
Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India - rachellaw
http://www.economist.com/news/business-and-finance/21685292-critics-argue-mark-zuckerbergs-generosity-cover-landgrab-facebooks-free-internet
======
devindotcom
Personally, I believe Zuckerberg is sincere in wanting to connect everyone in
the world with each other.

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.

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.

~~~
yggydrasily
Zuckerberg is the new Bill Gates. In the 90s, Gates was notorious in his
ruthlessness to define personal computing as a 100% Microsoft-only experience.
Today, as you pointed out, Zuckerberg is pushing equally hard at defining the
internet and Facebook to be one and the same. In both cases, it doesn't really
matter whether or not the efforts are sincere. The outcome is just as
undesirable for the general public either way.

~~~
drumdance
Microsoft was in a class by themselves in terms of how their ruthlessness
played out. Harsh negotiation demands plus technical bullshit like this:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code)

I haven't heard stories like this about Facebook, but perhaps they're better
at covering their tracks.

~~~
samstave
Walmart was in the same class

~~~
DavidChouinard
All successful companies are part of the class, visible or not.

------
jordigh
I like Eben Moglen's and Mishi Choudhary's take on this situation:

    
    
        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.
    

[http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-
nobly...](http://indianexpress.com/article/blogs/mark-zuckerberg-nobly-
carries-white-mans-burden-poor-indians-data-packets/)

~~~
x5n1
"Free Basics by Facebook provides free access to basic internet services to a
billion people all over the world. Your service can be part of it."

Basic internet service. Ok. One app constitutes basic internet according to
Zuckerborg.

~~~
r3bl
> Your service can be part of it.

This part is my favorite. I _know_ that my personal website is ineligible
because it contains some JavaScript code that handles the navigation, but I
submitted it regardlessly just to see how complicated the process is (and to
write a blog post about my experience so that others would know what to
expect).

That was like 20 days ago. I'm still waiting for someone from Facebook to
contact me.

~~~
cobookman
You weren't joking. Should be as dumb as getting your webpage crawled by
google: [https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-
url?pli=1](https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url?pli=1)

Why all the wording:

[https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-
sub...](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/how-to-submit)

------
slaxman
Few points here:

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.

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.

3\. None of the traffic must be encrypted

4\. All traffic flows through facebook's servers

5\. It's not an open platform. Facebook and Telcos reserve the right to accept
or deny websites on "Free Basics"

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.

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
([http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news...](http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news/66178659_1_user-
base-iamai-internet-and-mobile-association))

~~~
dingo_bat
Even though it seems a big number, 52 million is nothing compared to the
people who still do not have access. I think the growth rate is not fast
enough. We should be doubling the installed base every year. 52 million is
just about 1/6 of the total number of users. And I'm inclined to believe that
this sluggishness is due in part to the cost of access.

~~~
slaxman
Once you reach a certain scale of users, percentage growth don't matter
because it's hard to hit big absolute numbers. In whichever way you look at
it, 52Mn is a freakishly huge number. And this timeline is 6 months, not a
year.

Further "Free basics" has been launched in other countries. But there is not
proof that it results in more internet connectivity. ([http://www.business-
standard.com/article/economy-policy/ther...](http://www.business-
standard.com/article/economy-policy/there-is-no-correlation-between-reducing-
digital-divide-differential-pricing-r-s-sharma-115123100461_1.html))

~~~
dingo_bat
I do not see any proof that such a correlation does not exist. Your link
contains an offhand remark that does not cite any study or data. I think it's
common sense that if you offer something for free, more people will use it.

~~~
slaxman
It's not common sense. A good example is the vast number of open source
projects that are never used. Or free books that are never read. Also, I would
like to remind you that, it's not the internet that facebook is giving access
to. It's sites that have paid facebook to be on it.

------
mwsherman
There is a remarkable disconnect between the critics and the users here. Note
that no users were cited in the article.

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.

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?

~~~
zanny
How is a poor Indian citizen supposed to make a judgment on if having a locked
down Internet where they can only use Facebook is better than this Internet
they might not have even heard of with millions of websites? They only _see_
one side of this argument if any at all. From their perspective they _do not
know alternatives even exist_.

~~~
asift
It's not that they don't _see_ other alternatives. This is true, but the
reality is that other realistic alternatives don't even exist.

Their realistic option set is: (a) free access to an incredibly valuable set
of resources, or (b) nothing.

I would take (a) over (b) any day. I would hope that broader alternatives
would eventually come along (and history tells us it will), but the crowd that
wants the Indian poor to have _nothing_ until that day comes is, in my
opinion, despicable. Heck, I might not even mind some gated internet in the US
if I was free to opt-in/out of it and it reduced my internet costs.

~~~
dkarapetyan
It's not an either/or. You're drawing a false dichotomy and then choosing the
lesser of two evils. There is a third possibility as others have pointed out
which is to actually lobby for improving all the basic infrastructure so that
the real internet and not some hobbled version of it is available and
accessible to everyone.

~~~
Pyxl101
It's not a false dichotomy. No one is offering to improve the basic
infrastructure, nor lobby for it. The _actual_ choices are the ones he
outlined above.

Do you ascribe to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics?
[http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-
ethi...](http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/)

~~~
dkarapetyan
Yes, but false dichotomy does not mean you can't make up a valid third option.
I don't know about the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics.

------
ecobiker
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.

~~~
polyomino
what exactly are the poor giving up?

~~~
vaishaksuresh
>>Why is that it's ok for the poor to give up their liberty because they can
get something of value in return?

In this case, choosing how to access the Internet.

~~~
Pyxl101
I don't see how anyone is giving up the choice of how to access the Internet.
Opposing Free Basics is opposing that choice. Free Basics is offering a new
choice, and more choices is always a rationally better thing.

What is your position on the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics?
[http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-
ethi...](http://blog.jaibot.com/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of-ethics/)

~~~
vaishaksuresh
Nobody is giving up a choice at the moment, but if Free Basic becomes a thing,
there won't be a choice in the future. That is the problem people have with
it. Almost everyday I hear people complaining about how Comcast/ATT have
monopoly in the US and how they are exploiting the helplessness of people. How
is FreeBasic any different? For a lot of people, the only internet they will
know will be the version that FB thinks is right for them. This is less a
question about choice, more about net neutrality.

About the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics, I am not knowledgeable enough
to form an opinion yet. I'll get back to you on that.

------
amelius
Data infrastructure should be controlled by the government only.

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.

~~~
icebraining
Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens side
by side in less space than a single water pipe.

And for the same reason, the companies vs government dichotomy is invalid here
as well. Even if we want to provide a public service to avoid private
monopolization, there's absolutely no reason to forbid private companies from
competing with it.

After all, if the problem is that private companies are greedy, a public ISP
funded only by their customers' fees and without profit-seeking shareholders
should solve the problem within a system of fair competition.

~~~
zanny
It is still hugely expensive to have redundant infrastructure, and that has
real economic consequence to a country who decides to have private companies
lay their own independent wires than at least compelling price controlled
renting of those lines.

But there is the other side of the equation that matters too. If you have
complete government control there is no more market pressure on innovation at
all. Nobody would have a reason to develop faster consumer fiber systems since
there is no money to be made.

~~~
MawNicker
The market has already converged on essentially this reality. We have cable
and fiber monopolies controlling the local networks. These used to be more
open when DSL was the prevalent technology. This allowed a variety of ISPs to
utilize that shared infrastructure. The telcos didn't care about the Internet
before. Once there was apparently money to be made they changed their game.
They developed faster connections on closed infrastructure and displaced the
smaller players. The only way to compete is with new infrastructure. The
incumbent monopoly has a massive advantage overcoming this barrier to entry.
They have, and need only maintain, dominance. It takes a massive initiative
(like Google Fiber) to provide a threat and revive genuine competition. The
"free market" isn't optimal here. Google is taking one for the team. We can't
always count on this sort of thing. Without public ownership and regulation of
monopolies there's no "free" market. There is of course but the entirety of
the market is the only object for sale. Once privatized it becomes anything
but free. Government ownership mitigates this problem by allowing the public
to assert further market freedom via regulation. Like net neutrality. As we
are beginning to see, without owning the infrastructure, we can't make this
regulation stick.

When a monopoly is the optimal solution, it ought to be the government. If it
isn't then it will be a private company. The former can be shaped by public
vote in order to enforce an optimal solution. That is: solve the problems that
require a monopoly and give the rest back to the free market. The latter has
impunity and seeks to monetize it. That is: to control access to the market.

~~~
icebraining
The logic would be funny if it wasn't sad. The government creates a monopoly
(AT&T). That company uses that power and money accumulated through decades to
extend its reach into the cable system (current "Comcast" is actually the
merger of a medium provider with AT&T Broadband, which held dozens of millions
of cable subscribers). Then that is used to show that a government monopoly is
needed.

Maybe you could actually decide to try a free market before declaring it a
failure?

~~~
MawNicker
I thought it was utterly obvious that a monopoly should provide and service
the local infrastructure. Would you also like free market roads? How about the
electrical grid? Water? Sewage? Local infrastructure isn't a fungible
commodity. If it were then traffic jams and blackouts wouldn't be a thing.
Also, local demand isn't scalable. You only need one road outside your house.
Several competing roads would be horribly underutilized on the low end of
scale. On the high end you're maybe onto something. Private bridges and
freeways may be a decent idea. Private airlines certainly are. But then you're
right back to what I'm advocating.

My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is factored
out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe. Governments
provide the "last mile" connectivity. ISPs compete to provide access to the
outside world. This competition isn't possible if the local infrastructure is
owned by an ISP. They are incentivized to shut down the free market and reap
their monopolistic rewards. They lock down their infrastructure. This creates
a huge barrier to entry. They can then: Overcharge. Inspire competition. Crush
them with their accumulated capital. Overcharge... Anyone attempting to
compete is necessarily constructing redundant infrastructure. The "zero
government involvement" thing actually hinders the free market here. Our road
system enables tremendous free market enterprise. If retailers had to pay a
road cartel for the right to do business it would be a disaster. Walmart would
take over the roads and overpower anything it cared to which depended on them.
Basically what Facebook is trying to do in India.

~~~
icebraining
As I pointed out in my earlier post, I don't agree that fiber cables are
anything like roads (or sewage, for that matter). "Infrastructure" means many
things, and it's certainly not obvious that the same solution is the best for
all.

 _My point was actually that when the inherently monopolistic aspect is
factored out the free market can flourish. This is how it works in Europe._

I live in a Western European country. This is not how it works here. ISPs own
their own cables. Yet I have four of them offering me service, four of them
over fiber, but also cable, DSL and 4G. Yes, it's expensive. Many private
investments are, yet they still get made. Yes, it's redundant. Reliability
depends on it.

From what I've read, our situation is hardly atypical, as private installation
seems to be the case in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Moldova,
Slovakia and others.

The US case, on the other hand, it's hardly representative of a free market,
and your problems can not be attribute to it.

~~~
MawNicker
_As I pointed out in my earlier post, I don 't agree that fiber cables are
anything like roads_

The earlier post:

 _Except fiber cables are not at all like roads, in that you can run dozens
side by side in less space than a single water pipe._

Ah. That's a great point actually. Maybe the solution is just to have the
public provide and support this "fiber pipe". Not the fiber; Just the pipe.
This would lower the barriers to competition for last mile connectivity. I
still think this ought to be insulated from the upstream connectivity
providers. To continue the analogy: The cables are self-driving uber-like
taxies and the pipe is the rode. I want regulation to ensure every taxi is
totally interoperable with every private freeway/bridge/airline in a given
area. I also want the option to just use the taxi for local services. I don't
want a taxi cartel to tell me where to shop.

 _I live in a Western European country. This is not how it works here._

Okay. I'm pretty ignorant about these issues. I'm operating from a cached
worldview. I did some searching and I'll concede this point. I'm a sucker for
"Europe has this figured out already" narratives. I still like the idea. In
general I'm opposed to government protected monopolies. If monopoly is the
emergent reality then it should be reduced to the narrowest causal factor and
kept under government control. Everything that remains should be returned to
the free market.

~~~
icebraining
_Ah. That 's a great point actually. Maybe the solution is just to have the
public provide and support this "fiber pipe". Not the fiber; Just the pipe._

You're in luck :) that's exactly what the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act is
all about.

------
vaishaksuresh
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.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott#Baby_milk_issue)

~~~
sidthekid
It is somewhat similar because the long-term effects were malicious/not known
in the short term. But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch
internet carriers at any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics).

'Facebook addiction' isn't as objectively proven as the side effects mentioned
in the article. 'Tracking usage data and privacy snooping' isn't as harmful as
the side effects mentioned, because poor people probably value their 'usage
data' less and access to basic resources like Wikipedia/job posting
sites/health and weather reports more. (and its just fear and speculation that
facebook will maliciously track all data passing through its servers, but we
are treating it like inevitable fact)

~~~
vaishaksuresh
>But its not exactly the same because anyone can switch internet carriers at
any time (nobody gets medically tied to Free Basics)

Given how there is no alternative, it is pretty much facebook or nothing.

------
FreedomToCreate
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.

~~~
not_a_terrorist
wow, reading your comment, one would believe we were in the decade prior the
iPhone years, where the carriers were trying to take control of all content,
giving priority and exclusive access to their own content and services.
Another decade later, the same temptation has survived. If history repeats
itself: it will fail. Let's wish ourselves good luck!

------
dhawalhs
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".

~~~
jrochkind1
It seems kind of unlikely that facebook would cooperate on an intentional goal
to reduce access to WhatsApp, when Facebook owns WhatsApp. But maybe. Or maybe
that was the telecom's motivation, if not facebook's.

------
funkyy
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.

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.

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.

~~~
mailmrg
completely agree and this will make a good start for lot of people.

------
sremani
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.

India has 80% adults with no access to Interwebs, how are you going to solve
this problem in next 5 years?

*Do not tell me INR 20 dataplan, I know its there and I would not wish it on my worst enemy.

~~~
vthallam
You could solve this problem if the govt provides more spectrum to the telco
companies and in turn ask them to subsidize it to the poor. In this day and
age, its not tough to do it. Just because it's tough, you would not want to
accept some unfair offering.

~~~
sremani
So why is it not being done? From my previous life spent in India, government
subsidies are guaranteed income for politically connected.

------
myth_buster
The fb's attempt to control the internet in third world country brings this
quote to mind...

    
    
      When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that 
      name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, 
      Planet Starbucks. 
    

In this day and age, Internet should be a utility, with government subsidizing
it if required while preventing _walled gardens_.

~~~
cvs268
More likely a Microsoft Surface in a Samsung Galaxy :-)

------
chdir
It's unbecoming of a large corporation that "wants to work for connecting
people" to make statements like these against net neutrality advocates :

"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."

Facebook has resorted to slander when they can't give transparent answers to
the issues raised against Free Basics.

Quote Source : [https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-
on-...](https://www.accessnow.org/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-on-net-
neutrality-in-india/)

------
snydly
AOL should get in on this. They could put all of those old CDs to good use.

Free internet program from the late 90's: "1000 hours free! Sign on today!" :)

------
faramarz
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. Of course it's a land grab. The
same way Google Fiber is trying grab North American broadband.

~~~
mr_luc
It's not in the same way at all.

Google Fiber is _real_ internet; 'free internet basics' are an attempt to turn
the internet into a walled garden.

~~~
kuschku
> Google Fiber is real internet

Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you to
host game servers, for Minecraft, for example.

Their Fiber team heavily opposes Net Neutrality, too. Sadly.

~~~
DannyBee
"Minus the things their ToS forbids. Only recently they started allowing you
to host game servers, for Minecraft, for example. "

Basically no residential ISP in the US i'm aware of allows server hosting.
Certainly no major ones :)

~~~
kuschku
Just because everyone does it doesn’t mean it’s good.

Now, that IPv6 is becoming more popular, and we might be able to provide
globally unique IPs for every end device, and that 24/7 connected internet is
standard, it should be a thing of 2 or 3 clicks to host a webserver.

It should be a no-op to set up a raspberry pi to serve websites – and it would
definitely provide a lot of kids and students the ability to experiment a lot
easier.

Remember, Facebook in its early days was hosted from a dorm room at college.
Google from a garage.

------
petke
> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the
> mobile-telecoms operators it works with.

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.

Edit:

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

[http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-
money-...](http://telecoms.com/opinion/0-facebook-com-means-zero-money-
changing-hands/)

~~~
gearoidoc
I guess because it leads to "full" internet subscription which generates
revenue (assumedly profits) for them.

~~~
petke
This makes a big difference to me. I was actually for Facebook basics, when I
thought Facebook picked up the bill so that poor people could access at least
some internet. But if the operators are paying for this ... then what value is
Facebook actually providing?

~~~
vthallam
They say they provide the platform and guidelines and works with telcos across
the world. But it's not a convincing answer to a normal user. Thing is, if FB
can do it, certainly Google and other major companies can do it.

------
piyushpr134
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.

------
csgrad12
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.

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.

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?

------
drcube
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.

------
bedros
The Internet only blossomed after it was freed from proprietary access by AOL.

Zuckerberg plans to move the internet back to the dark ages.

------
rubberstamp
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".

Also the cost of providing the service is on the ISP/carrier that FB ties up
with.

The key factor that is glossed over is:

> Though the programme is promoted by Facebook, its costs are borne by the
> mobile-telecoms operators.

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.

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.

~~~
rubberstamp
The poor also deserve privacy and actual internet instead of being snooped up
on and fed by "internet for the poor".

------
karmacondon
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.

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.

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".

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.

------
dil8
One more reason to stop using facebook.

------
samikc
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.

------
zeta0134
"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."

And that's _precisely_ 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.

------
aaron695
Rich people limiting poor peoples options, again.

It's much better they eat cake, than this "free internet"

~~~
pavanky
This is probably the most idiotic argument against the critics of Facebook and
it is not even original.

------
seshagiric
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.

------
HappyTypist
I honestly think Facebook would have done well by providing access to the full
internet but making Facebook the start page / captive portal.

~~~
5_5
You will bow down to anything. What about your private data? You want facebook
to decide what you want to see on internet? Start a day with friend's like and
share!!! I think your internet means facebook.

------
prabuinet
When did facebook become non-profit to give away things for free? fcuk zcuk,
stay away from India.

------
beccasanchez
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.

~~~
tokai
Humanity have a long and distinct history of fighting against gravity.

~~~
beccasanchez
And yet gravity is still going strong...

Make an ally out of gravity and you can use its strength for something half-
decent instead of all-bad.

I think this land grab by Facebook is half-decent instead of all-bad. Facebook
is treating the poor better than the Indian government has, at least. Neither
institution really gives a fuck about them.

~~~
ganadiniakshay
Facebook is treating the farmers better by giving them access to facebook.
What has the government done except no interest loans, free seeds and
fertilizers, subsidies and free training programs.

Sounds about right

~~~
beccasanchez
You aren't expecting much from the government. Who has more resources and
power than the government? If Zuck had that much power I'm sure he would do a
lot more than just give free internet.

------
swehner
Why are there no other companies offering the same?

~~~
Grue3
Exactly, why don't people who oppose this provide unlimited internet to the
poor people for free? Put their money where their mouth is.

------
chkuendig
Pretty heavily editorialized headline, not at all in the economists style.
Original title:

Facebook's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India

~~~
ipsin
Doesn't seem that editorialized. The "roadblock" is the feedback from critics,
and the Economist's subhead is "Critics argue Mark Zuckerberg’s generosity is
a cover for a land-grab".

~~~
tptacek
It's extraordinarily editorialized, because it implies that the author of the
article agrees with one quoted source in the article.

~~~
thieving_magpie
One quoted source that they turned into the subheading, in larger dark grey
print.

Seems fair game to me.

~~~
tptacek
It's _not_ fair game. The site guidelines specifically demand that submitters
not do _this exact thing_ ; instead, you're to use the article's original
headline, unless it's misleading or linkbait.

People who submit stories don't _own_ the stories on HN; stories are community
property. Being the first to submit a URL does not give someone special
privileges to reframe the story for everyone else.

In this case, the reframing that was done was overtly dishonest, implying as
it does that The Economist endorses this point of view, which it clearly does
not.

~~~
thieving_magpie
I see what you're saying, I was wrong about using the subheading for the title
instead of the title.

Your statement that the OP was "overtly dishonest" is ridiculous, come on.

------
CrowFly
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.

~~~
akerro
[https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-
tunnel](https://github.com/matiasinsaurralde/facebook-tunnel)

I heard about some more, but didn't bookmark them :<

~~~
kuschku
Sadly this doesn’t work with [http://0.facebook.com/](http://0.facebook.com/),
the version of Free Basics available in Germany.

~~~
akerro
Maybe this one [http://code.kryo.se/iodine/](http://code.kryo.se/iodine/) ?

------
tptacek
Egregiously editorialized title; the actual title is:

 _Facebook 's “free internet” programme hits a roadblock in India_

