Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in the world with each other.<p>However, I believe he is also sincere in thinking that Facebook is the best and perhaps only platform by which this is possible. In this he is sincerely mistaken.<p>I feel sure he doesn't think of it as a land grab, even privately. But he is looking from the inside out. If he wants to be seen as the Great Connector, he needs to be pouring money into local infrastructure, subsidizing open source routing software, lobbying worldwide against entrenched bureaucracy and corporate obstructionism. They're doing some of that, sure, but Free Basics is heavy handed and no one trusts Facebook to begin with - it's not strange to think of it as a sort of modern digital imperialist.
I like Eben Moglen's and Mishi Choudhary's take on this situation:<p><pre><code> Faced with the dawning public recognition that this
so-called philanthropy is nothing but an attempt to buy
the de-anonymised packets of the Indian poor at a bulk
rate, breaking their security in the process of
destroying their privacy, Facebook has no alternative
but to change the subject.
</code></pre>
<a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly-carries-white-mans-burden-poor-indians-data-packets/" rel="nofollow">http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly...</a>
Few points here:<p>1. It's not really internet. It's a set of 100 sites that includes a real estate portal and a personal blog. If you are talking about connecting the unconnected with essential services, why have these on your list? On the other hand, chennairains.org, a website that helped people during extreme floods in chennai was not on that list.<p>2. There is no proof that "free basics" actually improves internet connectivity. In fact, Facebook's telecom partner (Reliance Comm) advertises it as a way to save money for surfing on facebook and whatsapp.<p>3. None of the traffic must be encrypted<p>4. All traffic flows through facebook's servers<p>5. It's not an open platform. Facebook and Telcos reserve the right to accept or deny websites on "Free Basics"<p>The above points make it clear that "free internet" is a facade and it's more of a walled garden that makes facebook the gatekeeper. Another Telco launched something similar a few months ago and was scrapped because it violated net neutrality.<p>Arguments that "free basics" is required for internet to grow in India are ridiculous. India added _52 Million_ internet users in the first six months of 2015 (<a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178659_1_user-base-iamai-internet-and-mobile-association" rel="nofollow">http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news...</a>)
There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note that no users were cited in the article.<p>I understand not liking Facebook’s motives, that’s fine. Perhaps we can defer to the preferences of users here, who can choose to accept those motives or not, and to decide if the trade-off is an acceptable one. If we believe that they are unqualified to make this choice, one should explain that position.<p>Instead, the critics are imposing their preference on the users here, who are poor and (in this article) unheard. Can we please see an article where such people are quoted, and perhaps some numbers about usage, revealing their empirical preferences?
I'm personally disappointed by the comments in this article and others, specifically from people here in the Western world, that portray the fight by the internet activists as a fight against internet access to the poor. No one would make arguments like that here. Almost everyone rallied behind Net-Neutrality. Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can get something of value in return? "beggars cannot be choosers"? Come on - no one is begging for internet.
Data infrastructure should be controlled by the government only.<p>Why? Well, imagine that every transport company had to support their own road network... Alternatively, imagine that one company controlled the roads, creating effectively a controlled market nested inside a free market.
For the people arguing that rich people are preventing the poor from getting internet access, please read about the Nestlé baby formula scandal. This is exactly the same thing.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue</a>
The content creators need to be separate from the content distributers. This way there is lower incentive for either to perform manipulative actions. With Facebook providing the content and the service at a low price (free in this case) they are setting up a model where the poor are funneled into there definition of applicable content. Sure some people upgrade, it is there argument, but at what cost. If Facebook really is trying to improve the world, they they should invest in a sustainable infrastructure for the poor with full access to the internet. Is it going to piss of people who pay for it, yes, but does it empower the poor to have tools they didn't have before and give everyone an opportunity to improve these regions, yes it does. The cynic in me though thinks its just gonna create a generation of poor people addicted to Facebook and online video. I just spent 4 months living in Shenzhen China and man are the shopkeepers addicted to playing video games and watching soap operas on there computers.Thats all they do.... all day. The internet is really only a tool for businesses and motivated individuals, for the rest its just another way to be manipulated.
Its important to note that WhatsApp is not part of Internet.org. The telecom providers in India are not happy with messaging apps as they are cutting into their text messaging revenues. And they want to charge people for WhatsApp access (its already happening). With Facebook's help they get to create a tiered internet under the guise of "helping the poor".
Free internet is basically a deal that FB did with some carriers to provide some of their resources in exchange for some kick ass promises and possibly funds.<p>The easy way to do this for ANY government would be to force all wireless carriers to provide 200 MB free internet to all citizens in exchange for license to broadcast.<p>This happened once in Poland for example when government provided frequencies in exchange of forcing the company to provide unlimited, but slow internet to all citizens through mobiles.
What humors me most is that no one is up in arms against Reliance. On top of it, no one is suggesting Reliance whose owner is a billionaire long before Zukerberg was, to give free interwebs to his fellow Indians.<p>India has 80% adults with no access to Interwebs, how are you going to solve this problem in next 5 years?<p>*Do not tell me INR 20 dataplan, I know its there and I would not wish it on my worst enemy.
The fb's attempt to control the internet in third world country brings this quote to mind...<p><pre><code> When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that
name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy,
Planet Starbucks.
</code></pre>
In this day and age, Internet should be a utility, with government subsidizing it if required while preventing _walled gardens_.
It's unbecoming of a large corporation that "wants to work for connecting people" to make statements like these against net neutrality advocates :<p>"Facebook has been urging users to sign a petition that claims that “a small, vocal group of critics… demand that people pay equally to access all Internet services, even if that means one billion people can’t afford to access any services,” and that “unless you take action now, India could lose access to free basic Internet services, delaying progress towards digital equality for all Indians."<p>Facebook has resorted to slander when they can't give transparent answers to the issues raised against Free Basics.<p>Quote Source : <a href="https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-net-neutrality-in-india/" rel="nofollow">https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-...</a>
AOL should get in on this. They could put all of those old CDs to good use.<p>Free internet program from the late 90's:
"1000 hours free! Sign on today!" :)
> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators it works with.<p>How does that even work? Why would the telecoms agree to pay the bill on behalf of Facebook? Surely there must be some money from Facebook back to the telecom, to make it worthwhile for them.<p>Edit:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook_Zero</a><p><a href="http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-changing-hands/" rel="nofollow">http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-...</a>
Too all the oh-India-is-so-poor-needs-charity-for-everything people out there, digest this: India has 1bn live mobile phone connections (live month on month and not just issued). It has been done by cut throat competition between private phone players, such as airtel, vodafone, reliance, tata among others, and supportive government measures such a giving spectrum for cheap. No verizon needed to come here with their charity plate, giving away restricted free phone connections.
Free Basics, if legalized, sets a precedent for ISPs to offer zero-rated plans which affects everyone. You don't want a huge market with more than half a billion users (by 2020) where zero-rated plans are commonplace. Everyone loses out in such a situation except the ISPs. Netflix was just launched in India, and Reliance (the carrier that supports Free Basics) has a similar offering called Bigflix, which they can zero-rate to eliminate Netflix. Airtel, another huge operator can zero-rate their messaging application Hike to eliminate WhatsApp/Snapchat. Their music offering can eliminate Spotify (if they do come to India) or any other music streaming startup. Flipkart, an e-commerce player can eliminate every other niche e-commerce startups in India by zero-rating their services, which they tried last year.<p>Sadly, all the campaigns are focused on Facebook/Zuckerberg and people calling for a ban on Free Basics when they should actually be campaigning against zero-rating.<p>Free Basics might be a great gateway drug to the internet, but what good is it if the internet as we know today will not exist when the poor decide to get a "complete" internet connection?
I don't understand why this is restricted to Facebook. If the telco is providing no-cost data to poor consumers, why does it matter which websites they go to? That's the suspicious thing about this, not the simple fact that Facebook is involved.
First of all, this is not "free internet" they are trying to provide.
Second point - if they were trying to genuinely provide a free internet service, nothing is stoping them from doing it without all the legalise TOS that surrounds it at the moment.
Third point - Free 200MB or 500MB data per month for each person is the best way to do it(no video streaming/big files download), if "helping" was the actual intention. If the only services that is accessible through it will be the ones approved by facebook, stop calling it "free internet".<p>Also the cost of providing the service is on the ISP/carrier that FB ties up with.<p>The key factor that is glossed over is:<p>> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the mobile-telecoms operators.<p>I was all for facebook basics when I thought Facebook was paying for poor people to access at least some restricted internet access. But its actually the operators that are paying for this. Giving away free access to some sites in a walled garden, hoping those same users will pay to access other sites at some points.<p>So Facebook is just a beneficiary in all of this. Getting new users at no cost. Taking the credit for it, while operators are actually paying the bills.
The internet is difficult to describe to someone who has no experience with it. It's like "There's this flibity divit called Google that lets you search for hurgfbr and find veruhryhr written by people you like." If someone has no way to conceptually anchor terms like "search engine", "web pages" or "blogs" then it will be difficult for them to understand what's being said, much less know what they're missing out on.<p>With bare minimum exposure to the ideas via Free Basics, people will be able to imagine what else is out there. It becomes "Google is like when you type words into the search box on facebook, except you get more results and they're more relevant." I would imagine that once exposed to even a limited version of the internet, people will quickly demand unrestricted access from their local government. But they have to know what they don't have before they can ask for it.<p>If this is all an Evil Plan by Mark Zuckerberg to set up an internet monopoly in India, then it's a very stupid plan. Facebook is a communication platform. People will use it to communicate with people who have normal internet, and will no doubt hear about all the things that they don't have access to. It's only a matter of time before "Free Basics" becomes "Low Cost Government Internet Access For All".<p>For many people from my generation, AOL was the internet. It was all we knew. But eventually we figured out that there was more out there, and the people of India are capable of doing that as well. There are hackers in every culture, at every social strata. If you give them an inch, they'll turn it into a mile or more. Free Basics isn't perfect, but for many people it's better than nothing.
Free basic internet may include Google search, Wikipedia, email of choice, access to all pages that Google suggests in first two pages. But I think Facebook should not be part of basic internet.
"And if Free Basics proved popular there would be little to stop India’s big media and e-commerce groups from creating rival offerings, to drive first-time surfers towards their web offerings."<p>And that's <i>precisely</i> the problem. Most advocates for Net Neutrality are afraid of exactly this: the death of the free and open internet for those who can't afford it, replaced by some fragmented collection of services offered in a bundle package like some Cable Television plan.
People would actually benefit from the free (limited) internet. In fact most people are also ok if Facebook gets something back in return. It would have definitely helped if it was clearly stated as a commercial program and not an altruistic venture.
Even though it's obviously a land grab... no one other than massive corporations is capable or willing to provide this. I don't like it either, but that's how corporatocracy works. Might as well fight against gravity.
Pretty heavily editorialized headline, not at all in the economists style. Original title:<p>Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India
I wonder it it would be feasible to tunnel the "real internet" through Facebook using (for example) their chat client (you'd need something on the other end to make the connection). Like tunneling a VPN over DNS queries. That would be a clever work-around.