
Indian Regulator Temporarily Suspends Facebook’s Free Basics - krisgenre
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-service-on-hold-TRAI-tells-Reliance-Communications/articleshow/50290490.cms
======
zinghaboi
I hope this turns into a more permanent decision. Indians need to keep sending
emails to TRAI. Indian government should be worried about handing over private
details of Indians to the NSA on a silver platter. But even without that risk,
Free Basics can evolve into something disastrous for Indian startup scene and
jobs/innovation.

Lets look at two extreme scenarios.

->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 years 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.

~~~
aianus
> 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.

The majority of the content on my Facebook feed is links to external websites.
I'm skeptical of this argument that poor people will be forever satisfied with
just chatting and browsing Facebook and will never upgrade to full internet.

~~~
alephnil
In several other Asian countries (e.g. the Philipines, Indonesia, Thailand), a
much larger percentage say they are on Facebook than the portion that say they
are on Internet [1]. Of cause they can't be on Facebook without being on
Internet, but those users have no idea that Facebook require internet, and
that it usually means that they also have access to other Internet services.

A lot of users in these countries answer yes to the question "Facebook is the
internet", and claim they never follows links out of Facebook. Of cause these
answers reveal widespread ignorance, and it may be that they don't know if
they leave Facebook or not, but it does mean that Facebook is the gateway to
Internet for them. Thus a lot of users will stay satisfied with internet.org,
especially if that is what most people in their local communities use.

[1] [http://qz.com/579502/the-winners-and-losers-
of-2015s-10-most...](http://qz.com/579502/the-winners-and-losers-
of-2015s-10-most-closely-watched-tech-ipos/)

~~~
peteretep
Who cares what they think they're connected to? In Thailand, like everywhere
else, most of the links Facebook shows are off-network.

AOL's walled garden didn't stop people exploring the big wide world, it was a
gateway drug.

~~~
eggie
> AOL's walled garden didn't stop people exploring the big wide world, it was
> a gateway drug.

For many it may have been a gateway to facebook ;)

------
firasd
I had this exchange with a VP at Facebook:
[https://twitter.com/firasd/status/679620676286693377](https://twitter.com/firasd/status/679620676286693377)

    
    
      Me: if you guys prevail in enabling zero-rating it even damages Facebook.
      WeChat could be zero-rated & undermine WhatsApp
      
      Them: so you're saying it could foster competition?
      
      Me: it means anyone launching an app will have to cut a business deal with an ISP.
      Completely subverts the value of the internet
    

It's telling that people behind this program don't even understand how
critical net neutrality was to Facebook's success and the health of the
internet.

~~~
zinghaboi
Is he really a VP at Facebook or just a troll?!

~~~
firasd
His twitter just has his first name but from the nature of his tweets he seems
like someone working on internet.org

------
enlightenedfool
That suspension is for a bribe. Once that's in, expect it to be lifted. I'm
not kidding. It's a core ethic by which government functions.

~~~
wtmt
While a lot of things may be influenced by bribes, the TRAI (Telecom
Regulatory Authority of India) is one of the better entities that also works
for the common person and is respected a lot more by the public compared to
local arms of the governments. It may not be perfect, but it's not the sleazy
corrupt good-for-nothing entity you may assume it to be.

------
chdir
Submitted this to HN yesterday but it didn't get attention. This articles
summarizes the issues well : [https://medium.com/@amod/the-dangers-of-a-rogue-
social-netwo...](https://medium.com/@amod/the-dangers-of-a-rogue-social-
network-5563508cf752)

Another note, Facebook is spending millions to lobby & market "Free Basics" in
India.

More examples of their machinations, stressing on the word "accidental" :
[http://recode.net/2015/12/21/facebook-accidentally-asks-
u-s-...](http://recode.net/2015/12/21/facebook-accidentally-asks-u-s-users-to-
support-free-basics-in-india/) .

------
tn13
Just because a person is poor does not mean he is stupid and cant decide for
himself. Give poor people an opportunity to decide for themselves.

"Free basics" is free because someone is paying for it (in this case
facebook). Banning it would not make normal internet available at same price
point to poor people. The choice here for these poor people is between "free
basics" and "no internet". I personally think they are better off with "free
basics".

My driver has Whatsapp but no data connection as he does not want to pay (Rs
120) $2 per month extra. Instead he connects to wi-fi at my home whenever
necessary. I think he will be better off with free basics.

In a moral standpoint asking telecom companies to forgo their profits to
impose our own view of internet on them through government coercion seems like
theft to me. Since spectrum is public property government could have imposed
such a restriction while demanding bids for it but adding this constraint
later seems like a robbery.

------
christopherDam
I think somehow Facebook wants to kill the competition , do not want to let
innovate the world and want to rule on the internet. There is whole startups
group which want to innovate and evolve but due to shitty ideas of Facebook
and other operators this will change the whole game only because or their
selfishness.

------
littletimmy
This is so ridiculous. Zuckerberg keeps suggesting that he is doing something
good, which everyone can transparently see is just an effort to make Facebook
more popular! How disconnected from reality is he?

~~~
aianus
> he is doing something good

> just an effort to make Facebook more popular

These things are not mutually exclusive.

~~~
littletimmy
Technically correct, but the ad campaign is trying to make it sound like it's
only to do good. That's what's hypocritical.

That said, Facebook is not good.

------
tn13
Also to point out other things, closes systems like Playstore and Appstore
actually help poor people get access to quality apps without worrying about
frauds or malware.

------
dang
Url changed from [http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/23/free-basics-trai-
suspension...](http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/23/free-basics-trai-suspension/),
which points to this.

------
sremani
Zukerberg cannot catch a break. Poor fellow, what kind of money does he make
by connecting the lower economic spectrum of India? Is there some business
tactics in there for growing the consumer base, sure, but honestly, this
should be perhaps duty of Indian people, public or private. For all its
imperfection internet.org is about reaching to poor people, who have NO
ACCESS. Is a heavily subsidized but limited access EVIL than No ACCESS.

~~~
zinghaboi
Reaching out to poor people is a poor propaganda excuse to make sure the
regulator doesn't come after them.

Free Basics is being advertised in metropolitan areas, not poor villages. Why
waste money advertising it on TV Channels which only the elites watch? Poor
people cannot afford subscriptions to those channels. Yet they're running Free
Basics ads on those channels. Why don't they limit Free Basics to first time
FB sign ups? Why are they targeting people who already have internet
connections? Majority of people who will sign up for Free Basics are the ones
who already have internet. That is exactly what Zuck wants. No advertising
money to be made in remote villages. If it was...Facebook would be in the
villages...it is NOT!

The fact is that Facebook is not committed to Net Neutrality.

~~~
sremani
Are metros devoid of poverty? It is the first group of poor people who might
be aware of Internet but do not have economic power to attain it. If I start
something like FB basics, I will start with Urban poor, not rural poor.
Advertising on Channels, I do not have much knowledge and you may have a point
there.

Even in First World, people are cutting cord and using their mobile phones as
sole Internet connection, that Internet is capped, has priority traffic etc.

I prefer net neutrality, but am willing to give some exceptions esp. when
catering to lower economic spectrum, who themselves cannot exchange money for
Internet connection.

