jfeighery

One thing Internet.org really gets right is design for low bandwidth connections. In emerging markets, net neutrality is a distant concern since the reality is severe infrastructure bottlenecks.

I had the chance to try the Internet.org app in Tanzania a few weeks ago. The sites in the app are static pages designed for low bandwidth and the effect is to make entire parts of the internet usable. For example, open the BBC inside I.org app and it's quick and snappy. Try going to BBC.co.uk in the browser and the network provider chokes on downloading all the flash, javascript, video, ads, etc. -- can't even load the page.

Given that reality, one can appreciate Zuckerberg's point that having some internet is better than none. The market can and should provide healthy competition to Facebook's play by designing sites for low bandwidth.

In addition to the difficulty of measuring the cost of losing an entire species forever, as others have pointed out, the question is really do we want this to be an actual functioning river? The more sensitive species are indicators that something has been fundamental changed in the ecosystem.

The headline sensationalizes a bit. It's not the 6 fish that are at issue, it's the balance between human activities and ecosystem degradation that we as a society are willing to accept. The Endangered Species Act has saved dozens of beaches and wetlands in Texas from being overrun by oil and gas development. Often a few fish or frogs were the only thing standing in their way!