
Facebook’s “Save Free Basics in India” Campaign Provokes Controversy - potench
http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/17/save-free-basics/
======
pandatigox
I think what pissed me off the most was Facebook's reaction to net neutrality.
Instead of attempting to reflect and revise their free Internet service so it
can better serve the masses, it just attempts to slander and point fingers at
net neutrality advocates. Like "ooooh no! We ain't the problem for your not
having "free" Internet, it's those guys those over there arguing that free
access to all of Internet is better than a free access to the websites we
limit you to!" Seriously Facebook, you're not fooling anyone here. As if you
haven't had enough fun screwing developed countries, now you have to go pick
on the poor too?

~~~
mattlutze
It's almost beautifully murky that the folks using the app would come to think
that what is offered to them _is_ the Internet. This is a distilled example of
what heavy ISP control of the Internet could look like.

Getting service to disadvantaged or destitute people is great. But it's so
very important that Google, Facebook, Apple, Comcast, Verizon, TWC, whomever
are constrained from wanton good-will Trojan horses. The tenor and breadth
with which Facebook has entered their heavy-handed lot simply illustrates that
sometimes, there's nothing new under the sun.

TRAI taking a very thorough, critical look at Free Basics is a good thing for
the people of India.

~~~
mtgx
Indeed. China would _love it_ if they could start over and just offer a "Free
Basics" version of the "Internet" to its billion citizens. It would make
censorship easier by orders and orders of magnitude (basically as easy to
censor as TV is over there).

------
zinghaboi
Lets look at two extremes.

->India without net neutrality: Everyone has free Facebook. "Free basics" didn't help in advancing electrification of the country but it did provide free facebook/wikipedia to everyone. So 30% of the country is still in dark. But 50% of the rest of India doesn't pay for internet and it thinks there is no need to because that is ALL the internet has to offer. A young founder launches a new education app to teach reading/writing to poor villagers. But she first needs to get a 'license' from facebook. Facebook doesn't think it is a good idea for its users to 'waste' time on other services instead of watching ads on FB, so it declines. Startups don't receive as much funding because of the 'licensing' issues and there aren't as many Indian tech companies as there could've been. News is censored by Facebook and Facebook can now influence Indian politics. 100,000 fewer jobs were created because the Indian tech scene didn't take off.

->India with net neutrality: 50% of the country cannot pay for internet. They still don't have access to internet. They use other forms of communication to get their daily, unfiltered news. The startup scene in India is growing at its natural pace and the culture has become more innovative. In another 10-15 everyone will have internet. 100's of thousands of poor were lifted out of poverty due to tech jobs in India.

One is a short term 'fix' which ruins the future. Another is a little bit
harder but provides for a better future.

~~~
l1feh4ck
The whole Business Model build up on the freebases cannot work if they provide
free access to the whole internet. Considering that we are talking about
Facebook here. Things could go very wrong once it is implemented. It should be
killed without second thought.

------
devnonymous
This is going very quickly from

    
    
      > Nothing to worry about, I trust the people in charge
      > to do the right thing, after all they did show better
      > judgement in the past
    

to

    
    
      > We hope the people in charge know what they are doing
    

The worst part is this (Narendra Modi/BJP led) government is enjoying popular
support these days due to the progressive steps that they have taken as far as
public spending on development and infrastructure are concerned. These appear
to be well thought out and are pro-development (albeit might also be involved
in cronyism)

However, in this one instance the government seems to think that Facebook's
Free Basics thing is a 'Good Thing'. I hope better sense prevails !

~~~
lgp171188
The original TRAI paper for this Net Neutrality discussion looked exactly like
if it had been written by someone from the telcos. This repeated "call for
feedback" attempts made by TRAI seems to be a ploy to ignore the 1.5 M+
responses supporting net neutrality that they had received during the April
consultation.

If Facebook can (ab)use their monopoly and userbase to trick people into
supporting Free Basics, just imagine what they will do when they monopolize
access to Internet in India for most of the people? Scary!

------
t3ra
Crusaders of net neutrality you can help us by emailing the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI) on this issue. See savetheinternet.in

------
l1feh4ck
Keeping marketing or financial problems aside. What are the technical
difficulties that Facebook would face when providing access to the whole web
rather that some specific website?

Data from Facebook or Wikipedia is same as the data from any other website.
They will need the same infrastructure. What am I missing here?

~~~
firasd
I think network operators around the world are receptive to ‘zero-​rating’
certain websites (which is all Free Basics really is) whereas making free data
available with a usage cap or speed cap would be something new. Facebook is
not actually providing access or building infrastructure (under this program),
they are teaming up with ISPs.

~~~
l1feh4ck
Some one have to pay the ISP for the service they are providing. Suppose that
Facebook is providing access to all websites in free basics. Where is the
business model in that. How can Facebook profit from that? May be what
Facebook is saying is right: “We are not against net neutrality”, but there is
no way on earth that they could provide such service for free.

What are they suppose to do? Give people free access to whole web assuming
that out of their good heart they will use Facebook? Note: I am not supporting
Facebook.

~~~
firasd
If internet.org is about Free Facebook, they should at least drop the veneer
of philanthropy. Argue in favor of zero-rating with everyone else who wants to
cut these deals.

In the end such exceptions will be a disaster for the tech industry: if
Netflix is available without data charges why would you ever use a competitor?
If you can do Bing searches for free why would you Google and pay more? Plus
it's a regulatory issue (mobile networks are licensed to provide internet, not
specific services) and potentially a consumer-protection/anti-trust issue.

------
horsecaptin
Facebook provides free access to Facebook / Wikipedia etc... then customers
that have no access win because they get access and along with it, some pretty
nifty tools to gain information and share news with their friends and family.

On the other hand, if Facebook doesn't provide free internet, then all those
people stay in the dark.

What does net neutrality have to do with this? It's not those people are
paying for an unequal service. It's FREE!

~~~
captn3m0
This is the "some internet access is better than none" argument. However, the
end result is

\- facebook controlling internet access for those people

\- Zero Rating creates an imbalance in the ecosystem, favoring websites and
services that can get into the walled garden

\- facebook gets to mine your usage data.

There are better ways of improving internet access, such as :

\- The Mozilla Foundation runs a program with Grameenphone, where users get
free data in exchange for watching an advertisement.

\- The Mozilla Foundation also runs a program with Orange in Africa, where
those who purchase a $37 handset get 500 MB of free data.

\- There are data cashback schemes such as Gigato offer data for free, for
surfing some sites. Airtel has launched night plans, which give data as a
cashback upon usage of the Internet between midnight and 6am, helping bring
cost of access down.

These things work, without breaking net neutrality. See [0] for a more
thorough discussion of these arguments.

[0]: [http://blog.savetheinternet.in/response-to-facebook-
townhall...](http://blog.savetheinternet.in/response-to-facebook-townhall/)

~~~
magic_man
Did you never use these free AOL CDs when you were a kid. Yes they did provide
access to the entire internet, but it was designed to get people to use AOL. I
am not going to complain about free internet even if it is walled.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
I'd rather not have Western companies filter what Indians can and cannot have
under the assumption that India is too poor or backwards to get its shit done.

~~~
Jonanin
That isn't anyone's assumption. These people are too underprivileged to know
or care about your "walled gardens" and "ecosystems". It's supposed to be a
good enough intermediate step to drastically improve the poor's access to
information.

Yes, it's good for Facebook, obviously, but this is not a zero sum game. The
choice to use any better competing service that comes along will always exist.
No one else is willing to front the hundreds of millions with little to no
returns for 20+ years required, though.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
No, this is precisely digital imperialism. Being underprivileged does NOT mean
that these people should not have privacy and security.

Currently, for lots of phones still used in India, using internet.org means NO
HTTPS. So FB (and any other eavesdropping party) gets to snoop on your data
and browsing habits. It's not about a walled garden, it's about basic human
rights.

The last time the West tried to save backwards people, they stole and murdered
and raped their way to wealth. We don't need any more generosity from the
West.

------
dangerpowpow
Fucking scum. How can any competition compete with free facebook? Free basics
my ass

~~~
icebraining
_How can any competition compete with free facebook?_

By providing access to the rest of the web?

------
devnonymous
If Facebook really had good intentions they would use the money they spend on
these 'marketing campaigns' towards actually providing free internet access.
These guys are disgusting. For once I hope the quirky and unpredictable Indian
legal system actually turns on the crazy full blast and summons Mark
Zuckerberg himself to answer ...

</venting>

------
r3bl
I used that message box to contact TRAI, but I don't think that my message is
exactly what Facebook expected.

> Hey TRAI, you're doing an awesome job!

> Net neutrality is awesome! Don't let shithead companies like Facebook from
> stop you from your goal. You're doing a good job!

~~~
captn3m0
FB won't be reporting each individual message to TRAI, I think. They'll just
submit a few picks, and give out the aggregate number of people who submitted
the form.

~~~
r3bl
I'm pretty sure that nobody's going to read every message that gets submitted
through that form (because there'll be thousands of them, if not millions),
but still, I felt so outraged when I have read the text beneath the form that
I had to type what I had in mind.

------
Grue3
Privileged people with Internet complaining that people without Internet
access get free access to (some part of) the Internet. What are _you_ doing to
provide free Internet access to the poor?

~~~
shubhamjain
Privileged people complain because a pure business move is being fed to the
less-aware as a huge philanthropic effort.

Having been to many villages, I can say without doubt that so called free-
internet will hardly bring any improvement in people's lives. How do you
except a person who hardly knows how to use a phone to use the internet
productively? No doubt, information access is important for human development
but sorry, I don't have a reason to believe people who can put Internet to a
good purpose will have any trouble paying for it.

~~~
Grue3
The most famous scientist in my country [1] had to travel 1000 km _on foot_
from his home village to university to get decent education. He then proceeded
to make a lot of important discoveries in many areas of science. Now imagine
if we had Wikipedia in every village. Imagine how many more people could make
use of their talents if they had access to the basic information to get them
started.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Lomonosov)

------
enitihas
I don't think people crying for net neutrality understand how many people in
India still do not have Internet access. Even free access to facebook changes
people's lives in a better way. I belong to a small village in eastern UP, and
the Internet penetration is still very less there. The Internet has huge
potential to change people's lives for the better, and I have experienced it
in my own life. Lots of people still can't afford to pay for the Internet, and
for those people, as well as for their children, getting access to a subset of
the Internet, however small, means a lot.

~~~
nitrogen
A little good now at the expense of a significant amount of future
opportunity. In established markets this is called "dumping" \-- giving
something away to destroy competition.

~~~
enitihas
I don't think there is any loss of significant future opportunity. When
someone will be able to afford the Internet, they will start using whichever
service they find fit. Till then for those people, I can't overstate how
important free access to even this limited Internet is. Even free access to
wikipedia and facebook helps a lot of people in a lot of ways. Fun Story: One
day I was with the brother of a friend of mine. He said facebook helped him a
lot in SSC preparations. I thought he was joking, but it turns out that there
is an entire ecosystem of services on facebook which help several people in
several ways and for those people, this free access matters a hell lot.

~~~
abhaga
You are assuming that the other services can just wait it out while people
break out of FB ecosystem and discover them. Development of these kind of
walled gardens significantly harm the development of independent services.
That is one of the main problem. If everyone had free Orkut and no access to
FB, how long would it have taken Facebook to catch on?

~~~
enitihas
I am not assuming anything. People who don't have internt access are not using
those service anyways. So those services will continue at their natural pace.
So I don't see how free basics will harm the development of independent
services. Regarding Orkut, it had a lot of users before facebook arrived on
the scene. But Facebook was just so much better that everyone eventually
jumped on it. I doubt the outcome would have been any different had Orkut been
free, considering that the network effect was a huge price in itself. The
point is, I am yet to see anyone who can afford a monthly data pack interested
in choosing a service based upon it's inclusion in free basics. Free basics is
good for those who won't use the internet at all otherwise.

~~~
abhaga
In the FB vs Orkut example, not only is the Orkut Free, FB is inaccessible to
Orkut users. What do you think will be the outcome then?

You are also assuming that if not for Free Basics, there will be nothing done
to increase the internet spread in India. As those opposed to Free Basics have
repeatedly pointed out, there are other better options available.

------
timwaagh
And so we have a bunch of rich Americans yelling 'unfair!' about the poorest
of the poor in india getting some small part of what they have. I like net
neutrality <in principle>, but this is dogmatism.

~~~
bank
More like facebook denying an enormous number of people the same opportunities
that allowed their company to flourish, and then whining "not fair" when
anyone points out the hegemonic extraction racket they're trying to set up.

Why not help india set up their own services? They could easily contribute to
infrastructure and compete with indian startups on the free market. But no,
they want to abort the baby before it grows powerful.

You're comment is an interesting inversion of reality though, good job
Goebbels.

