India Introduces Net Neutrality Rules Barring Facebook's Free Internet

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
India's Telecom Regulatory Authority has blocked Facebook's Free Basics internet service as part of a net neutrality ruling. I'm not sure what is up with countries banning and blocking free internet but you know this has to be pissing off the powers that be at Facebook.

India introduced new rules on Monday to prevent Internet service providers from having different pricing policies for accessing different parts of the web, in a setback to Facebook Inc's plan to roll out a pared-back free Internet service to the masses.
 
I can think of 2 reasons... Fear of losing the ability to censor contents (assuming they have the capacity) judgement about that aside, it's their business. The other is some manner of market distortion.
 
What if they don't call it internet service, but simply Free Facebook. I don't see how net neutrality would apply if it isn't really the internet.
 
Uvaman2 said:
I can think of 2 reasons... Fear of losing the ability to censor contents (assuming they have the capacity) judgement about that aside, it's their business. The other is some manner of market distortion.
Click to expand...

Free internet was tied to a single provider.
 
Good on India, longterm thinkers, not "stock market" heads.
 
Steve said:
India's Telecom Regulatory Authority has blocked Facebook's Free Basics internet service as part of a net neutrality ruling. I'm not sure what is up with countries banning and blocking free internet but you know this has to be pissing off the powers that be at Facebook.

India introduced new rules on Monday to prevent Internet service providers from having different pricing policies for accessing different parts of the web, in a setback to Facebook Inc's plan to roll out a pared-back free Internet service to the masses.
Click to expand...

Uvaman2 said:
I can think of 2 reasons... Fear of losing the ability to censor contents (assuming they have the capacity) judgement about that aside, it's their business. The other is some manner of market distortion.
Click to expand...

Wow lol have you even seen what the so-called "free-internet" Facebook idea entails? Apparently the idea here is Facebook will provide a distilled version of the internet, where only the sites the Facebook things are good will be accessible. So forget accessing hardforum through that service. Why!!!

If you wanna provide free internet, let everyone access the whole internet, not just a portion that the peeps at FB think are fit. Thats a terrible idea. I get that instilling FB at an early age or early adoption is a guranteed way to ensure the user#s stay up, but again I applaud the motion countries understanding that Free Internet from FB is more like FREE FB Approved Internet
 
samm said:
Wow lol have you even seen what the so-called "free-internet" Facebook idea entails? Apparently the idea here is Facebook will provide a distilled version of the internet, where only the sites the Facebook things are good will be accessible. So forget accessing hardforum through that service. Why!!!
Click to expand...

THIS. THIS. THIS. It was a WAP-like "free data" service, where you could only access Facebook, some of their corporate friends and their 'partners'. Searching on Yahoo was free, but if you used Google, "free" became pay-per-kb. Absolutely un-neutral. Plus service was only provided through one CDMA network (when most of the networks in India are GSM), giving the network a service-lock too on people who couldn't afford to switch to another phone should they need to.

Brand-recognition/loyalty can be extremely strong in a less-educated populace. That was Facebook's hook and you can bet they would have started aggressively monetizing their "free basics" walled garden if it had taken root.
 
The facebook sponsored free internet we have here only means your facebook app and facebook chat will keep working, and even then, attachments like pictures and videos are not allowed, nor are we allowed to visit other sites, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE EMAIL!!!

It is strictly facebook.
 
Well, no free anything now. Give an inch, they want to take a mile.

All I see here is everyone's sense of entitlement. If I'm paying for it, yes. I better damn well be able to go wherever I want to. If I'm getting it for free, I'll take what I can get. It's free. Be thankful you have anything.
 
krotch said:
Well, no free anything now. Give an inch, they want to take a mile.

All I see here is everyone's sense of entitlement. If I'm paying for it, yes. I better damn well be able to go wherever I want to. If I'm getting it for free, I'll take what I can get. It's free. Be thankful you have anything.
Click to expand...

Terrible idea, If the idea here is to empower the masses and this is purely for educational and philanthropic purposes do it with that mindset. This just seems like a company tapping into a market that has yet to be explored. Ethically wrong economically genius.

Plus imo if this is FB`s plan to enable grass roots internet access, what the difference between internet censorship that we ridicule and look down upon in place by oppressive governments vs FB, the like button?

Philanthropic work and Economic and subscriber Goals should not be mixed
 
Obviously this is not for education or philanthropic purposes. It's to tap into a new market. They'll of course try to play it off as such, but no one is going to buy that. Not when you're limiting access.

I simply see it as something free. It'd be like Facebook coming and giving me a gift card that I can only use on like, a Facebook store. I can only use said gift card at their store. No problem with me, it's free. Then others jump in and say, well, why can't I use this gift card at Amazon, Newegg, or whatever? It's something they gave out for free, why complain about it? Now if Facebook was charging for their locked down service, then I'd complain.

I personally see what Facebook was doing as a low cost small implementation. Build a small data farm locally and cache those specific websites. This would save on bandwidth, thus costs. Although, I have no idea how their setup is.
 
krotch said:
Obviously this is not for education or philanthropic purposes. It's to tap into a new market. They'll of course try to play it off as such, but no one is going to buy that. Not when you're limiting access.

I simply see it as something free. It'd be like Facebook coming and giving me a gift card that I can only use on like, a Facebook store. I can only use said gift card at their store. No problem with me, it's free. Then others jump in and say, well, why can't I use this gift card at Amazon, Newegg, or whatever? It's something they gave out for free, why complain about it? Now if Facebook was charging for their locked down service, then I'd complain.

I personally see what Facebook was doing as a low cost small implementation. Build a small data farm locally and cache those specific websites. This would save on bandwidth, thus costs. Although, I have no idea how their setup is.
Click to expand...

I think the issue here is that Facebook is seen as exploiting those who have nothing for a chance at locked-in viewership on their site. More ad revenue, not necessarily from people who willingly use Facebook, but from people who can't use anything else. Granted, they don't HAVE to use Facebook with this service, but it's purposefully limited.


I see it like this: what if Nike made free clothes specifically for homeless people? Except the shirts and jackets all had huge ads and coupon codes on them. "SAVE 20% ON NIKE APPAREL WORK COUPON CODE 'HOMELESS.'" Scan a QR code on a bum for cheap sneakers. Yes, the homeless are getting clothes, and they're free, so it's a good deal for them, but is it morally right to do that?

The fear is that there will eventually be a separate internet for the poor or the third world. It's one run by "generous" corporate sponsors, provided free to those who can't afford it so long as they stay locked in that corporation's ecosystem. Sorry, can't price compare this item online, Amazon/Newegg/Whoever isn't one of the partners. Sorry, that politically charged site doesn't really agree with Facebook's corporate image, so it's blocked.

I'm not saying Facebook should pay for the poor's unlimited free internet, not at all. I'm just saying that there needs to be a better and more open way to provide access to those who don't have it in a manner that's morally sound and devoid of profit motives.

Facebook can offer it, but India doesn't have to take it. I wouldn't.
 
That example doesn't work, since it affects others. It'd be more like the bums got clothes from Nike and it's some crazy new fabric that could only be washed in a Nike facility. Then when they went to go wash their clothes (which would be free too), they saw ads for other places in the Nike facilities. Big whoop.
 
wasn't there a documentary about this free internet for all but it was all an evil plan?
 
krotch said:
That example doesn't work, since it affects others. It'd be more like the bums got clothes from Nike and it's some crazy new fabric that could only be washed in a Nike facility. Then when they went to go wash their clothes (which would be free too), they saw ads for other places in the Nike facilities. Big whoop.
Click to expand...

Whats with the analogies? LOL

Its simple. Heres what the Zuck stated as the goal
In our effort to connect the whole world with Internet.org, we've been working on ways to beam internet to people from the sky.
Today, we're sharing some details of the work Facebook's Connectivity Lab is doing to build drones, satellites and lasers to deliver the internet to everyone.
Our goal with Internet.org is to make affordable access to basic internet services available to every person in the world.
We've made good progress so far. Over the past year, our work in the Philippines and Paraguay alone has doubled the number of people using mobile data with the operators we've partnered with, helping 3 million new people access the internet.
We're going to continue building these partnerships, but connecting the whole world will require inventing new technology too. That's what our Connectivity Lab focuses on, and there's a lot more exciting work to do here.
Our team has many of the world's leading experts in aerospace and communications technology, including from NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab and Ames Research Center. Today we are also bringing on key members of the team from Ascenta, a small UK-based company whose founders created early versions of Zephyr, which became the world’s longest flying solar-powered unmanned aircraft. They will join our team working on connectivity aircraft.
You can find more details on our efforts below. We're looking forward to working with our Internet.org partners and operators worldwide to deploy these technologies and deliver on the dream of connecting the world.
Click to expand...
 
krotch said:
That example doesn't work, since it affects others. It'd be more like the bums got clothes from Nike and it's some crazy new fabric that could only be washed in a Nike facility. Then when they went to go wash their clothes (which would be free too), they saw ads for other places in the Nike facilities. Big whoop.
Click to expand...

That's just it, though. Nike sells clothes. Apparel is their product. What's Facebook's product? People. Advertising. They're capturing these people in their ecosystem for ad revenue. Leveraging their captives for a revenue by other means as well. Hey, want to be part of Facebook's internet? We've got three hundred million guaranteed eyes because we can make sure they can't access your competitor's sites. Now fork over $n millions.

Think about it. I bet they allow no other social networks on their internet. Why would they? So now they have a captive audience. Communities, cities, nations even, whose sole choice of social network is Facebook. All their friends use Facebook. Their families use Facebook. Even if they can eventually afford their own internet, everyone they know is on Facebook. They're locked in.

That's obviously Facebook's real plan here. Not saying it isn't smart, of course it is. But it goes against everything the internet should be: choice, openness, access for everyone to all the things everyone else can access.

Just because you can't afford internet, it doesn't mean Facebook gets to own you. That's why India made that choice
 
dr_drift said:
That's just it, though. Nike sells clothes. Apparel is their product. What's Facebook's product? People. Advertising. They're capturing these people in their ecosystem for ad revenue. Leveraging their captives for a revenue by other means as well. Hey, want to be part of Facebook's internet? We've got three hundred million guaranteed eyes because we can make sure they can't access your competitor's sites. Now fork over $n millions.

Think about it. I bet they allow no other social networks on their internet. Why would they? So now they have a captive audience. Communities, cities, nations even, whose sole choice of social network is Facebook. All their friends use Facebook. Their families use Facebook. Even if they can eventually afford their own internet, everyone they know is on Facebook. They're locked in.

That's obviously Facebook's real plan here. Not saying it isn't smart, of course it is. But it goes against everything the internet should be: choice, openness, access for everyone to all the things everyone else can access.

Just because you can't afford internet, it doesn't mean Facebook gets to own you. That's why India made that choice
Click to expand...

Sure seem to be arguing a lot about something we already know. What I'm saying is, it's still free. You're complaining about something that's free. If you don't like it, go buy it elsewhere or don't access it.

Instead, India's government made the choice instead. Which is, you don't get access to it. Facebook doesn't own anyone, they simply gave them a choice. India apparently owns it's people and said "You get nothing."
 
krotch said:
You're complaining about something that's free. If you don't like it, go buy it elsewhere or don't access it.
Click to expand...

Leaving it to the free market may be a fair argument when educated and well-informed consumers are concerned. Facebook's target demographic here was the exact opposite, people who've never had a cellphone beyond a basic candybar/flip (or even months at all) and who have little or no exposure to the Internet.
 
izx said:
Leaving it to the free market may be a fair argument when educated and well-informed consumers are concerned. Facebook's target demographic here was the exact opposite, people who've never had a cellphone beyond a basic candybar/flip (or even months at all) and who have little or no exposure to the Internet.
Click to expand...

So obviously no internet is better than a FREE internet with some restrictions. Riiiigggghhhttt.

"If you can't give everyone their favorite ice cream with all the toppings for free, then no one gets ice cream! Waaaaaahhhh!"

Also, that's pretty arrogant of you to act like Indians are technologically backwards and can't make their own decisions as consumers. Those Indians must all be too poor and stupid to make their own choices, right?

quick cite from Wikipedia:

Indian telecom industry underwent a high pace of market liberalisation and growth since the 1990s and now has become the world's most competitive and one of the fastest growing telecom markets.[11][12] The Industry has grown over twenty times in just ten years, from under 37 million subscribers in the year 2001 to over 846 million subscribers in the year 2011.[1] India has the world's second-largest mobile phone user base with over 929.37 million users as of May 2012.[10] It has the world's second-largest Internet user-base with over 300 million as of June 2015.[13][14]
Click to expand...

Oh man, how would those poor idiots ever know what an internet even is? I mean they barely have cellphones! :rolleyes:
 
izx said:
Leaving it to the free market may be a fair argument when educated and well-informed consumers are concerned. Facebook's target demographic here was the exact opposite, people who've never had a cellphone beyond a basic candybar/flip (or even months at all) and who have little or no exposure to the Internet.
Click to expand...

The classic 'we know better than you' argument.

Why don't you let people decide for themselves what to buy or accept for free. Surely it is more morally unsound to deny a people such a basic thing than it is to risk people being tricked in the marketplace.

It is often those claiming others to be evil that have a blind spot to their own shortcomings.
 
MisterClean said:
So obviously no internet is better than a FREE internet with some restrictions. Riiiigggghhhttt.

"If you can't give everyone their favorite ice cream with all the toppings for free, then no one gets ice cream! Waaaaaahhhh!"

Also, that's pretty arrogant of you to act like Indians are technologically backwards and can't make their own decisions as consumers. Those Indians must all be too poor and stupid to make their own choices, right?

quick cite from Wikipedia:



Oh man, how would those poor idiots ever know what an internet even is? I mean they barely have cellphones! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I don't think they're being entitled brats about it. They just aren't willing to give control of the internet for the large majority of their citizens to Facebook. I would hope that our government would do the same.

Luckily for India, they have the balls to reject an obvious internet "land grab" by a massive company with a vested interest in keeping a billion people locked in Facebook's ecosystem.

I can't believe people would give them shit for having standards. Who cares if it's free? People shouldn't compromise what they believe in just because something's free. I wouldn't offer a starving person a free meal only if they bark like a dog and then get pissed and call them a baby if they tell me they'd rather starve.

Staying true to your ideals even when you're in desperate need is admirable. BUT HEY, FREE STUFF!
 
^^ I'm sure all the other competitions have only charitable intentions. They aren't in the ISP game for the money.
 
Retronym said:
^^ I'm sure all the other competitions have only charitable intentions. They aren't in the ISP game for the money.
Click to expand...

So long as they adhere to India's net neutrality laws then it doesn't matter why they want to offer internet service.

It's weird to be how people can be so for net neutrality here but then say it doesn't matter when it just affects the poor.

How's that for entitlement.
 
Retronym said:
The classic 'we know better than you' argument.

Why don't you let people decide for themselves what to buy or accept for free. Surely it is more morally unsound to deny a people such a basic thing than it is to risk people being tricked in the marketplace.

It is often those claiming others to be evil that have a blind spot to their own shortcomings.
Click to expand...
Yet that is not how shit works in this particular case... The free facebook would create a problem by eliminating oportunities for homegrown internet business, or facebook- like indian apps ( if any exist) it is a net negative for the country.
India might have piles of issues.. But also, they have smart people, they can do their thing too.
I agree with the posters... If you do internet, then do the whole thing. Their government obviously understands... Just like haitian kicking out Monsanto seeds.
 
dr_drift said:
So long as they adhere to India's net neutrality laws then it doesn't matter why they want to offer internet service.

It's weird to be how people can be so for net neutrality here but then say it doesn't matter when it just affects the poor.

How's that for entitlement.
Click to expand...

I'm against Net Neutrality too, even though it likely means a more expensive internet for me. :D
 
dr_drift said:
I don't think they're being entitled brats about it. They just aren't willing to give control of the internet for the large majority of their citizens to Facebook. I would hope that our government would do the same.

Luckily for India, they have the balls to reject an obvious internet "land grab" by a massive company with a vested interest in keeping a billion people locked in Facebook's ecosystem.

I can't believe people would give them shit for having standards. Who cares if it's free? People shouldn't compromise what they believe in just because something's free. I wouldn't offer a starving person a free meal only if they bark like a dog and then get pissed and call them a baby if they tell me they'd rather starve.

Staying true to your ideals even when you're in desperate need is admirable. BUT HEY, FREE STUFF!
Click to expand...

So tell me where in any article did the government talk with the people who would be using Facebook's free walled garden internet?

Hell, I can make all kinds of random assumptions too. How about, the population that would make use of Facebook's internet are also the ones doing the crappy jobs in India. The untouchables. To keep them uneducated and keep them held down, the government came out with their net neutrality policy to push any form of free internet, be it censored or not, out of India.

Also what "staying true to their ideals"? You do know India censors their internet all the time. They wanted Facebook to censor well...Facebook before it got into India. They also block website too. There's been multiple occasions where the state government has shutdown the internet to it's citizens in the region to gain control over the people. They probably figured it'd be harder to get Facebook to shut down their internet, when asked to.

True to their ideals? Pfffff, what a load of crock
 
dr_drift said:
So long as they adhere to India's net neutrality laws then it doesn't matter why they want to offer internet service.

It's weird to be how people can be so for net neutrality here but then say it doesn't matter when it just affects the poor.

How's that for entitlement.
Click to expand...

I'm for net neutrality when I'm paying for it. When it's free, I really don't care. I know to be grateful for whatever I can get, when it's free. Maybe it's cause I grew up poor. My first toy came from Toys for Tots. I collected cans for money. When it rained, I would be at the school grounds picking up worms to sell to bait shops. We did whatever we needed to, to keep moving forward.

As for entitlement, you expect a certain level of service for the fees paid to receive such service. We should be used to receiving a lower level of service for a lower fee or a higher level of service for a higher fee. Normally, you receive no service for no fee. That's not entitlement. It's paying for a service.
 
krotch said:
I'm for net neutrality when I'm paying for it. When it's free, I really don't care. I know to be grateful for whatever I can get, when it's free. Maybe it's cause I grew up poor. My first toy came from Toys for Tots. I collected cans for money. When it rained, I would be at the school grounds picking up worms to sell to bait shops. We did whatever we needed to, to keep moving forward.

As for entitlement, you expect a certain level of service for the fees paid to receive such service. We should be used to receiving a lower level of service for a lower fee or a higher level of service for a higher fee. Normally, you receive no service for no fee. That's not entitlement. It's paying for a service.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing this isnt a free service at all. This is similar to buying a car and being told the dealership is throwing in the floor mats for free but instead the payment for the floormats are being rolled up in loads of paperwork and a bump in final monthly payments.

Free should be free, and indirect revenue streams/schemes need to be advertised as such.
 
krotch said:
So tell me where in any article did the government talk with the people who would be using Facebook's free walled garden internet?

Hell, I can make all kinds of random assumptions too. How about, the population that would make use of Facebook's internet are also the ones doing the crappy jobs in India. The untouchables. To keep them uneducated and keep them held down, the government came out with their net neutrality policy to push any form of free internet, be it censored or not, out of India.

Also what "staying true to their ideals"? You do know India censors their internet all the time. They wanted Facebook to censor well...Facebook before it got into India. They also block website too. There's been multiple occasions where the state government has shutdown the internet to it's citizens in the region to gain control over the people. They probably figured it'd be harder to get Facebook to shut down their internet, when asked to.

True to their ideals? Pfffff, what a load of crock
Click to expand...

Love buzzword introductions into the argument. Untouchables, what are we in Colonial 19th Century lol.

Explain me this, We all can agree that access to the internet is an equalizer regardless of societal discrimination.It allows the poor, rich people of different colors to play on the same level playing field.

If Facebook is the great proponent of giving those people repressed by societal discriminatory practices access to a censored version of the internet. How are they any different? By censoring the internet to only provide access to those sites that are paid affilates of FB, hows this any different.

1) Your giving those untouchables you mentioned earlier access to a less form of the so-called level playing field. Why cause they`re untouchable or poor?

2) Local websites, businesses, startup who`d like to offer their products to everyone now has to pay FB to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top