
Google Outpaces Facebook on Getting India Connected to Internet - JumpCrisscross
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-05/google-outpaces-facebook-on-getting-india-connected-to-internet
======
dhawalhs
The article re-iterates the convenient lie promoted by Facebook that Free
Basics was "designed for people who can’t afford expensive mobile-data
charges."

The cost of internet access is really low in India. For less than $2 a month,
you can easily get 500MB/month of 3G access [1]. Even cheaper for $2G access.
The cost of a getting a phone is the bigger barrier. But in Facebook's world
everyone already has a phone but cannot afford internet.

The example Mark Zuckerberg usually talks about is US where it costs around
$2000 for a plan over two years. Which makes it makes a convenient case for
Free Basics.

It was disappointing to see how major publications are just re-iterating
FB/Zuckerberg words. The only journalism I saw was from Buzzfeed[2][3] and
Backchannel[4].

[1] [http://www.plansinfo.com/reliance-gsm-prepaid-mumbai-
plans.h...](http://www.plansinfo.com/reliance-gsm-prepaid-mumbai-plans.html)

[2] [https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/heres-how-free-
bas...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/heres-how-free-basics-is-
actually-being-sold-around-the-worl/)

[3] [https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/how-facebooks-
plan-t...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/how-facebooks-plan-to-give-
the-world-free-mobile-internet-we)

[4] [https://backchannel.com/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-
in...](https://backchannel.com/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-internet-
program-6ae3f9ffd1b4)

~~~
JohnTHaller
The average web page size in 2016 is 2.2MB. Which means that 500MB plan can
only load 227 first load web pages (excluding secondary pages on the same site
with cached CSS, JS and images for navigation and title/footer). This is
entirely excluding any video or audio or any real photo downloads or uploads.

500MB may be enough for you who is a light LTE user and who has access to
separate free wifi at work and separately paid for wifi at home. But if your
phone is your only access to the internet, 500MB can't do much. Unless you
consider loading 7 web pages per day a reasonable restriction.

The average income in India was $1,497 in 2013 or $124.75 a month. So that $2
for 500MB means 1.6% of your monthly income is spent on internet to download a
few hundred individual pages with no audio or video. In the US, with an
average income of $3,769 a month, the equivalent 1.6% of monthly income ($60)
can get you unlimited LTE data on a lower-tier provider or MVNO. Quite a big
difference between 500MB and unlimited.

So, yes, internet access in India is comparably much more expensive than it is
in the US.

~~~
chongli
_The average income in India was $1,497 in 2013 or $124.75 a month. So that $2
for 500MB means 1.6% of your monthly income is spent on internet to download a
few hundred individual pages with no audio or video. In the US, with an
average income of $3,769 a month, the equivalent 1.6% of monthly income ($60)
can get you unlimited LTE data on a lower-tier provider or MVNO. Quite a big
difference between 500MB and unlimited._

This shows just how much we're getting ripped off here in Canada. For a 1GB
plan from Rogers you're looking at $90/mo! [0] Rogers doesn't even offer an
unlimited data plan; their largest plan is $385/mo for 60GB.

[0] [http://www.rogers.com/consumer/wireless/smartphone-
plans?ipn...](http://www.rogers.com/consumer/wireless/smartphone-plans?ipn=1)

~~~
andrepd
I pay 25€ for unlimited 100Mbps (up and down) Internet, plus landline and
cable, and another 5 for phone with unlimited calls and SMS and 1gb LTE.

~~~
rubberstamp
Where do you live? Thats a very good plan. Whats your carrier's name. Is the
plan truly unlimited or does it have reduced speed once it hits fair usage
limits

------
TrevorJ
Facebook isn't interested in getting India connected to the internet. They
want India connected to _Facebook_. Google benefits from increasing the
population of general internet users, but facebook's business model does not
benefit from this to the same extent.

~~~
shmerl
It's good that India has strict Net neutrality rules which ban zero rating.
That's what Facebook was bitten by. In US various ISPs still get away with it.

~~~
necessity
Is it? Say Google did not take the initiative. Would it be better that people
have no internet whatsoever than to have Facebook for free? Moreover, it is
each individual who should decide what is better for him, Facebook or nothing,
not you nor their government.

~~~
bad_user
> _Would it be better that people have no internet whatsoever than to have
> Facebook for free?_

Yes, it's better, because it creates the incentive for telecom operators to
lower costs. And the problem with FB's initiative is that nobody can compete
against _free_ , establishing the status quo, not to mention a precedent for
other monopolies.

Besides, nothing in life is free of cost, not even air, as Delhi's citizens
are finding out.

> _it is each individual who should decide what is better for him, Facebook or
> nothing, not you nor their government_

That's strange logic. The purpose of government is to ensure the proper use of
force in order to protect the rights of the citizens and ensure their well-
being. Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such
matters to people that presumably know what they are doing. And in a democracy
you decide by _voting_ for people representing your interests, and/or by
making your voice heard in some way, like protesting in the streets or in
writing maybe. But other than that, there are plenty of cases where the
individual cannot decide what's best for him, because the law exists (ideally
for everybody, can't speak for India).

~~~
necessity
No one can compete against free? But that free is limited to Facebook. I bet a
lot of people would like more than that and would be willing to pay for it.

>Governments exist because the people themselves prefer to defer such matters
to people that presumably know what they are doing.

That's strange logic. Considering that people often do not prefer such
deferment and are often pissed at government decisions.

I'm merely stating that it is not the government's roll to determine if the
individual should or should not have access to a certain product.

~~~
shmerl
_> it is not the government's roll to determine if the individual should or
should not have access to a certain product._

It is government's role however to make sure that products don't get
preferential treatment, i.e. there is fair competition on the market. Because
otherwise things turn into monopolies. That's what Net neutrality prevents.
Facebook can't be treated preferentially (i.e. be exempt from data caps).
Either axe all caps, or have everyone be subjected to them. Facebook exempt
and everyone else no? That shouldn't happen.

~~~
necessity
The Indian example is Google receiving preferential treatment over Facebook
because of net neutrality. I'm not saying Facebook should not respect nn while
everyone else does, I'm saying no one should.

~~~
shmerl
Did they plan to provide Google only connection? As far as I understood, they
planned regular Internet access. Not "Google or nothing". So it's not
comparable to what Facebook were planning.

 _> I'm saying no one should._

Well, FB tried not to. Luckily, they were put in place by the law. And you
propose not to have such law, giving monopoly abusers free reign.

------
starmilk
$0.02: I honestly feel that Google's CEO being Indian hastened the adoption.
In India, Sundar Pichai is a celebrity. There are billboards, advertisements,
and the whole country is cheering for him, a "local".

There is more to it than this (of course), but I think that the community view
Google through the friendly face that is their CEO, while viewing Facebook as
the big blue tech conglomerate which that have become.

~~~
throwaway_45
A lot of indians who come to this country never want to go back to india. They
seem to kind of hate their country. So the fact Indians are celebrating
someone who made it out is quite ironic.

~~~
singhrk
Indian here. Not true, most of us love our country. And people do love to go
back. Relocation in general is tough, once you have a family and kids going to
school, its really tough to go back

~~~
throwaway_45
You can't raise a family in india? Once you get used to that 150k salary you
ain't going back. Pretty much all my cousins and stuff are trying to get out
of the country.

I am not going to blame you are anyone else trying to make it, but I find it
quite hypocritical that Indian publications glorify people who have pretty
much left the country for good.

~~~
pm90
Why is it hypocritical? As you say, a lot of Indians do like to work abroad,
and someone who has accomplished the very best of that particular ambition
would definitely be of much interest to the Indian public.

------
nnain
I may also point to a subtle subconscious factor that might be helping Google.

Google posted the free WiFi on Railway stations. Indian Railways is huge and
celebrated as a backbone to the countries transportation. On the other hand
FB's Free Basic, broke net-neutrality and partnered with Reliance & Airtel,
two companies in India that put people's guards up already.

Google's hotspots simply don't seem like a 'scheme', while FB's offer does.

~~~
webtechgal
> Indian Railways is huge and celebrated as a backbone to the countries
> transportation.

This is not only true but a bit of an understatement as well. Railways has
been treated as a very important part of the whole Indian economy since the
time of independence. Isn't it the only department of the Government of India
that merits its own, separate union budget? It may not be an exaggeration to
say that railways is an integral part of the very fabric of life for a huge
cross-section of the population of India.

From this perspective, I'd say offering free wi-fi at railway stations is a
brilliant strategic move.

------
kerkeslager
Free Basics isn't internet, it's a walled garden controlled by Facebook.
Comparing what Google and Facebook are doing in India is comparing apples to
oranges.

------
ohstopitu
When I was in UAE, I remember a telecom company called du provide facebook for
free on a website called 0.facebook.com.

Basically, it was the normal mobile facebook, but without any images (and for
some reason, they decided to make it all black and white as well).

The funny thing is, I and a lot of my friends switched to du from a much
better company just for this service - because for us it was either no
internet on our phones, or free facebook - and we chose free facebook.

Over time we felt limited and decided to opt for a social package (facebook,
twitter, BBM, etc.) but had it not been for the initial free facebook hook -
we'd never have bothered with mobile data for a much longer time.

~~~
askafriend
I want to urge everyone to read and internalize this perspective because it is
a genuine one and it is what Facebook is betting will happen with their
efforts.

Something you shouldn't discount is the value that ohstopitu got from the
initial free service that compelled him to upgrade to a larger phone package.
Facebook didn't trick ohstopitu, they just showed him/her what was possible.

You don't have to agree with the hook, and you may not want to believe that
ohstopitu actually derived value from Facebook, but understanding it is far
more valuable than mindless pessimism.

~~~
Dylan16807
It's not that users are being tricked, it's that it doesn't deserve to be
called "free internet". And if the happy ending here is getting a "social
package", and still no real internet access, that's not great either.

Limited text-only access can be a great hook _without_ restricting it to a
particular site or tiny set of sites.

------
_greim_
It sounds like Facebook's approach is to provide free wifi to specific
websites (which presumably includes Facebook) while Google's approach is to
just provide free wifi. Is that true?

~~~
rattray
Facebook was trying to provide free 2G/3G, not wifi.

That's a lot more powerful, and a lot more expensive.

A huge percentage of India lives, works, and travels in areas that are
unlikely to ever be reached by Google's wifi, but most of the country is now
reached by at least one telecom.

EDIT: I did not mean to put Facebook forward as a hero; I wanted to explain
the difference, and provide a hypothesis as to why it would be prohibitively
expensive for Facebook to provide unfettered internet access in this case, but
not for Google.

~~~
jonknee
> That's a lot more powerful, and a lot more expensive.

It's not more powerful when Zuck wanted to limit it to Facebook.com and
whatever other sites he felt like allowing Indians to access. It was just
insulting and that's why it went down in flames.

~~~
onewaystreet
Why is it insulting that a company offered people limited internet access for
free?

~~~
jonknee
For me it's the super transparent self interest in that you only want these
poor people online so that you can count their eyeballs in your DAUs and
continue hitting higher numbers for your investors. You might not find that
objectionable, but I do. Apparently India does as well!

It would be like McDonalds offering to feed the hungry, but only if they
exclusively ate McDonalds food. Yes they are hungry, but no they should not
only be eating McDonalds food.

------
0xmohit

      While Google isn’t targeting those using its Wi-Fi with
      advertising, it’s aiming to get more people online and betting
      that they will use the company’s services and see more ads.
    

Essentially, Google is happy that those who would possibly never connect their
phones to the Internet do that. (And, in the process, give it more data.)

    
    
      “If we don’t address it, a few generations of Indians will 
      feel left behind.”
    

Maybe it should also consider giving away free smartphones so that those not
having one so that they _don 't feel left behind_.

As a matter of fact, millions of Indians are left behind every year due to
lack of education. Free education would help them much more than free wi-fi.
(It wouldn't help Google, though.)

~~~
buro9
I'm pretty sure it's more "increase the size of the market" than it is "give
it more data". The latter is just a side effect of the former.

By getting more people online, they have more connected eyeballs for which
advertising can be sold. It must be hard to sell adverts to Indian companies
today when the target markets of those advertisers are not online (or not
online enough).

It is fundamentally about growing the size of the pie, and everyone benefits
from that (though yes, Google and other big internet companies perhaps benefit
most).

~~~
webtechgal
> It must be hard to sell adverts to Indian companies today ...

Not aware of the state of affairs presently but until a couple of years ago, I
used to run AdSense on a handful of India-centric sites and while there were a
good number of advertisers, I almost never got anything more than a crappy 1
or 2 cents per click out of it. (By contrast, on several other sites with a
global audience, I used to easily average 12 to 15 cents per click.)

~~~
pm90
I think this might be more a reflection of the income disparity between the
Indian and the Western market. People have a lot more disposable income in the
West, which allows them to actually purchase the things being advertised.

------
bahularora
I run a startup called Mhire, it helps companies hire blue-collar workers.
These workers are one of the target audience of the FB's Free basics program,
from my understanding it will be helpful for them to get free internet, but it
would be bad for startups like ours as it would give a huge unfair advantage
to our competitor BabaJobs which is a Free Basics partner. It would be
extremely bad for competition. And would prevent competition from finding
unique models which try to eschew the problem of low internet penetration in
this marketplace. There are many unique ideas startups are utilizing to solve
this problem, like using miss call marketing, call based broadcast of jobs,
human social network to name a few. It will be extremely bad for the whole
startup ecosystem.

------
mtgx
Facebook was trying to offer access to a handful of websites. Google is giving
Indians the whole Internet. So yeah, I'm not surprised.

------
whack
_" Google began offering free Wi-Fi at about two dozen train stations in the
country earlier this year, and now has 2 million people using the service each
month, Pichai said in a recent earnings call. Millions more will gain access
as the service expands to 100 locations by the year end. The search provider’s
goal is to reach 400 stations."_

It's great that Google is doing this, but I don't think offering wifi at 400
train stations counts as "getting India connected to Internet." It's a great
convenience, but the vast majority of the time that people spend is at
home/work. The amount of time that people spend at train stations is pretty
miniscule.

The fact that 2 million people used the service at all, is not surprising. I
think a far better metric would be the number of man-hours that the service
has been used for.

~~~
sounds
You should visit India some time!

Well, besides that it is truly an eye-opening experience, have you traveled
through the train stations in India? Agreed, it would be better to get
internet wired all the way to the home, but train stations are very, very much
a part of many Indians lives!

------
IvanK_net
That webpage uses 36% of my CPU (not just at the beginning or during
scrolling, but all the time). Are they mining bitcoin or something?

------
somberi
Jio, a new Telco player in India, is also an important new and enabling factor
to get Indians online. Already the limited tests peg the usage pattern:

[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Jios-
monthly-...](http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Jios-monthly-data-
usage-tops-19-GB-per-subscriber/articleshow/52747715.cms)

------
NEDM64
Facebook should spend more on advertising, they would have avoided what
happened to their program.

------
Cognitron
Off topic, but anyone else think this newish white background cutout look for
the title on Bloomberg looks really terrible? The first time I saw it, I
thought it was a CSS mistake that slipped through.

------
mkagenius
How will it be monetized? E-commerce or ads? E-commerce would be a better
idea, i guess.

p.s. This whole thread has been disappointing, seems like everyone had some
angst and needed some venting outlet against fb.

~~~
pm90
Yeah, there was a lot of backlash against fb and it has resulted in a lot of
people being weary of anyone trying to provide free internet again.

To answer your question though: they don't need to monetize it at all. That's
the beauty of being Google: they only need to expand the advertising market.
And the simplest way to do this is to get more people on the internet using
Google.

~~~
r3bl
I'd argue that they need to get more people on the Internet, they don't even
_have to_ use Google when you consider that Google Adsense is in pretty much
every website that tries to monetize by serving ads.

------
lazyant
Either / or, please come to Canada...

------
shafiqissani
we will build our own internet... with blackjack and hookers :P

------
basicplus2
errr.. doesn't Google pretty much own Facebook?

------
xacaxulu
A win for India!

