
Google joins Facebook in support of Zero Rating in India - bugsmasher
http://www.medianama.com/2015/08/223-google-iamai-net-neutrality-india/
======
RodericDay
I don't understand why we are using incomprehensible-without-supplemental-
material terms like "Zero Rating" and "Net Neutrality" when discussing these
matters. It's like they were crafted with the explicit purpose of confusing
laymen, like someone challenged you to a game of chance, gave you loaded dice,
and you just went with it.

~~~
johansch
Suggest some better terms?

~~~
Cakez0r
"toll free" would be clearer than "zero rated". Net neutrality is trickier
though...

~~~
jjoonathan
If you're on the Net Neutrality side then "toll free" obscures the downside
even more thoroughly than "zero rated". So it's clearer... if you're facebook
:)

------
smhenderson
Having skimmed the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article on Zero Rating[1] I
immediately knew what it was about but I'd never heard it called that before.
Think T-Mobile's free music[2] service if you live in the US.

Once again I think this is going to be a hard one. If you understand the
devilish details under the surface and it's effects on Net Neutrality you can
make an informed decision to oppose this. But it's hard to convince the
general public that free is a "bad thing". I think India's Department of
Telecom is going to have a tough PR battle on it's hands.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-
rating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating) [2]
[http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-sets-your-
music-f...](http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/news/t-mobile-sets-your-music-
free.htm)

~~~
nileshtrivedi
Imagine if Orkut was zero-rated, back when Facebook started. Or if Yahoo was
zero-rated when Google started. Internet giants are turning their back on
users, now that they have money.

~~~
mratzloff
It's pretty standard practice for any company that becomes suffiently large to
increase barriers to entry (after previously championing low barriers to entry
when it suited them). Not saying it's good for users, but the incentives for
corporations are clear.

~~~
doki_pen
Yes, the question is would you rather put people in office who support those
barriers and benefit the few, or people who represent the majority? I'm not
surprised that corporations behave this way, and it's very important that it's
publicized so the populace can defend it's own interests. Just because it's
not surprising doesn't mean we shouldn't publicize it.

------
Sven7
The Indian Telecom landscape has no resemblance to the US or Europe. There is
no AT&T/Comcast monopoly. Why? Because the regulator has done a pretty decent
job ensuring access to voice and data stays cheap through competition.

As far as I know, in all the big cities you can choose between 7-8 major
provider's. No contract. Dirt cheap access. Also worth mentioning is the
existence of a reasonably large public sector ISP, with more or less a state
mandate to loose money on providing access.

In such a competitive landscape how do the net neutrality arguments of the
west apply? Lot of misinformed outrage imho.

~~~
oneJob
monopoly-regulation and net-neutrality are two unconnected issues. you can
have a monopoly that does/does-not respect net-neutrality; you can also have a
competitive market place where all members respect/do-not-respect net-
neutrality.

net-neutrality is not about ensuring broad access or low pricing, whether
accomplished by regulation or the free market. net-neutrality is about
ensuring equality of access and equality of speech, accomplished by preventing
those who control the pipes to pick and choose the priority of what is going
through the pipes.

~~~
crdoconnor
>monopoly-regulation and net-neutrality are two unconnected issues.

Not really. Competition can be relied upon to maintain net neutrality. It's
what consumers will opt for when given a choice.

Only in monopolies and oligopolies can really get away with violating it
(which is why the legislation is necessary in America).

~~~
nitrogen
_Not really. Competition can be relied upon to maintain net neutrality. It 's
what consumers will opt for when given a choice._

Not in the face of anticompetitive schemes like "zero-rating" promoted web
sites.

------
anilgulecha
Google saw the PR fallout from Facebook's public stance, and decided it would
be better to silently lobby. I hope this has some publicity, and they are
forced to publicly take a stand in support of neutral pipes.

------
plinkplonk
I know Google jumped the shark on the "Don't be evil" concept long ago.

Still, (as an Indian living in India) I am very disappointed at Google selling
out like this

~~~
abandonliberty
How is supporting net neutrality selling out?

~~~
smhenderson
Google is not supporting net neutrality. Zero Rating is a tool to encourage
the opposite of net neutrality. They are lobbying the Indian Government to
keep any mention of Zero Rating out of new regulations so they can keep open
the idea of promoting fast lanes and free data, as long as people choose
Google's content over those who don't offer Zero Rating on their products. I
guess because in the end it's the ad money they want over any subscription
fees they might collect.

------
hcccc
It's important to remember that the target group is the poorest section of the
population who have not previous had access to the internet. While it can
sound noble and benevolent in theory it is a clear power move.

In essence what they are doing is aggressively trying to beat the concept and
affordances of decentralised networks in penetrating the physical
infrastructure, government policy, telecom bureaucracy, and public
consciousness.

The third-world poor, as the most exploited class, is one of the last
strongholds of meaningful resistance to capitalism. By actively subverting
decentralised models and installing in their place, both conceptually and
physically, a centralised and hierarchical vision of connectivity they secure
the advancement of "surveillance capitalism" and further consolidate their
power as transcending nation states.

The appropriation of the concept of internet as pushed by Google and Facebook
has already penetrated very far.. according to a recent poll.. "65% of
Nigerians, and 61% of Indonesians agree with the statement that "Facebook is
the Internet" compared with only 5% in the US
([http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-
ide...](http://qz.com/333313/milliions-of-facebook-users-have-no-idea-theyre-
using-the-internet/)).

The speed at which this transformation is happening means the critical public
discourse around these issues is dangerously underdeveloped.

------
nphyte
what's the difference between access to "basic internet" and "internet"?

~~~
thescriptkiddie
If Google and Facebook get their way, the world's poor will get subsidized
"basic internet" that only delivers sponsored content. Only the competitively
wealthy will be able to pay for the real internet and break out of the walled
garden. This is opposed to giving everybody access to the same internet and
having governments/charity subsidize the cost for those who can't afford it.
Do we really want to create second class netizens?

~~~
reagency
You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for
Internet, before they can get access to Internet?

Or that some arbitrary third party should be forced to subsidize their
Internet access?

Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet
not providing such themselves?

~~~
Lawtonfogle
It is like Nestle handing out free formula to new mothers. Nothing wrong with
that, right...

~~~
Lawtonfogle
Just so we are clear, everyone is aware of the case of Nestle freely giving
enough of the formula to new mothers to use so that by the time they ran out
their natural production of milk had declined to be insufficient to feed the
baby. This combined with many mothers being too poor to either afford the
formula or clean water to mix the formula with resulted in babies dying. A
pretty clear example of when giving something out for free is a horrible
thing.

[http://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-
scanda...](http://www.businessinsider.com/nestles-infant-formula-
scandal-2012-6?op=1)

