India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

http://blog.savetheinternet.in/statement-on-trai-order-on-diff-pricing/

by scorpion032 • 10 years ago

684 212 10 years ago

blog.savetheinternet.in

scorpion0324• 10 years ago

Probably the most progressive regulation among anywhere in the world.

Enforcement of these #NetNeutrality principles is the literal granting of the Liberties and Equalities of opportunities, granted to individuals and as such this is a landmark order that will have far reaching repercussions.

Worth noting how this played out. A bunch of folks on the internet, organised themselves and campaigned to stop a $300B market cap corporation and a bunch of telecoms with strong lobbying capabilities. Who would have thought they would win? The situation is worth a Harvard case study or a Nate Silver book.

The future of influencing policy making is right here; and you ain't seen anything yet! Save The Internet team clearly seems to understand the virality of social networks better than Facebook does!

intended3• 10 years ago

While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors.

We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues.

Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.

eterm• 10 years ago

How do we focus instead on changes required for a better internet?

The internet was originally designed (imagined?) to route around bad actors, congestion, censorship. If it no longer does that (and there's some truth to say it never has) then we've failed to build in the necessary incentives for that to happen.

jace3• 10 years ago

We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues.

Which is exactly what we will do.

mtgx2• 10 years ago

Even in the US we see people finally getting tired of the candidates pushed by Big Money, and many appear to have woken up and reject the candidates pushed by Big Money by default - like they won't even give them a second look.

I think this trend will only grow in the future, and I hope it grows enough and it gathers enough political will to actually drastically limit Big Money influence (that includes limiting corporate lobbying), and to move to a proportional representation system, like what 90 other countries in the world have.

There's a reason why there are like 40% Independents in the US - they are sick and tired of the two existing parties, but those two parties are making it virtually impossible for them to support anyone else. So either they are forced to vote for a Democrat or Republican (because we wouldn't that other monster to win) or they just refuse to vote.

Not to mention that for Congress elections, people virtually have no say in who's elected because of gerrymandering. At least 85% of the seats this year will be safe for those who already own them. So no wonder people think "why vote?" The system is rigged against them by design. This is no democracy.

Can you imagine if they actually had a choice for various other parties that could be guaranteed to be represented in Congress? We'd probably see the Democratic and Republican parties die off pretty quickly (within 10-15 years) if they wouldn't seriously reform themselves.

Lessig actually aggregated many of the extremely important reforms that the US needs to restore its democracy, under his "Citizen Equality Act", but too bad the "Democratic" party never even gave him a chance, and kept changing the rules mid-game to excuse itself for eliminating him.

His plan includes national election day, automatic registration, proportional representation, lobbying reform and citizen funded elections:

https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/

shostack• 10 years ago

Fair point and you can look at examples elsewhere in politics and business. TPP is a great example of something that went through iteration after iteration before finally being rammed through.

CISPA and its predecessors were similar. The entities with a vested interest in having these things come to pass have essentially endless coffers to take the long view. All they need is to succeed once whereas we need to succeed in stopping these things each and every time. It is a war of attrition.

geodel• 10 years ago

It does not look as simple to me. From what I hear it's other VC funded e-commerce companies who were most vocal against FB. Using their foreign investors' money to to heavy discount and simultaneously blocking smaller companies does not seem anything right/decent or progressive.

nileshtrivedi2• 10 years ago

VC-funded companies actually wanted differential pricing (which allows FreeBasics). Flipkart, for example, signed up as a partner for Airtel Zero.

Among the 700 startups who signed the petition against differential pricing, there are very few big names in startups - because they stand to gain from differential pricing.

randyrand4• 10 years ago

progressive

How is it progressive? This is conservative (not wanting change).

quickben• 10 years ago

Can you consider that the change wound have been (in utilitarian terms) detrimental?

dingo_bat3• 10 years ago

Two key aspects of the Net Neutrality consultation that remain: firstly, the proposed requirement for providers of VoIP services like Whatsapp, Viber and Skype to obtain a government licence, which would mean that telecom operators could be required to treat traffic from unlicensed VoIP providers differently from the rest, and secondly, allowing telecom operators the ability to slow down and speed up websites, giving them the ability to play king-makers and gate-keepers. Citizens should be vigilant, as always, and should consider participating in this process in the future. SaveTheInternet opposes any form of licensing of Internet Services. This includes VoIP.

So even though discriminatory pricing is not allowed, operators can still slow/speed down/up apps and websites. Seems to me a key aspect of net neutrality has not been upheld.

For eg, what if an ISP decides to "slow down" Netflix to 0.1 kbps? I believe this is a wholly unsatisfactory outcome of the entire national debate over the last several months.

cmadan6• 10 years ago

Its a step in the right direction. TRAI was only deciding on differential pricing not slow/fast lanes and currently no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes whereas differential pricing (i.e. free plans for Facebook, Whatsapp, their own shitty apps etc) were all over.

dingo_bat3• 10 years ago

no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes

How do we know that? And even if they aren't, they will start doing it.

This was a great chance to disallow all of that crap but instead TRAI has been tempted to regulate voice apps, a task that they are simply incapable of performing effectively anyway.

anoncow• 10 years ago

Definitely a step in the right direction, but there are plenty of ISPs who provide preferential treatment to Google by peering with their servers. YouTube HD videos stream without buffering on 512kbps connections.

https://www.quora.com/I-am-from-Mumbai-I-have-an-Internet-co...

mtgx2• 10 years ago

I think in this case "having to get a license" means "you'll have to allow us to monitor the communications if you want the license".

tzs5• 10 years ago

So does this mean Wikipedia Zero will have to be shut down in India?

arihant2• 10 years ago

India has different set of laws on it. It's not allowed to create slow lanes in the first place. It's also not allowed to provision a broadband speed of lower than 512 kbit which is due to be revised to 1 mbit/2 mbit minimum depending on where you are later this year. Similar minimum speed rules exist for 2G, 3G, and now LTE.

This new ban works alongside other laws. Broadband operators must adhere to existing neutrality laws, minimum speed laws, laws regarding unlawful banning of websites.

To answer your question, no, a Netflix lane of 0.1 kbps is not allowed, and never was. Even service provider assisted parental control is not allowed. Airtel had to backtrack Quickheal offer a couple years back because somebody saw it as operator influence. You must implement parental control at home, and your service provider can't sell you the software or that service.

dingo_bat3• 10 years ago

You are contradicting what was written on savetheinternet.in. I don't know which is more accurate. FWIW I haven't seen any minimum speed requirement. I've only seen that broadband has a minimum speed. And I've seen ISPs advertise "high speed Internet" to get around it.

atroyn3• 10 years ago

Could Facebook not simply have outmanoeuvred the problem here by providing free access to the wider web, perhaps in a rolling fashion? Does Facebook have any real 'native' competition in India?

anilgulecha• 10 years ago

Aircel provide a fully-free low-speed internet in some regions.

scorpion0324• 10 years ago

If their motive were genuinely connectivity, as they advertised it, they can still do it. #EqualRating is allowed, so are charitable initiatives such as Free Data to everyone.

But what do they really want? The next billion internet users hooked onto their platform. That's what they paid Whatsapp a whooping $19B for.

I can't presume to know for sure. We'll both see what will they do of their Freebasics program now.

atroyn3• 10 years ago

But won't they be just as hooked as in markets where Facebook has already penetrated? Seems like the smart play is just getting people on-line, and getting them onto Facebook the same way they always have.

Why wouldn't that work in India?

chillydawg• 10 years ago

Zuckerberg said it himself: without the amazing monopolistic properties of the system as proposed, providing free access to everything would not be economically viable. Of course it wouldn't be economically viable, how could it be?

atroyn3• 10 years ago

On the revenue side, Facebook doesn't monetize these users (yet), and it's a virtual monopoly in almost every market it's in. On the cost side, one bit costs pretty much the same as any other to serve.

Manishearth8• 10 years ago

Yes, they could have. See: Aircel/Gigato/Grameenphone; which all provide equal+free internet in some form by cutting down on a data cap, speed, or something else.

madaxe_again• 10 years ago

So - I wonder how Facebook will respond to their market penetration and lock-in effort being declared illegal, as granting access to one set of sites for free and not allowing access to others surely falls under this legislation.

I expect that they'll continue business as usual, and will drag out the battle until they have a captive and indoctrinated audience (after all, they control the content, so you can be sure folks won't be reading about this, but they will be reading about how internet.org gives you freedom and is great and wonderful) who will push the government in favour of banning non-discriminatory pricing.

rasz_pl• 10 years ago

They will offer all of the web in free package, throttled to 100bytes/second. Because current legislation was solely about pricing.

rohmish7• 10 years ago

Now that's something we actually can accept. 100bytes/sec is too low for any practical use but 64kbps-128kbps is a good speed.

icebraining7• 10 years ago

they control the content, so you can be sure folks won't be reading about this

Unless they just go to https://www.facebook.com/netneutralityin/

mbrutsch• 10 years ago

You are undermining the popular narrative with your facts and what-not.

Manishearth8• 10 years ago

I think there were reports of savetheinternet.in posts being shadowbanned (i.e, a post containing this link is not visible in others' TLs) or something, but I don't recall exactly what was happening or if it was verifiable.

retube2• 10 years ago

As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more, which is being universally applauded as a good thing.

But isn't this contrary to the whole inequality issue? Shouldn't richer people be charged more? Richer people are being charged more for state infrastructure via higher taxes - which is also generally applauded as a good thing amongst the young/liberal demographic (in fact it doesn't go far enough many would argue).

So why is it bad for companies to charge more to certain demographics? If people are prepared to pay why's that wrong? Isn't value pricing actually intrinsically "fair" as richer customers are effectively subsiding poorer customers?

rtdp• 10 years ago

This was not about charging differently based on how much people have.

It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using.

So, if I have much money, I can have my service freely for everyone, while this other startup, unless pays to internet providers, will be available over the paid internet.

retube2• 10 years ago

It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using.

Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth

toyg3• 10 years ago

The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like.

Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen over and over again, removing cost barriers for utility infrastructure is a tremendous spark for all sorts of economic activity.

icebraining7• 10 years ago

This is what the internet should be like.

The thing is: how does banning Free Basics / Internet.org provide that?

That's what bothers me about this movement: it should be about giving poor people free access to the Net (which would just render Facebook's toy platform irrelevant - no need to ban it).

Today a bunch of activists are celebrating victory, but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access. It's hard not to feel like these campaigns are little more than middle-class people patting themselves on the back.

ikeboy4• 10 years ago

If that's the case, then let providers discriminate all they want, and have the government set up their own competition that does what they want.

I'm perfectly within my rights to buy up a bunch of land, and build a road on it, and only let rich people drive on it. There are plenty of examples, e.g. exclusive clubs and the like. I'm allowed to sell water at whatever price I want: but if I charge too much, cities will use someone else.

The government doesn't have a monopoly on roads, they just built the biggest one (perhaps with eminent domain), and therefore won the competition.

When there is an enforced government monopoly (e.g. post office), they tend to do poorly.

ahallock2• 10 years ago

So in a truly free market how would people get to stores to buy products without roads or other means of transportation? Surely businesses, collectively, would pay for them.

Also, the internet is a conglomeration of things, so it's not really a product or a utility. I think comparing it to something like water or electricity is apples and oranges. What you want is easy, cheap access to the internet. I agree with you, but I'd like to see a voluntary solution.

crdoconnor• 10 years ago

As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more

Price sensitivity != how rich you are

hargup• 10 years ago

On the issue TRAI said "In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users' internet experience. This can prove to be risky in the medium to long term as the knowledge and outlook of those users would be shaped only by the information made available through those select offerings."

The full explanation by TRAI is definitely worth reading, it talks about all the issues encompassing differential pricing, i.e., market distortion, information asymmetry, the natural of Internet and the special case of India. http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulati...

ahallock2• 10 years ago

So why is it bad for companies to charge more to certain demographics?

Because that's poor allocation of resources and discriminatory (people are being treated differently for the same products). Paying more than the market value for a product means money is not being allocated elsewhere.

Magnets• 10 years ago

Where does the article mention anything about discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content in the linked article?

jace3• 10 years ago

Here's the order this article is referring to: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regu...

jiraaya3• 10 years ago

It is extremely dubious if someone turns up with a "Knight in shining armor" plan for saving the world. It would be safe to say that outsiders who are not a part of the "plan" do not have all the information to figure out the true motive behind these initiatives. It is also safe to say that direct or indirect monetary profit is almost always behind such initiatives.

First it was monsanto exploiting farmers http://www.globalresearch.ca/independent-india-selling-out-t...

Then came Bill Gates with his vaccines and testing them on tribal children just because the regulatory environment makes it easier to test them in India https://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/

And now comes Mr. Zuckerberg with dubious claims about "one person brought out of poverty for every five people who get access to internet" which seems to be a textbook causation-correlation misinterpretation.

The general public must awaken to the fact that the so called third world is seen as a market with potential for double digit growth and the easiest way to enter them might just be through false pre-texts of heart warming charity.

spatulan• 10 years ago

I suspect a website called vactruth may not be the most impartial website around.

jiraaya3• 10 years ago

I agree. CNN may be? http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073

jasonkester• 10 years ago

I'm having trouble parsing this article through all the propaganda speak. Clearly whoever wrote it is happy that a victory has been scored and that the Internet is no longer broken (and has possibly even been saved) with the help of some agency that did something important that we should know about.

But it's so thick with its own team's code language that I can't actually parse out what happened.

Anybody know what's going on?

scorpion0324• 10 years ago

I wrote up a "let's get this straight" message earlier, may be that will appeal to you more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10932166

electriclove• 10 years ago

Great quote on a different article covering the same story: http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/technology/india-facebook-fr...

----------

Mahesh Murthy, a prominent Indian venture capitalist, last year described the program as "imperialism and the East India Company all over again," carried out under the guise of "digital equality."

"What Facebook wants is our less fortunate brothers and sisters should be able to poke each other and play Candy Crush, but not be able to look up a fact on Google, or learn something on Khan Academy or sell their produce on a commodity market or even search for a job," he said.

NoPiece3• 10 years ago

Can a quote be great if it is also completely factually inaccurate?

gnaddel• 10 years ago

Could you elaborate why it is inaccurate?

splintercell17• 10 years ago

"What Facebook wants is our less fortunate brothers and sisters should be able to poke each other and play Candy Crush, but not be able to look up a fact on Google, or learn something on Khan Academy or sell their produce on a commodity market or even search for a job," he said.<

Indians use connectivity very differently than the rest of the world(or at least different from the developed countries). To Indians, phone/internet is a mode of communication first. It was the thing which has been missing from their lives the most. This is especially true for the demographics Facebook was targeting.

The reason is the language barrier. A lot more Indians can read and write English needed for directions, news headlines, legal documents, store names etc, than those who can truly express themselves in English. My mom is a great example of this, she can read and write English, but will have trouble understanding a conversation going on purely in English.

This is the reason her smartphone usage is almost all reliant upon content created and generated by others. WhatsApp and Facebook are the two most used apps on her phone. It isn't that she wouldn't like to read up facts about politicians and world events from Wikipedia, it's just that Hindi Wikipedia and Google suck. However, if someone were to forward her a news article, a recipe or just make posts on their facebook, she's a lot more comfortable doing that.

It's been less than 5 years since she got WhatsApp and Facebook, but the social network she has created around the two facilitates her family in ways it was not imaginable 10 years ago.

BTW "It's East India Company all over again" is a cliche at this point and should be considered racist in India (because it's almost exclusively used against any non-Indian entrepreneurship in India).

senthil_rajasek• 10 years ago

"... is a cliche at this point and should be considered racist in India... "

How is that racist?

Expressing nationalism is not racist unless in specific other circumstances. In the U.S, Japanese and Korean auto makers were accused of stealing jobs and Latino Americans still are... I see it as a form of nationalism.

[edited: to remove Europe and fix punctuation]

tmerr• 10 years ago

Interesting point but I'm not sure how it applies to the argument. If websites are low quality, is that justification for an ISP to block them?

sremani8• 10 years ago

I love the Ghosts of East India Company are always invoked when a foreign company enters India with heft, this was said of Coke, Pepsi and now when referring to Facebook Basics and Amazon. Of course, the stone walling of Foreign Retailers like Walmart. Anybody who talks about EIC is a protectionist trying to play on Colonial insecurities.

Having grown up in Socialist India, the demagogue who summons East India Company talk scares me more than East India Company itself.

singham• 10 years ago

Your is a very specific example. My mom can't do that. But father can.

unprepare3• 10 years ago

it's just that Hindi Wikipedia and Google suck

And you think enabling tens of millions of people to access these resources will make them....worse?

Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia, by its very nature it gets better the more people access and use it, the more editors there are translating articles from other languages, etc.

You have not listed a single thing that would make it a net positive for a corporation to decide which sites millions of people should and should not be able to visit.

This is to say nothing of the next whatsapp or facebook - this plan is obviously about preventing competition.

You say they use the internet for communication first, is it any wonder Facebook/WhatsApp wants to ensure they control what mediums of communication are accessible throughout India?

What do you say to the Indian coder who today is working on his WhatsApp competitor? tough shit, facebook already bought the internet in this country?

Perixoog• 10 years ago

Does she use email?

ignoramous2• 10 years ago

The closed nature of the internet is dangerous for reasons far beyond "mom and pop can't use the rest of the internet anyway" argument:

1. Content Quality reduces due to lack of choice, and lack of exposure: Closed-groups are places where spam, false information, propaganda breed to a high degree. Other parts of internet help verify claims/suspicions/hypothesis.

2. Sets up a monopoly, vendor-lock-in, changes habits: Facebook would hold immeasurable power, once they've got people hooked onto thinking that there's nothing beyond their apps. The content they censor, never appears on their networks; the content they don't like die a bad death, the apps they don't interface with die a rather quick death, the business they don't bless die a death by the guillotine, the businesses they do business with die a death by a thousand paper cuts.

3. MBAs ride the wave with their business plans, corrupt official enact new laws, freedom is lost: Similar schemes by multiple powerful corporations crop-up everywhere. Internet gets fragment, and everyone is left to rue the freedom they gave up. 'Cause its a long battle up the hill, once the rules and laws are in place, they're very difficult to change because of the inherent momentum it affords to all those "rent-seekers" and "opportunistic" businesses that crop up around it. For a case study, refer how the Airline industry squeezed out every ounce of leg-room, and comfort, for more seats, and in hope to turn more profits...

There's a lot of other things that might happen, or not happen at all... but, remember, when something's free, the product is usually the user.

edge173• 10 years ago

The problem with this sort of nationalism is that it's all talk. No one offers an alternative solution, so the poor continue to be poor. This attitude is what creates trade barriers and protectionist policies, and India won't solve their problems until they can compete with other nations on manufacturing and prices. The reality is that, unless you are able to keep up with modern tooling you're just going to keep falling farther and farther behind on quality and competitiveness. If India wants to improve the futures of a billion people, bold macro-economic changes have to be taken.

zenincognito• 10 years ago

I think for all meaningful solutions discussion and "talk" is critical. What would happen if India did not take offence to the free basics program as is ? It is crystal clear that FB was trying to muscle its power around as this meant a large demographics for them.

Its a win for India. Win for the free market.

bottled_poe• 10 years ago

Talk is an important part of progress. Implementing a half-assed solution to such a massive problem will have lasting implications for decades. I realise this goes against the modern hacker groupthink, but in this case requirements analysis is actually an important part of ensuring that billions of people don't get fucked by a US corporation.

perseusprime11• 10 years ago

What a bunch proclamation!

mwsherman• 10 years ago

I don’t see any quotes from users of the service, in this article or in the CNN article. Seems salient.

gamekathu• 10 years ago

full regulation paper from TRAI : http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulati...

Sven7• 10 years ago

This has been like watching one form of misinformation battling another form of misinformation. One set of misguided people battling another set of misguided people.

NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies. It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context.

Activists in the West (who's rep and rent are based on their commitment to netneutrality) without knowing anything about the local context have been cheering on local activists.

Local activists (led by stand up comedians ofcourse similar to Glenn Beck\Jon Stewart) getting carried away by this support (cause Urban India has this strange craving for western validation which I still don't fully understand) have now convinced the regulator to step in and are celebrating victory.

This is similar to how the Egyptians celebrated victory after the army stepped in to depose a democratically elected govt. Just Unbelievable! Free markets are dead. Regulation driven by manufactured outrage or vested interests manufacturing outrage are alive and thriving.

Ofcourse it doesn't help that Facebook and their games are involved which automatically swings every debate into deeply religious territory. As much as I can't stand Facebook and will have nothing to do with them ever, the point of a free market (which produces innovation) has been lost.

If Christian missionaries or Hindu missions go and setup schools and libraries for free in Rural India is someone protesting differential pricing in Urban India. It's ridiculous.

The people who loose out are the farmer\weaver who just need an email address to be linked to the cities. Who is going to provide that now? Rural India is so vast and voiceless that they are the automatic loosers in such a debate.

Congratulations NetNeutrality activists! Well done.

manish_gill3• 10 years ago

Wow, such holier than thou attitude.

Anything thinking the problem is that the poor people aren't connected enough is seriously misinformed. India connected over 300mil people last year, and guess what, Facebook's effort only contributed ~1% of that number.

Not to mention, over the long term, the very real problem that the Facebook walled garden of apps would present in terms of opportunities for entrepreneurs is much more urgent in an emerging economy like India. India has tried (and is still trying) subsidies for the poor, that hasn't helped. Facebook wanted everyone to go through their platform before reaching those users. Will that help the guy from the small town who just created an app? No it won't.

So yeah, your condescending comparisons to Egypt and your "think of the poor!" argument is the exact same thing Zuckerberg said in his op-ed in Times of India. It didn't work then and it is not gonna work now.

dang4• 10 years ago

such holier than thou attitude [...] your condescending comparison

Please edit such personal rudeness out of your posts to HN. It's not allowed, even when someone else is condescending and wrong.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

slaxman2• 10 years ago

Wow! This comment is really far away from reality.

1/ There are no studies that show correlation between free basics and increase in internet penetration. In fact, Reliance Telecom, Facebook's free basics partner in India, marketed it was a way to surf facebook & whatsapp for free.

2/ Google is giving away free internet in Railway stations in India. Unlike free basics, it gives access to the complete internet and not to a set of websites that have done a deal with facebook. No one opposed it, since it does not break net neutrality.

3/ I find it ridiculous that some folks in Western countries can start dictating what's good for the poor in India and think that the arguments of people actually living there are invalid.

I would encourage you to try to understand the issue from a local perspective by speaking to the people who live there rather than have unsubstantiated assumptions.

Vickor• 10 years ago

1. Facebook has provided studies that do indicate increased internet adoption after free basics (real internet adoption, after having been introduced via Fed basics). You're welcome to read the studies and debate their bias, but the studies exist.

How the telecoms market is irrelevant to this discussion. Of course they're going to market having access to the most popular websites and apps. Hell, they probably use the same advertising when selling real internet service.

2. Also irrelevant. Internet in train stations is not comparable at any level to cellular data connectivity for 10's of millions of people.

3. You are right in this point, but I also find it presumptuous that the Indians with enough money to have internet are the ones dictating what is good for the Indian people without enough money for internet.

kopos• 10 years ago

Yes, it is a problem that Facebook is not the saviour.

1. But with a huge untapped market like India, won't there be any other corporations who would step in to build a Mozilla Phone or the Grameen Phone style projects in India?

2. Not even looking to these saviors, it will definitely be the Network operators themselves who will be tapping this market. Even with Free Basics, it was not Facebook that was subsidizing the content or the network costs. So if the networks were happy subsidizing with Facebook, I guess they will be happy doing the same without Facebook in the picture ... No?

teeboy• 10 years ago

1. Mozilla and Grameen phone don't violate Net Neutrality. They would be warmly welcomed.

2. They can only do so with their own products now. Not Facebook.

manigandham• 10 years ago

You vastly misunderstand/misjudge the connectivity of India.

scorpion0324• 10 years ago

Could you please share what you are smoking, that has got you this high to be so far disconnected from reality.

Here is a concise set of carefully articulated arguments: https://docs.google.com/document/u/1/d/1Yfbhrlb7a_z-pQytLPwE... which are very true in the Indian context.

Also your argument on free-market ignores, assumes the absence of a regulator. It might hold when no regulator exists. But under the given condition when a limited amount of spectrum, a natural resource is auctioned to a select number of companies and a regulator exists, how possibly can this be un-regulated?

How possibly can you hand over the power to seek rent from these content provides to these bullying telcos. What would the repercussion be to the consumers of these content.

dang4• 10 years ago

Could you please share what you are smoking, that has got you this high to be so far disconnected from reality.

You can't comment like this here. Please post civilly or not at all.

rajeshba• 10 years ago

Having stayed in both the US and India for significant part of my adult life, I feel qualified enough to understand both perspectives: 1. Does FreeBasics help poor people? May be it does in the short term but the long term consequences are irreversible. This is like losing forest for the trees. 2. Subsidies of various kinds have been around since Independent India and to be true, they are what have held back. To understand this further, you need to know why food subsidy bill and other rural employment schemes have failed to achieve any sort of desirable benefit and led to rout of the oldest political party. One has to agree that these subsidies are the true form of "free basics" (pun intended) someone needs to survive.

For the first time in years, India has true opportunity to break out of shackles and become a developed country. I have seen the optimism in younger lot and how entrepreneurs of all kinds are solving India specific problems. This is despite the rigid regulations which are being eased as we speak. The future only looks bright.

Peace, Rajesh

sremani8• 10 years ago

It will become a large economy, Developed country not in the next 2 decades.

kamaal10• 10 years ago

> NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies.

This to me sounds like Winston Churchill saying Indians don't deserve democracy as those are the luxuries of rich white populated western countries.

>It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context.

People rights are the same. We here in India are humans too.

>Free markets are dead. Regulation driven by manufactured outrage or vested interests manufacturing outrage are alive and thriving.

Whole point of these protests was to keep the ecosystem for a free market alive.

> If Christian missionaries or Hindu missions go and setup schools and libraries for free in Rural India is someone protesting differential pricing in Urban India. It's ridiculous.

India has a thriving debate on keeping religion out of schools.

>The people who loose out are the farmer\weaver who just need an email address to be linked to the cities. Who is going to provide that now? Rural India is so vast and voiceless that they are the automatic loosers in such a debate.

You completely under estimate internet penetration in India. Nearly every body who needs it, already has access to basics. Those who don't, have bigger issues than liking somebody's Facebook status.

Those people eating rotis made from wild grass in bundelkhand have bigger issues. Their issues have more to do with irrigation infrastructure and other larger systemic issues in India in general(not the right time to discuss these issues in this thread). Not facebook or email.

ecobiker2• 10 years ago

They will protest if the schools restrict to teaching Catholicism or the Vedas respectively.

minusSeven• 10 years ago

I guess we should let a billionaire with obvious conflicts of interest hold control over what poor of the country should use.

dhawalhs• 10 years ago

Couple of articles I would recommend reading about Free Basics

1. Here’s How Free Basics Is Actually Being Sold Around The World http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/heres-how-free-basi...

2. How India Pierced Facebook’s Free Internet Program https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-...

For the second article, reporter asked Facebook to put her in touch with Free Basics users. All the people that Facebook connected her were already internet users. But Mark Zuckerberg in an FB post claimed that "19 million people were connected to the internet for the first time with free basics".

Both these articles present examples of how Free Basics is actually advertised in rest of the world.

nileshtrivedi2• 10 years ago

Indeed.

"Free Basics was ostensibly targeted at Indians who had never experienced the Internet or could not pay for data plans. However, Facebook recently struggled to provide a reporter with the name of a single Free Basics user in India who had never been online before."

Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/india-ruling-trai-free-b...

titomc• 10 years ago

Mark "tried to solve a non existent problem" and fell over.

India is not a country where everyone rides on bullocarts or tuk tuks. Its a fast developing nation. Its not what you see in Hollywood movies or western medias. India do not need help on the internet side of things.

tzs5• 10 years ago

Its a fast developing nation

The benefits of development are very unevenly distributed. Some areas are the equal of any first world country...and others lag behind even the poorest African countries.

India do not need help on the internet side of things.

The 800 million Indians [1] without internet might disagree with that.

I think you've forgotten just how freaking big India is. They have 400 million people online, which is the second most of any country (only China has more, with 670 million online)...yet they are so big that this is only 1/3 of their population.

[1] Indian population: 1200 million - 400 million with access [2] = 800 million without.

[2] http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-to-have-402-mill...

sremani8• 10 years ago

With 56% of population agrarian, India is not as modern as the Urban Middle Class wants itself to believe.

randyrand4• 10 years ago

People don't know they need something until you tell them they do.

We didn't have a problem in the 1990s by not having a smartphones. We didn't have a problem without the internet. We didn't have a problem without electricity.

dang4• 10 years ago

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35522899 gives the background without an autoplay video like the CNN link has.

kaka189• 10 years ago

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251

Everyone in the world should have access to the internet. That's why we launched Internet.org with so many different initiatives -- including extending networks through solar-powered planes, satellites and lasers, providing free data access through Free Basics, reducing data use through apps, and empowering local entrepreneurs through Express Wi-Fi. Today India's telecom regulator decided to restrict programs that provide free access to data. This restricts one of Internet.org's initiatives, Free Basics, as well as programs by other organizations that provide free access to data. While we're disappointed with today's decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet. Our work with Internet.org around the world has already improved many people's lives. More than 19 million people in 38 countries have been connected through our different programs. Connecting India is an important goal we won't give up on, because more than a billion people in India don't have access to the internet. We know that connecting them can help lift people out of poverty, create millions of jobs and spread education opportunities. We care about these people, and that's why we're so committed to connecting them. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. That mission continues, and so does our commitment to India.

suyash• 10 years ago

Congratulations..this is great news for India!

thetruthseeker1• 10 years ago

Note in the USA, Verizon does not ding uses of their data cap if they use Verizon's video content Go90, however it does if the users use YouTube. It is interesting that in India the net neutrality has been taken to a much higher degree than in the US itself. But I don't think what India did is a bad thing in the long run(even though the acceleration of people moving to use Internet for first time will get hurt a little bit in the short term)

rohmish7• 10 years ago

As stated above, even Facebook themselves couldn't point to a single user that for to internet for first time using the free basics campaign. People who want internet and a smartphone required to connect to internet can already get to internet. On other end, people don't have a smartphone to access the free basics program and Facebook doesn't solve that problem. Facebook is jsut trying to get more people to use Facebook by giving access for free and bundling a few low usage apps people rarely use in name of charity

randyrand4• 10 years ago

1) I think it's ironic that the people most opposed to Free Basics are the ones who already have internet.

2) I'm curious how the legislation prevents FB from charging for this service. And what the minimum cost is regulated at.

known• 10 years ago

FB should have donated/bribed appropriate people in India https://twitter.com/rss_org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India

tn13• 10 years ago

As an Indian I feel a bit sad that a few elitist managed to hijack the entire propaganda and denied access to millions of poor people.

US readers: Please note that T-Mobile Binge on and other similar services would be illegal under new TRAI guidelines in India.

India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content

Related Stories