (slowing the data stream in transit) to block people from reaching one website vs. the other. Just as you can't legally fence off Target's parking lot or install a gate and charge access just to fuck with Target's customers, you cannot charge extra or slow down traffic to get to arstechnica.

What Facebook is doing is installing a gate around the entire roadway system, with the exception to the routes to get to their approved businesses, and forcing people to pay in order to get out of this enclosed system. Their paying for data to Facebook et al. but if you want to go elsewhere, you have to pony up the extra money. This is blatantly against even the loosest definitions of Net Neutrality.

Is this a problem? Not inherently. It's a business investment. But, as stated previously, it is exactly that: a business investment. It is not philanthropy, it is not Facebook doing a service to the world out of the kindness of their heart. They are making a purely business move by grabbing eyeballs for their pre-approved services. If Facebook wants to continue that, do away with the false advertising, the lying. Make it obvious that you are just doing business that happens to be beneficial to the extreme poor.

If Facebook truly wants this to be philanthropic, they need to drop the segregated online community and offer actual free access to the internet.

 

[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.

 

[Barnaclue]

First time poster here. There is some prior history to this story.

The entire thing started in 2012 with Airtel (largest cellular service provider in India) demanding a share in revenue from Google and Facebook) .

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... 662533.ece

When that didn't work they tried to charge extra for VoIP calls, but had to abandon it because the regulator stepped in.

http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/wh ... tel-639283

After Internet.org debuted Airtel started something similar called Airtel Zero. There was little resistance to Internet.org, but Airtel's previous history with NN ensured a huge negative publicity. Users started giving 1 star reviews to the mobile app of Flipkart, an Airtel Zero partner. Flipkart soon pulled out of Airtel Zero because of the backlash. That created a domino effect and companies started pulling out of Internet.org which lead to this story.

Here is the original Airtel Zero announcement

http://www.airtel.in/about-bharti/media ... +marketers

 

[PureR]

Barnaclue[/url]":2iqrlu2f]First time poster here. There is some prior history to this story.

snip

Yes, this. The pull-outs don't make sense without this context.

One small addition will help clarify the Indian scenario a little better. Flipkart apps were not downvoted because Flipkart was a part of the Airtel Zero plan. It started when the Flipkart CEO tweeted some stuff that were interpreted as downplaying the concerns people had over Airtel Zero. He compared Airtel Zero to Internet.org and claimed people had problem with the former because it was led by an Indian company as opposed to an American company like Facebook.

People were understandably pissed off and started mass negative reviews and boycotting Flipkart. Flipkart promptly reversed its stance and backed out of Airtel Zero.

I don't know how many of you know Flipkart. It's one of the - if not THE - largest online stores in India. It was one of the pioneers of modern e-commerce in the country, known of great service and has a huge loyal customer base. It is evenly matched with Amazon India right now.

Defections from ClearTrip or ToI have little to do with NN concerns with Internet.org itself. After seeing what happened to Flipkart, other companies got spooked and were justifiably apprehensive about participating in the whole free-to-browse bundle thingie.

 

[MasterCoder]

nehinks[/url]":yna7bb2u]I'm a little confused. How is this "app" any different from a browser that can only go to certain addresses? Obviously there is some sort of active data connection if they can visit the selected subset of sites. Is Internet.org paying the data carrier to allow a thin data pipe only to this app, but no others? If they already had access to a data connection, they wouldn't need this app.

As per my understanding, the app is not required to access the sites. It merely serves are a convenient catalogue of sites that can be accessed for free along with an embedded browser. The partner telecom operator provides access to the white-listed sites for free whether it is from the mobile browser or from app.

 

[Kosiani]

Anyone who thinks that is about altruism on Facebook's part has absolutely no knowledge of the markets concerned. I'm not a tech guy (it's a hobby and an interest not my profession), but international business and markets, that's my bread and butter.
Facebook sees a bunch of countries with very young populations who've grown up using services provided by local firms. Their mobile payments, social networks, even online gaming is provided in very cheap, data efficient ways and accessed via mobile devices, not desktops/laptops.
If you've ever been to India, Nigeria, Malaysia or wherever, how many mobile phones did you see? All those people with mobile phones are using them to consume internet services of some sort or another. Local companies are providing mobile payments, social media, networked gaming and countless other things in a barebones but extremely popular way.
Facebook now wants to go into those markets and say, "hey, why pay for the data to access those services, we'll provide rich content for free through our platform, and those of our approved partners". Money's tight in a lot of places, so people will drop the local companies (very very cheap still can't compete with totally free) and Facebook will gain a nice beachhead in some of the world's fastest growing and soon to be most lucrative markets.
If Facebook provides a small amount of data for people to access whichever services they prefer, well what's to stop people sticking with the networks and brands that they already know and trust, and that all their friends already use?
If Facebook execs genuinely, deep in their heart of hearts, think that they're helping anyone with this move, I will eat my car, tyres and all.

Tl;Dr Facebook is, accidentally or on purpose, doing something which will devastate the thriving mobile/internet/digital sector across parts of Africa and Asia.

PS: I wrote this on a train, so forgive the terrible syntax, grammar and typos. I am quite coherent sometimes.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

They are giving away devices (right?) but CERTAINLY they are providing FREE acces to 37 sites and services, like search, loans, local news and Wikipedia. So, these people who cannot afford Internet now get to use those services. That is nothing less than AMAZING for those people!!!!

" If you can't afford to pay for connectivity, it is always better to have some access and voice than none at all.". How can anyone be against this?

OF COURSE no one is jumping in to offer free unfettered acces to these and other people.
But at least Facebook did jump in and offers unrestricted acces to something. Quite a lot actually.
And of course they make damn certain FB is in the mix. Why not? THEY made it possible. I don't see Google donating tons of money to Internet.org, do I? So why would Google be included?

Of course 100% Internet is something to fight tooth and nail for when you PAY for it.
Here, no one pays.

Everyone who is against this is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Even way WORSE actually; people here with tons of cash and paid Internet are saying that it's a good thing millions will now once again be left with ZERO Internet.

God, I bet those poor persons wish they could still chat via FB with their family 2000 KM away (or in the US or wherever). Places they cannot afford to call, hardly write too!!!

Well, at least as long as yall can keep your eyes away from them and pretend to sit on a moral high horse all's right with the world!

 

[deletefromcommentswhere1=1]

If Facebook truly wants this to be philanthropic, they need to drop the segregated online community and offer actual free access to the internet.

Here is a novel idea: Start your own philanthropic organization and do the things you speak.

How many poor kids have you fed today? Provided "selected web access" to any poor people lately?

 

[caldepen]

It is a tough moral question. On one hand they are attempting to provide something that is needed, but it seems to be a bit loaded, no?

To me it is similar to the religious groups offering education and medical service provided the locals attend their church and believe in their deity.

In this case it is the Church of Facebook.

Christianity — 2.2 billion
Islam — 1.6 billion
Nonreligious — ≤1.1 billion
Hinduism — 1 billion
Church of Facebook — 500 million
Chinese traditional religion — 394 million
Buddhism — 376 million
Ethnic religions — 300 million
African traditional religions — 100 million

 

[mikesmith]

deletefromcommentswhere1=1[/url]":1t9oyt9d]

If Facebook truly wants this to be philanthropic, they need to drop the segregated online community and offer actual free access to the internet.

Here is a novel idea: Start your own philanthropic organization and do the things you speak of or STFU.

How many poor kids have you fed today? Provided "selected web access" to any poor people lately?

The final refuge of the corrupt capitalist. "Hey, person of modest means, why haven't you spent billions of dollars doing something actually philanthropic instead of complaining about how we try to twist the very notion of philanthropy to be more to our own benefit than those we 'help'."

 

[caldepen]

Here is a novel idea: Start your own philanthropic organization and do the things you speak of or STFU.

How many poor kids have you fed today? Provided "selected web access" to any poor people lately?

Congratulations! You have added absolutely zero to the conversation. Thank you. I am richer for having read that bit of wisdom...

Are we allowed to comment on global warming if we drive a vehicle, oh all knowing one?

 

[mikesmith]

caldepen[/url]":2xtkwh81]

Here is a novel idea: Start your own philanthropic organization and do the things you speak of or STFU.

How many poor kids have you fed today? Provided "selected web access" to any poor people lately?

Congratulations! You have added absolutely zero to the conversation. Thank you. I am richer for having read that bit of wisdom...

Are we allowed to comment on global warming if we drive a vehicle, oh all knowing one?

The funny part is that when normal people exercise what little power they actually do have, and try to effect positive changes through government guys like the above start screaming about how we can't do that, and only money siphoned out of people by big faceless corporations or our own shrinking living stipend can be used.

 

[Kosiani]

Kenjitsuka[/url]":25i3co7f]They are giving away devices (right?) but CERTAINLY they are providing FREE acces to 37 sites and services, like search, loans, local news and Wikipedia. So, these people who cannot afford Internet now get to use those services. That is nothing less than AMAZING for those people!!!!

" If you can't afford to pay for connectivity, it is always better to have some access and voice than none at all.". How can anyone be against this?

OF COURSE no one is jumping in to offer free unfettered acces to these and other people.
But at least Facebook did jump in and offers unrestricted acces to something. Quite a lot actually.
And of course they make damn certain FB is in the mix. Why not? THEY made it possible. I don't see Google donating tons of money to Internet.org, do I? So why would Google be included?

Of course 100% Internet is something to fight tooth and nail for when you PAY for it.
Here, no one pays.

Everyone who is against this is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Even way WORSE actually; people here with tons of cash and paid Internet are saying that it's a good thing millions will now once again be left with ZERO Internet.

God, I bet those poor persons wish they could still chat via FB with their family 2000 KM away (or in the US or wherever). Places they cannot afford to call, hardly write too!!!

Well, at least as long as yall can keep your eyes away from them and pretend to sit on a moral high horse all's right with the world!

In the world of economics, what Facebook is proposing, is called "dumping". It's never altruistic, beneficial or indeed anything but devastating to the target economy.
They're relying on the fact that most people in the West don't realise how ubiquitous mobile data usage is in these markets or how many home grown entrepreneurs are already providing internet/data services in a highly innovative fashion for relatively tiny amounts of money. Westerners also don't realise how huge the potential profits are if Facebook succeeds in driving the existing firms out of the markets that those firms developed.
Tell me, how does Facebook destroying existing businesses and driving tens of thousands out of work qualify as helping anyone?

 

[d4Njv]

Korpo[/url]":2v6tyqyf]
By limiting access to a list of sites, those footing the bill can guarantee that the costs won't become ludicrous and make it unsustainable long-term. Sure, they could add Twitter or Instasnapchat or whatever else, but what about YouTube? TPB? While Facebook may be cool with providing a hundred or two MB/mo of data to people, they might not be cool with providing several GB/mo.

Why would it cost more to access Google+ than FB? Why does it cost more to transfer data from Google.com (which apparently isn't on the approved list) than Bing.com? It doesn't. The only relevant factor when calculating the strain on the infrastructure is the size of the data transfer, not what the data actually is. It costs the same to ship 1MB of random 0's and 1's as it does to ship the same amount of ascii text. There is no technical justification for the artificial whitelist of sites if the aim is simply to control infrastructure costs.

 

[nibb]

fgoodwin[/url]":1txm2eq9]

mikesmith[/url]":1txm2eq9]

rick*d[/url]":1txm2eq9]

mikesmith[/url]":1txm2eq9]

Damouse[/url]":1txm2eq9]

mikesmith[/url]":1txm2eq9]There is no low that facebook could stoop to that would surprise me. When I think evil internet corporation, facebook has their logo next to the dictionary definition.

Damn those people, providing free, non-compulsory services! How dare they.

You seem confused. The consternation in the thread isn't regarding the service they're providing, it's regarding the PR dance they're engaged in, or at least it is in my case.

They seem pretty open about what they're offering, so I don't see the PR dance you see.

They claim they're offering access to the internet when in reality they appear to be offering access to a limited number of resources that align with their goals.

We can start splitting hairs about whether that is "internet access" or if it's just wireless access to selected resources which are also available through the internet, but I don't see the point. If you're a fan of what they're doing then more power to you.

I somehow doubt whenever we see Google's internet through balloons (or whatever they eventually use) launched it'll be limited in this way.

Perhaps. But google fiber is limited in a different way.

You can get "slow" (i.e., 5Mbps) service for "free" (after a connection charge), or you can get fast (i.e., 1 Gbps) service for $75 a month (or whatever the exact charge is). I can imagine in the near future, there will be certain video services (e.g., 4K, 3-D, whatever) that will exceed the capacity that a 5Mbps connection can support. At that point, google's free service effectively locks you out of that and similar services. If you are poor and cannot afford the 1G service, is GF violating NN because its free service won't allow you to use certain web-video services? I don't think so, but reasonable minds can differ.

I support what FB is doing and I don't see the NN violation. No one is required to participate. It is voluntary, from the participating websites to the users.

That has absolutely nothing to do with net neutrality. Every network has limits and speed limits (globally as a whole to your connection without discrimination to packets or resources) are absolutely fine because unlimited networks don't exists. Your fiber cable may be able to transport unlimited data at the speed of light, but the end devices on each point (routers, switches, modems), have physical limits.

A speed limit for only specific content or a specific website would be against net neutrality.

A speed limit in your internet access as a whole is absolutely normal unless you actually think unlimited drives, unlimited networks, unlimited routers, and all that magic stuff actually exists. If so, please tell us where we can buy an unlimited router for unlimited users with unlimited speed.

To resume. Every Internet connection will have limits. Even Google datacenters have a total speed limit.

 

[fgoodwin]

caldepen[/url]":cfmyes10]

I support what FB is doing and I don't see the NN violation. No one is required to participate. It is voluntary, from the participating websites to the users.

You don't see the NN violation!? What? A company that profits off of user data, giving free access to only their site (and not competitors), to potentially millions of new users?

My Goodness, if this isn't a violation, under what circumstances would one exist?

OK, so it's better for poor people to have no Internet access, than to have limited (but free) Internet access, just to satisfy a First World Principle? Well, that's mighty kind of you, thanx.

 

[fgoodwin]

vlam[/url]":3o97665f]

jeffbax[/url]":3o97665f]Travel over to India some time, and look at the people literally living in dirt with the most fucked up wealth disparity, caste system, and corruption I’ve seen in my life and try to say Facebook is somehow in the wrong here.

You're doing something wrong here, and it's called logic.

If Facebook wants to be philanthropic, they can provide MB/mo (or gb/mo) with some facebook apps pre-installed on devices. If they want to make a savvy business move, they can offer a plan that grants access to facebook without counting against data caps.

I doubt you will find people who think Facebook is in the wrong for offering internet access to people. You will, however, find people who thinks the double speak involved borders on outright lying and because of that, Facebook should be ridiculed for that outright lying (not for services provided).

It's a pretty straightforward concept.

We are users of Facebook, but not owners of FB. You can suggest marketing plans etc., but as non-owners, we have zero authority to tell them how to do things.

 

[vlam]

fgoodwin[/url]":3djmonys]

vlam[/url]":3djmonys]

jeffbax[/url]":3djmonys]Travel over to India some time, and look at the people literally living in dirt with the most fucked up wealth disparity, caste system, and corruption I’ve seen in my life and try to say Facebook is somehow in the wrong here.

You're doing something wrong here, and it's called logic.

If Facebook wants to be philanthropic, they can provide MB/mo (or gb/mo) with some facebook apps pre-installed on devices. If they want to make a savvy business move, they can offer a plan that grants access to facebook without counting against data caps.

I doubt you will find people who think Facebook is in the wrong for offering internet access to people. You will, however, find people who thinks the double speak involved borders on outright lying and because of that, Facebook should be ridiculed for that outright lying (not for services provided).

It's a pretty straightforward concept.

We are users of Facebook, but not owners of FB. You can suggest marketing plans etc., but as non-owners, we have zero authority to tell them how to do things.

Not only is this an incredibly pointless post, but there's this amazing thing called a legal system. Someone with enough passion (and $ for attorney's fees) could certainly try suing Facebook over this. But, again, pointless post. This is a discussion. I am completely free to express my opinion. Being unable to act on that opinion is not necessary to contribute.

Also, YOU are a user of Facebook. Not only does that place blow an astronomical amount of dick, but it's run by pure assholes (or retards, sometimes it's hard to differentiate).

deletefromcommentswhere1=1[/url]":3djmonys]

If Facebook truly wants this to be philanthropic, they need to drop the segregated online community and offer actual free access to the internet.

Here is a novel idea: Start your own philanthropic organization and do the things you speak.

How many poor kids have you fed today? Provided "selected web access" to any poor people lately?

Here's a novel idea: give me billions of dollars and I'll gladly do much better than Facebook.

Or, since this is apparently enough to completely counter a comment: how many poor kids have you fed today? How many poor people have you provided "selected web access" to? Nobody? Guess your comment is null.

 

[fgoodwin]

vlam[/url]":25vmm1m7]

fgoodwin[/url]":25vmm1m7]

vlam[/url]":25vmm1m7]

jeffbax[/url]":25vmm1m7]Travel over to India some time, and look at the people literally living in dirt with the most fucked up wealth disparity, caste system, and corruption I’ve seen in my life and try to say Facebook is somehow in the wrong here.

You're doing something wrong here, and it's called logic.

If Facebook wants to be philanthropic, they can provide MB/mo (or gb/mo) with some facebook apps pre-installed on devices. If they want to make a savvy business move, they can offer a plan that grants access to facebook without counting against data caps.

I doubt you will find people who think Facebook is in the wrong for offering internet access to people. You will, however, find people who thinks the double speak involved borders on outright lying and because of that, Facebook should be ridiculed for that outright lying (not for services provided).

It's a pretty straightforward concept.

We are users of Facebook, but not owners of FB. You can suggest marketing plans etc., but as non-owners, we have zero authority to tell them how to do things.

Not only is this an incredibly pointless post, but there's this amazing thing called a legal system. Someone with enough passion (and $ for attorney's fees) could certainly try suing Facebook over this. But, again, pointless post. This is a discussion. I am completely free to express my opinion. Being unable to act on that opinion is not necessary to contribute.

My apologies.

You never claimed the right to direct FB. You only expressed your opinion, and I went off on that. Yes, you certainly have a right to express your opinion.

Mea culpa

Also, YOU are a user of Facebook. Not only does that place blow an astronomical amount of dick, but it's run by pure assholes (or retards, sometimes it's hard to differentiate).

deletefromcommentswhere1=1[/url]":25vmm1m7]

If Facebook truly wants this to be philanthropic, they need to drop the segregated online community and offer actual free access to the internet.

Here is a novel idea: Start your own philanthropic organization and do the things you speak.

How many poor kids have you fed today? Provided "selected web access" to any poor people lately?

Here's a novel idea: give me billions of dollars and I'll gladly do much better than Facebook.

Or, since this is apparently enough to completely counter a comment: how many poor kids have you fed today? How many poor people have you provided "selected web access" to? Nobody? Guess your comment is null.

 

[caldepen]

OK, so it's better for poor people to have no Internet access, than to have limited (but free) Internet access, just to satisfy a First World Principle? Well, that's mighty kind of you, thanx.

I am going to give your kid free ice-cream, but I am going to punch him on the shoulder really hard. What are you complaining about? It is free!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[fgoodwin]

caldepen[/url]":39q1tqum]

OK, so it's better for poor people to have no Internet access, than to have limited (but free) Internet access, just to satisfy a First World Principle? Well, that's mighty kind of you, thanx.

I am going to give your kid free ice-cream, but I am going to punch him on the shoulder really hard. What are you complaining about? It is free!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're not seriously saying those people have no right to make their own decisions? And that only the elites in the West are smart enough to decide?

 

[Kosiani]

fgoodwin[/url]":ax6yuj90]

caldepen[/url]":ax6yuj90]

OK, so it's better for poor people to have no Internet access, than to have limited (but free) Internet access, just to satisfy a First World Principle? Well, that's mighty kind of you, thanx.

I am going to give your kid free ice-cream, but I am going to punch him on the shoulder really hard. What are you complaining about? It is free!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're not seriously saying those people have no right to make their own decisions? And that only the elites in the West are smart enough to decide?

You seem oblivious to what Facebook is actually trying to do and what the people "over there" really think about it. Net Neutrality is important because it prevents huge established firms from muscling smaller/newer players out of the market. In this case, the smaller players are home grown African and Asian tech firms and the huge firm trying to squash them is Facebook. How does it help Africans and Asians to have a Western giant squash their indigenous firms and put their entrepreneurs and tech workers out of a job?

 

[Thomas Chang]

how you think Facebook’s Internet.org sees defections over alleged harm to net neutrality ?

I'm sure the poor people who currently enjoy free access to health resources, job listings, etc.
Im really sure about Indian companies detail their opposition.


Smith,
Agent <a href="http://airpaz.com/"> airpaz </a>