
The Plan to Give Every Cellphone User Free Data - oska
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/free-web/471198/?single_page=true
======
discardorama
> The idea behind Free Basics is to offer a stripped-down version of the
> mobile web so people can access parts of the Internet without it counting
> against their data plans.

I hate it when people lie like this. The "Free Basics" would force all
websites accessible on this scheme to go through FaceBook, including encrypted
ones, so FaceBook can then log and analyze your data. This is _not_ some
generous scheme which just gives you free access to the Internet; it gives you
free access to _FaceBook_ , which then in turn gives you what _it_ thinks is
right.

------
ignoramous
The governments running the libraries don't keep records to show you ads. They
do so because its essential that knowledge is freely accessible. I think
providing free internet has a case but not at the cost of network providers
profiling its users.

What's the incentive for business to provide free access without monetizing
the data somehow? None. I think its up to the government to take up such an
effort, and realise the potential that's out there.

The article gets it spot-on. This isn't a problem for a tech-company with
vested interests to solve. Its the government's problem, a political problem.
Free internet (or free HTTP), like free education must be made a thing. Esp,
in countries that struggle with poor-literacy rates.

Internet access (and not just HTTP) in Finland (?) is free. Indian government
already owns a country-wide mobile-network. It should and could def provide
such a service. But again, shouldn't be at the cost of profiling its users and
gathering data.

~~~
nordify
> Internet access (and not just HTTP) in Finland (?) is free.

Internet access in Finland is not free. However, everybody in Finland is
entitled to Internet service, i.e. each area has a designated universal
service provider who is responsible for providing a minimum of 1 Mbps service
to everyone in the area.

So, if you want Internet service in Finland, you can always get it. It does
not mean it's free, just that it's always available.

Prices for wired service are reasonable, between 30 and 50 euros (average
prices for 1M and 100M respectively). Wireless service is cheap and coverage
is very good with close to universal coverage. 50M uncapped and unlimited LTE
is 15 to 20 euros per month. Prepaid LTE is 20 euros for 10G or 20 euros for
unlimited and uncapped service at a low speed for six months.

~~~
voltagex_
That's ridiculously good. I'm paying $120AUD/month for 100 megabit down / 40
up. It's far better than the 8/1 I had before but I can exceed the monthly
traffic quota in 45 minutes or less!

What's the speed like going out of the country? Where are the big peering
points?

~~~
nordify
> What's the speed like going out of the country?

Full line rate round the clock.

> Where are the big peering points?

The main local IX is FICIX. The main Swedish IX Netnod in Stockholm is 8 ms
away. Netnod is the 10th largest IX in the world. A new direct subsea cable to
Germany just got built and it will bring DE-CIX, the largest IX In the world
closer.

Russia is also close. Google and Yandex both built datacenters in Finland to
serve Russia and Northern Europe. Facebook put theirs in Sweden for the same
reason.

~~~
voltagex_
Thanks for this. It's really interesting moving to a fast connection - latency
becomes far more important than bandwidth.

I'd totally read a write-up about latency and peering around the world, but I
might be the only one.

~~~
nordify
There's been a lot written on peering. Dr. Peering has a lot on his website,
perhaps not so much regarding latency but lots and lots on peering in general.
Googling for publications will also get you a lot of interesting stuff.

------
nl
While this is a good goal, it's pretty clear this isn't the way to achieve it.
It appears that the author hasn't thought it through - if the Facebook
approach was rejected, why should _exactly the same thing_ (as far as I can
see) be accepted from another company.

It seems to me that the experience with rapid mobile take-up in Africa
indicates that market-based solutions can work, but the key is high levels of
competition. My understanding is that in most of Africa the landline phone
companies were government owned monopolies and under serviced rural areas
which forced the private sector to act.

~~~
dsr_
The FB approach: we will pay for some small amount of data that anyone can
use, but we will determine what you can reach. We will make money by getting
fees from the content providers we allow into this walled garden.

The Steve Song approach: some of the profits of wireless providers will be
mandated to go to a very low speed service that anyone can use for any
purpose. The wireless providers may or may not make the money back from
increased utilization by new and existing fee-paying subscribers who see
increased value in the network. If it doesn't make money, it's not a problem:
the social benefits outweigh the very small cost.

~~~
nathanasmith
>>> the social benefits outweigh the very small cost.

Of course they do, when it's somebody else's money. Bye bye karma or whatever
it's called on this site.

~~~
nl
I don't think dsr_ is arguing that _the social benefits outweigh the very
small cost_ \- I think he's saying that's what Song's argument is.

 _Bye bye karma or whatever it 's called on this site._

Pretty sure comments like that will get you downvoted and detract from
anything you are saying on any site.

I think pretty much everyone here would acknowledge how problematic that
argument is.

~~~
nathanasmith
>> I think he's saying that's what Song's argument is.

I didn't say anything about whose argument it was just implying that it was
specious.

>> Pretty sure comments like that will get you downvoted

I stopped worrying about internet points long ago.

------
j45
If it's free, you're often the product being sold.

This is a statement the haves know, and presumably the free internet crowd is
not fully aware of, or have a choice to opt in/out of.

There have been free dial-up internet providers like 3web, who historically
tried to fill this niche but were more upfront about it and tried to make it
run.

[http://www.all-free-isp.com/3web.php](http://www.all-free-isp.com/3web.php)

------
mariorz
A lot of people here are saying that asking for a plan like this is like
asking for the proverbial free lunch. Cellphone companies operate over a
public good. Regulatory requisites for spectrum allocation, as something like
this could become, should not be thought of as a free lunch. A free lunch (for
operators) is to manage the spectrum in a way that does not maximize public
interest.

~~~
nordify
Somebody still has to pay for it.

If it's the cellphone companies then in the end the payers will be the
taxpayers (through subsidies or lower spectrum license fee receipts as the
cellphone companies factor in the costs of the free service obligation when
bidding) and/or the customers, as costs are passed on to them.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

~~~
mariorz
I would love to see the numbers on this. It's not clear the plan would incur
costs for operators unless there is no room left to optimize their use of the
allocated spectrum. The article also lays out the argument for a value
increase in the whole network (granted not limited to each operator) that
could offset any costs. Even with inescapable costs that would be factored
into the spectrum bids, why would it no be preferable for that value to be
transferred directly to the public, in the form of free internet access, than
to have it flow into governments for indirect redistribution?

~~~
nordify
> I would love to see the numbers on this.

9.6 kbps is about 3GB per month. That's between $44 (Finland) and $360 (US) in
retail prices per year. It adds up to a lot, approximately $880 million to
$7.2 billion per million users over a 20 year license. How many millions of
subscribers did you want to subsidize?

> It's not clear the plan would incur costs for operators unless there is no
> room left to optimize their use of the allocated spectrum.

You cannot just consider the marginal costs. You have to take into
consideration the fully loaded costs including operating and upgrading the
network when you run out of capacity.

> The article also lays out the argument for a value increase in the whole
> network (granted not limited to each operator) that could offset any costs.

The cellphone companies don't care about imaginary money that does not flow to
the bottom line.

> Even with inescapable costs that would be factored into the spectrum bids,
> why would it no be preferable for that value to be transferred directly to
> the public, in the form of free internet access, than to have it flow into
> governments for indirect redistribution?

The answer to this depends on whatever political views you subscribe to.

------
massysett
"The idea behind Free Basics is to offer a stripped-down version of the mobile
web so people can access parts of the Internet without it counting against
their data plans. But those who oppose the plan argue that it gives Facebook
an unfair advantage, and violates the tenets of the open web."

Having nothing at all is better than having a limited selection. Welcome to
"net neutrality".

~~~
XJOKOLAT
Only if you restrict the issue to just two possible choices.

------
voodootrucker
Everyone wants free stuff, but no one understands economics.

If someone wants to give you free data, it means they want to spy on it or
manipulate it (read or write).

If they give you something for free, they are using it to control you. If you
are paying them, you control them.

And the flow of information is too important for control not to be in the
hands of the people.

------
samsolomon
I was under the impression that the issue was on the infrastructure side not
with the devices themselves. If that's the case, I'm not sure how this
replaces the drones that Facebook was planning to use and deliver internet.

~~~
wormseed
~85% of the world population are covered by mobile networks

There are more people who have access but don't buy data because it's too
expensive than people outside of any coverage.

~~~
sgift
e.g. my provider wants 10 Euro per GB if I want more than my "free" 1.5 GB per
month.

------
ck2
There are providers in the US who already give "unlimited" access via 2G -
which is about twice as fast as dialup.

A few well designed websites are okay on 2G but certain not most.

(that's 0.5-1GB per day if used non-stop at maximum performance)

~~~
dsr_
Just as web pages are adapted according to browser capabilities and existing
mobile/desktop standards, sites can be adapted to very low bandwidth users.
Not all of them, but many.

There's no point in Google Maps trying to send a VLB continuously updated set
of map tiles, but an interface for the travel directions system can fit in a
4KB page - about 4 seconds of 9600bps usage. Get the weather, read the news,
read and write blogs stripped of JavaScript and images, send and receive
enough email to run your errands -- all these things are very high value for
people who don't otherwise have connectivity, and very cheap to provide for
them.

------
rokhayakebe
Add WiFi hotspots to all electrical and phone poles instead.

~~~
nordify
The hotspots themselves won't do you much good. You'll need backhaul to
connect them to the Internet and pay somebody to service and operate them.
Then you'll need power for each and every device.

All this costs money. Who pays?

