India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content(blog.savetheinternet.in)
blog.savetheinternet.in
India bans discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content
http://blog.savetheinternet.in/statement-on-trai-order-on-diff-pricing/
222 comments
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35522899 gives the background without an autoplay video like the CNN link has.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is a ridiculously hard question to answer correctly.
At best I can point out that theres 2 parts to this - the internet infrastructure and the regulatory frameworks.
Till now, we've worked without having to explicitly state the philosophical underpinnings of the web, nor convert that into a law/legal framework.
The slow lumbering leviathans have finally caught up to the nimble minnows of the 2000s. Telecom operators and other incumbents, including governments now know how the web works, and how to make it work for them (to the detriment of the commons).
We can limit the damage of the second, by help build and maintain transparent regulatory frameworks, and in particular - be able to mobilize rebuttals or examples to future papers released by TRAI, or other GoI institutions.
Whats learned here and other countries over the next 5 years, can be used to push for a stronger global framework.
At best I can point out that theres 2 parts to this - the internet infrastructure and the regulatory frameworks.
Till now, we've worked without having to explicitly state the philosophical underpinnings of the web, nor convert that into a law/legal framework.
The slow lumbering leviathans have finally caught up to the nimble minnows of the 2000s. Telecom operators and other incumbents, including governments now know how the web works, and how to make it work for them (to the detriment of the commons).
We can limit the damage of the second, by help build and maintain transparent regulatory frameworks, and in particular - be able to mobilize rebuttals or examples to future papers released by TRAI, or other GoI institutions.
Whats learned here and other countries over the next 5 years, can be used to push for a stronger global framework.
> 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.
Which is exactly what we will do.
And does #savetheInternet have or want branches outside India. It's not a local problem? Is there somewhere I can go and lend support ?
Eagerly awaited. I wouldn't be surprised if something else comes up around May, or December again this year.
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/
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/
I'm an expat and wanted to vote in absentia for the presidential election (which you can do) when it was first legal for me to do so. The procedure isn't too hard, but I decided it was not worth it when I remembered that my official "home state" is a blue state, and the electoral college means that my vote won't matter :|
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.
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.
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.
> progressive
How is it progressive? This is conservative (not wanting change).
How is it progressive? This is conservative (not wanting change).
Can you consider that the change wound have been (in utilitarian terms) detrimental?
When someone is a progressive, it does not require that everyone actually thinks what they advocate for is actually progress. There are always two sides to every change.
In that light, many people would consider Free Basics to be progress, and as such those people are progressives. Those not wanting change are the conservatives.
In that light, many people would consider Free Basics to be progress, and as such those people are progressives. Those not wanting change are the conservatives.
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)
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
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.
2) I'm curious how the legislation prevents FB from charging for this service. And what the minimum cost is regulated at.
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.
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.
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.
US readers: Please note that T-Mobile Binge on and other similar services would be illegal under new TRAI guidelines in India.
FB should have donated/bribed appropriate people in India https://twitter.com/rss_org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India
[deleted]
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They got busted for high speed internet thing. Currently, all 3 major providers -- Airtel, BSNL, Reliance adhere to rules. All the new ones like Tikona do too. Can you show me a live example of a lower speed internet available anywhere?
The rules regarding minimum speed for 3G/2G/LTE are in spectrum bid documents.
The rules regarding minimum speed for 3G/2G/LTE are in spectrum bid documents.
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.
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...
https://www.quora.com/I-am-from-Mumbai-I-have-an-Internet-co...
You can get around constant buffering with about 1Mbps and VP9 codec. You can't ever get HD streams with no buffering at 512. If you wait at start for it to move ahead, that is a different story. The reason why you still see the spinner even on 2-3 Megs connection is that although you ISP is saying that you will get 2-3 Mbps, the connection to YouTube streaming server you are fetching content from is notat that rate. You can use the "stats for nerds" option in the yt player to get aprox speed you are getting
What does peering have to do with anything? 512kbs is 512kbs, no matter how far (within reason) you are from Google.
Nothing stops anyone else from peering. There's no differential pricing involved here, just regular infrastructure.
While peering enables this, the real problem is that all these ISPs provide YouTube at a much higher speed than the rest of the web, which means that your bandwidth is not enough to stream videos without buffering for any other video site, while YouTube is always smooth.
Peering should just be a step towards enabling ISPs to fulfill their bandwidth promises, not a justification for fast lane/slow lane.
Peering should just be a step towards enabling ISPs to fulfill their bandwidth promises, not a justification for fast lane/slow lane.
What's peering?
>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.
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.
The new regulations by TRAI does not mention anything about regulation of voice apps (or about slow/fast lanes).
I think you have misinterpreted the comment by SaveTheInternet.in. What they're saying is that while differential pricing has been dealt with in accordance with NN principles, there are two more battles which are going to be fought i.e. i. Defeating the proposal to regulate voice apps ii. Ensuring that no slow/fast lanes are there on the Internet.
Its a "yes, we won a major battle but the war is not over yet" caution. Not an indictment on what TRAI is going to do for voice apps & slow/fast lanes.
I think you have misinterpreted the comment by SaveTheInternet.in. What they're saying is that while differential pricing has been dealt with in accordance with NN principles, there are two more battles which are going to be fought i.e. i. Defeating the proposal to regulate voice apps ii. Ensuring that no slow/fast lanes are there on the Internet.
Its a "yes, we won a major battle but the war is not over yet" caution. Not an indictment on what TRAI is going to do for voice apps & slow/fast lanes.
I would argue that the voip issue is not a neutrality one but a national security one. The reason for obtaining a license us not financial but law enforcement oversight.
I'm not justifying either way, but I don't think it has anything to do with neutrality in its economic sense
I'm not justifying either way, but I don't think it has anything to do with neutrality in its economic sense
The proposal to regulate VoIP apps is before TRAI only because of lobbying by telcos who are still in denial over the world moving towards data and want to hold onto their voice call revenues.
I'm not sure what purpose licensing will serve from a law enforcement perspective. Banning VoIP apps that refuse to apply for a license will be like playing whack-a-mole as people can easily add a VPN to get around it or the service can intelligently route traffic to get around the ban.
I'm not sure what purpose licensing will serve from a law enforcement perspective. Banning VoIP apps that refuse to apply for a license will be like playing whack-a-mole as people can easily add a VPN to get around it or the service can intelligently route traffic to get around the ban.
On the other hand, unlicensed VoIP apps would not be allowed to advertise in India, whether that's on TV, billboards, newspapers, or popular Indian websites. They would likely not be allowed to be sold in the Indian locale of Google and Apple's app stores. A communications app that few have installed is close to useless - even in countries with significant freedom, we use Facebook Messenger, Hangouts, Whatsapp and Snapchat over alternatives not directly controlled by major companies, because the free alternatives don't have the funds to convince all your friends that they're legitimate.
Whatsapp has never done any advertising in India and had more users in India than Facebook before it was bought by Facebook.
Indians don't have a very high trust barrier to overcome - NSA/privacy barely figures in the public discourse.
Indians don't have a very high trust barrier to overcome - NSA/privacy barely figures in the public discourse.
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".
So does this mean Wikipedia Zero will have to be shut down in India?
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?
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.
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.
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?
Why wouldn't that work in India?
I don't believe they ever had any intention of getting the poor online. They have so far never released ANY data regarding how many of the users of Free Basics are first time Internet users despite it being one of the top demands of critics of the Free Basics program. Some independent third party analysis suggest that the overwhelming majority of users of Free Basics are existing Internet users, many of them who have no idea they are on Free Basics.
Reliance (the telco that Facebook has partnered with) doesn't advertise the Free Basics program as "access for the poor" but as "Free Facebook" and doesn't even mention the additional websites available for free on Free Basics.
My guess is that with Free Basics rolled out in 36 countries without any issues, Facebook never expected any opposition.
Reliance (the telco that Facebook has partnered with) doesn't advertise the Free Basics program as "access for the poor" but as "Free Facebook" and doesn't even mention the additional websites available for free on Free Basics.
My guess is that with Free Basics rolled out in 36 countries without any issues, Facebook never expected any opposition.
The "many of whom have no idea they are on free basics" part is a little weird to me. Are these "users" like my father, who technically has internet access but doesn't use it?
Aside from that, I don't think Facebook needs to find "new" internet users to be providing access to the needy. If the users' previous access was the internet equivalent of a polluted river 15 miles away, building a clean well right in the village is still a benefit, even if they're only allowing livestock with an odd number of toes to be watered, which everyone admits is kind of weird.
Aside from that, I don't think Facebook needs to find "new" internet users to be providing access to the needy. If the users' previous access was the internet equivalent of a polluted river 15 miles away, building a clean well right in the village is still a benefit, even if they're only allowing livestock with an odd number of toes to be watered, which everyone admits is kind of weird.
A friend of mine was on Free Basics. She found out only when she tried to navigate to a video outside of Facebook from a link that she clicked on Facebook and was prompted to purchase a data plan.
Facebook in others markets isn't paying for the Internet connections of their clients.
It would. But why not cheat if you can get away with it?
Aircel provide a fully-free low-speed internet in some regions.
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?
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.
Facebook doesn't actually bear the costs for the data here, btw.
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.
fiatjaf(1)
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.
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.
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/
Unless they just go to https://www.facebook.com/netneutralityin/
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.
You are undermining the popular narrative with your facts and what-not.
I've been here over a year, so I'm allowed [0] to complain that this comment is contributing to HN morphing into reddit.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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?
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?
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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).
Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why should Facebook be allowed to give so much power without them investing even a penny to improve the infrastructure.
Google's Project Loon is worth applauding, Free Basics is just a ploy to get the next billion users branded as a charity.
Give access to the whole Internet and not just few specific sites which a megacorp has full control over. The whole argument of something-is-better-than-nothing sounds so much like 18th century colonists. I just don't get why should Facebook be allowed to give so much power without them investing even a penny to improve the infrastructure.
Google's Project Loon is worth applauding, Free Basics is just a ploy to get the next billion users branded as a charity.
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, but I don't see how it addresses my point.
The point is that Free Basics existing would automatically remove a huge amount of incentive for other solutions appearing. Why bother building a better internet if FB already provides "the essentials" to everyone? It would wipe the market before it had a chance to develop organically as it happened elsewhere. If AOL had provided free access to its own services only we would have a very different network today.
The Internet market in India already has 300+ million users, and has been growing at a good pace. It's hardly an incipient market.
And besides, before AOL there was CompuServe (and Minitel, in France), which did provide access almost exclusively to its own services.
And besides, before AOL there was CompuServe (and Minitel, in France), which did provide access almost exclusively to its own services.
CompuServe never had the volume and appeal FB has today. Minitel is a good reference because it is widely credited as one of the reasons France initially experienced slow internet uptake.
This order makes no mention whatsoever of Free Basics. It merely bans price-based discrimination.
And there is no evidence whatsoever that Free Basics helps bring people online. Even Facebook was unable to find a single person who was new to the internet courtesy FBS. https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-...
And there is no evidence whatsoever that Free Basics helps bring people online. Even Facebook was unable to find a single person who was new to the internet courtesy FBS. https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-...
> 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).
You are assuming that Free Basics is the only way poor people are getting connected. There are several more initiatives, funded both by the public and private. Banning Free Basics ensures that we don't differentiate internet based on an individual's affordability.
You are assuming that Free Basics is the only way poor people are getting connected. There are several more initiatives, funded both by the public and private.
No, I'm saying that the campaign has been against-Free-Basics and not pro-free-Internet. If there are such initiatives, good! Then nobody will have a reason to subscribe to Free Basics, and it'll fail anyway.
Banning Free Basics ensures that we don't differentiate internet based on an individual's affordability.
But if there are free plans with full Internet access, why is that important?
No, I'm saying that the campaign has been against-Free-Basics and not pro-free-Internet. If there are such initiatives, good! Then nobody will have a reason to subscribe to Free Basics, and it'll fail anyway.
Banning Free Basics ensures that we don't differentiate internet based on an individual's affordability.
But if there are free plans with full Internet access, why is that important?
> but tomorrow the poor will still have no Internet access
That would still be the case if the verdict was the other way around. There's no evidence that Free Basics actually brought a significant number of new people on the internet (the rate of people cited as joining Free Basics is comparable to the rate of people joining the internet in general, so it didn't change anything)
Note that data plans are pretty cheap in India. The cost of a smartphone that can handle modern websites (especially Facebook, which breaks on old/slow phones and browsers) is more than the cost of a few year's worth of data.
That would still be the case if the verdict was the other way around. There's no evidence that Free Basics actually brought a significant number of new people on the internet (the rate of people cited as joining Free Basics is comparable to the rate of people joining the internet in general, so it didn't change anything)
Note that data plans are pretty cheap in India. The cost of a smartphone that can handle modern websites (especially Facebook, which breaks on old/slow phones and browsers) is more than the cost of a few year's worth of data.
> Note that data plans are pretty cheap in India.
Cheap enough for the 60% of rural Indians who live on less than 35 Rs/day [1]?
> The cost of a smartphone that can handle modern websites (especially Facebook, which breaks on old/slow phones and browsers) is more than the cost of a few year's worth of data.
The vast majority of mobile phones in India are feature phones which are considerably cheaper than smartphones [2]. To be included in Free Basics, sites have to work reasonably on feature phones. Free Basics sites are accessed through a proxy which modifies requests so that the sites can tell that they are being viewed by a Free Basics user, and so the site can present a version that works without requiring "modern" features like JavaScript, SVG images and WOFF font types, iframes, video and large images, or Flash and Java applets.
[1] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-05-04/news...
[2] http://www.igadgetsworld.com/india-smartphone-and-feature-ph...
Cheap enough for the 60% of rural Indians who live on less than 35 Rs/day [1]?
> The cost of a smartphone that can handle modern websites (especially Facebook, which breaks on old/slow phones and browsers) is more than the cost of a few year's worth of data.
The vast majority of mobile phones in India are feature phones which are considerably cheaper than smartphones [2]. To be included in Free Basics, sites have to work reasonably on feature phones. Free Basics sites are accessed through a proxy which modifies requests so that the sites can tell that they are being viewed by a Free Basics user, and so the site can present a version that works without requiring "modern" features like JavaScript, SVG images and WOFF font types, iframes, video and large images, or Flash and Java applets.
[1] http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-05-04/news...
[2] http://www.igadgetsworld.com/india-smartphone-and-feature-ph...
> Cheap enough for the 60% of rural Indians who live on less than 35 Rs/day [1]?
Perhaps not; but I was including only people who can afford the phone.
> The vast majority of mobile phones in India are feature phones which are considerably cheaper than smartphones
They're still ~Rs 1k (you can get cheaper ones, but I don't think even proxied sites will work well on these). Monthly data plans are less than a tenth of this.
IIRC Free Basics' Facebook still needed a good phone (higher end feature phone or a smartphone), but I can't verify that right now.
And that really brings us back to the question; how is this bringing people to the Internet? Even if Facebook worked well on a Rs 400 phone, only the Free Basics sites would work well there. This just underlines that Facebook is trying to give people Free Facebook, nothing more. People who cannot afford these phones would not become "Digital Indians" by using Free Basics, they would use Facebook and only Facebook.
Perhaps not; but I was including only people who can afford the phone.
> The vast majority of mobile phones in India are feature phones which are considerably cheaper than smartphones
They're still ~Rs 1k (you can get cheaper ones, but I don't think even proxied sites will work well on these). Monthly data plans are less than a tenth of this.
IIRC Free Basics' Facebook still needed a good phone (higher end feature phone or a smartphone), but I can't verify that right now.
And that really brings us back to the question; how is this bringing people to the Internet? Even if Facebook worked well on a Rs 400 phone, only the Free Basics sites would work well there. This just underlines that Facebook is trying to give people Free Facebook, nothing more. People who cannot afford these phones would not become "Digital Indians" by using Free Basics, they would use Facebook and only Facebook.
That would still be the case if the verdict was the other way around.
That's my point: there's nothing to celebrate here, as nothing as changed. People without full Internet access still don't have it. And so, for what is the post thanking a lot of people?
That's my point: there's nothing to celebrate here, as nothing as changed. People without full Internet access still don't have it. And so, for what is the post thanking a lot of people?
> as nothing as changed.
It didn't get worse.
> People without full Internet access still don't have it. And so, for what is the post thanking a lot of people?
You can say that about anything. That's not what they're happy about; that wasn't the only issue on the table.
It didn't get worse.
> People without full Internet access still don't have it. And so, for what is the post thanking a lot of people?
You can say that about anything. That's not what they're happy about; that wasn't the only issue on the table.
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.
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.
It's the other way around, let facebook build a separate, proprietary infrastructure for their service. I'm not sure if a real Private Network or a virtual PN would be the better comparison.
The government is not allowing that. They're banning differential pricing. Even if Facebook were to build their own network, they wouldn't be allowed to price discriminate based on websites visited.
Also, Facebook is not renting a government network, but a private network. That private network wants to partner with Facebook, but the government is stepping in and blocking it.
Also, Facebook is not renting a government network, but a private network. That private network wants to partner with Facebook, but the government is stepping in and blocking it.
As it stands, the state, universities and other providers might have sponsored a lot of the infrastructure, while fb is just using it, so if they want their own, they should build it and only offer fb. for free.
If the state thinks it's a bad idea, they can not offer their own infrastructure to FB. That's not what happened. They decreed that nobody, even those who agree with FB, can rent their infrastructure to FB. That's the problem.
The state cannot not offer it's infrastructure to the private providers that are connected to the internet,
As you say, It's a problem, alright, but not actually mine, so I wont go anymore into this.
As you say, It's a problem, alright, but not actually mine, so I wont go anymore into this.
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.
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.
>As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more
Price sensitivity != how rich you are
Price sensitivity != how rich you are
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.
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.
> It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using.
Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth
Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth
> Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth
Do you have an example of a case where sites rich people use were being priced higher? It's not enough to say "what you use is correlated with wealth" to support "this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more", you need to show where websites being used by rich people were being charged for.
This does stop Facebook from giving Free Facebook (+ other services), agreed. Which is a service used by basically everyone.
Do you have an example of a case where sites rich people use were being priced higher? It's not enough to say "what you use is correlated with wealth" to support "this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more", you need to show where websites being used by rich people were being charged for.
This does stop Facebook from giving Free Facebook (+ other services), agreed. Which is a service used by basically everyone.
> 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.
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.
Where does the article mention anything about discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content in the linked article?
Here's the order this article is referring to: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regu...
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.
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.
I suspect a website called vactruth may not be the most impartial website around.
I agree. CNN may be? http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073
That's not CNN. That's an "iReport", which anyone can post. This one was posted by an anti-vaxxer called "VaccineThis". Zero credibility.
http://ireport.cnn.com/people/VaccineThis
Ah. My bad. It says "Not verified by CNN" clearly on the side pane and within the image. I just jumped straight to the main content. I agree with you that the post does not have much in the way of credibility. Thank you for pointing out and apologies for wasting your time.
No problem. The iReport thing is perfect for polemicists and conspiracy theorists, as it means they can post something and say "look, it's on CNN" and many people will miss the disclaimer. If anything is about vaccines I always check sources very carefully, as there is so much misinformation out there.
About this iReport
Not verified by CNN
Doesn't meant it is not true, but I am not sure you can claim that this article is endorsed by CNN.
Doesn't meant it is not true, but I am not sure you can claim that this article is endorsed by CNN.
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?
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?
[deleted]
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
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.
----------
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.
> "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).
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).
>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?
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?
> And you think enabling tens of millions of people to access these resources will make them....worse?
Nope, just saying that non-English Indian language internet sucks. Yes it gets better when more and more people are using it, but that still doesn't change the fact that millions of people currently don't have internet in a form which they can use to make their lives better.
> 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?
Same thing you're going to say to that 18 year old kid in the year 2030 whose life could have been different had he lived in a more connected India.
Nope, just saying that non-English Indian language internet sucks. Yes it gets better when more and more people are using it, but that still doesn't change the fact that millions of people currently don't have internet in a form which they can use to make their lives better.
> 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?
Same thing you're going to say to that 18 year old kid in the year 2030 whose life could have been different had he lived in a more connected India.
>>Same thing you're going to say to that 18 year old kid in the year 2030 whose life could have been different had he lived in a more connected India.
There is a patient suffering from a heart disease, medicine arrives in a few days.
You seem to be suggesting that another drug, which can relieve the patient of some of the pains for the next hour, but is sure to kill the patient in the next few months be administered to the patient immediately.
There is a patient suffering from a heart disease, medicine arrives in a few days.
You seem to be suggesting that another drug, which can relieve the patient of some of the pains for the next hour, but is sure to kill the patient in the next few months be administered to the patient immediately.
I don't think it's going to kill the patient having a choice of only Facebook and WhatsApp to talk to each other without paying for minutes or SMS. Or indeed enhance their freedom of choice when they decide to stick to SMS because it's good enough and cheaper than the internet.
I started using AOL when its walled garden tried (not unconvincingly at the time) to pass itself off as the entire internet. 15 years later I can't even remember the last time I visited a core AOL property.
I started using AOL when its walled garden tried (not unconvincingly at the time) to pass itself off as the entire internet. 15 years later I can't even remember the last time I visited a core AOL property.
> There is a patient suffering from a heart disease, medicine arrives in a few days.<
We fundamentally disagree upon the nature of net neutrality. I do not believe net neutrality is a good thing, and getting rid of it would be a good thing.
The fundamental fact is that all bits aren't created equal. Facebook wants to pay for some bits by attaching the economic value of future customer, and that is fundamentally a justified thing.
In America T-mobile recently launched Binge On program under which Netflix and Youtube won't count against a monthly data plan. People on HN are hell bent on claiming that somehow this is a bad thing, but the fact is, for most people this makes their lives better.
I'm surprised that TRAI (an organization which should be gotten rid of completely according to me) caved in to Net Neutrality proponents. In future you'll see when in America Net Neutrality will be removed and how much benefit it brings to the people.
We fundamentally disagree upon the nature of net neutrality. I do not believe net neutrality is a good thing, and getting rid of it would be a good thing.
The fundamental fact is that all bits aren't created equal. Facebook wants to pay for some bits by attaching the economic value of future customer, and that is fundamentally a justified thing.
In America T-mobile recently launched Binge On program under which Netflix and Youtube won't count against a monthly data plan. People on HN are hell bent on claiming that somehow this is a bad thing, but the fact is, for most people this makes their lives better.
I'm surprised that TRAI (an organization which should be gotten rid of completely according to me) caved in to Net Neutrality proponents. In future you'll see when in America Net Neutrality will be removed and how much benefit it brings to the people.
>>Facebook wants to pay for some bits by attaching the economic value of future customer, and that is fundamentally a justified thing.
Facebook realizes there is very little value they can add to whatever they have done so far. So now the only way to be safe from competition is to create a monopoly and prevent others from even getting a chance from competing with them.
>>People on HN are hell bent on claiming that somehow this is a bad thing
It is.
>>for most people this makes their lives better.
Its the first step these companies take before they start charging for VoIP calls.
>>I'm surprised that TRAI (an organization which should be gotten rid of completely according to me) caved in to Net Neutrality proponents.
I'm only surprised it took them this late, after this much activism.
Facebook realizes there is very little value they can add to whatever they have done so far. So now the only way to be safe from competition is to create a monopoly and prevent others from even getting a chance from competing with them.
>>People on HN are hell bent on claiming that somehow this is a bad thing
It is.
>>for most people this makes their lives better.
Its the first step these companies take before they start charging for VoIP calls.
>>I'm surprised that TRAI (an organization which should be gotten rid of completely according to me) caved in to Net Neutrality proponents.
I'm only surprised it took them this late, after this much activism.
So you are working under the assumption that without the aid of Facebook et al, India will cease developing internet connectivity?
Frankly, I dont see a scenario where the third world remains unconnected through 2030, including India. There is much profit to be made connecting Billions (with a b) of people to the world economy; far too much profit that something as insignificant as running cable will forever keep them unconnected.
14 years of technological advancement. What radios do you think the iPhone 14s will have built in? Are you willing to bet an entire country's access to the (actual) internet that it will be the same radios we have available today?
Frankly, I dont see a scenario where the third world remains unconnected through 2030, including India. There is much profit to be made connecting Billions (with a b) of people to the world economy; far too much profit that something as insignificant as running cable will forever keep them unconnected.
14 years of technological advancement. What radios do you think the iPhone 14s will have built in? Are you willing to bet an entire country's access to the (actual) internet that it will be the same radios we have available today?
> So you are working under the assumption that without the aid of Facebook et al, India will cease developing internet connectivity? <
Nope, not at all. If I took half of all your wealth, does that mean you'd now be completely poor? No, you'd be poorer and it will harm you.
Even though the poor in India will eventually get Internet (let's hope so) now they will get Internet a lot later and a lot fewer of them would it.
I was lucky enough to get Internet access during the 1990s in India, but there are so many people I wish had Internet. I don't expect them all to become techies like me, but I definitely think it will make their lives a LOT better rather than waiting for the government to do something.
This is what government's services gets you (it's a link to a Hindi comedy show from 1990s which satirizes how many years you had to wait to get a telephone line).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i132W_iOKu0
Nope, not at all. If I took half of all your wealth, does that mean you'd now be completely poor? No, you'd be poorer and it will harm you.
Even though the poor in India will eventually get Internet (let's hope so) now they will get Internet a lot later and a lot fewer of them would it.
I was lucky enough to get Internet access during the 1990s in India, but there are so many people I wish had Internet. I don't expect them all to become techies like me, but I definitely think it will make their lives a LOT better rather than waiting for the government to do something.
This is what government's services gets you (it's a link to a Hindi comedy show from 1990s which satirizes how many years you had to wait to get a telephone line).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i132W_iOKu0
>This is what government's services gets you
Why are you assuming that the only alternative to walled garden internet connectivity is government services?
Why are you assuming that the only alternative to walled garden internet connectivity is government services?
Look at the post I am responding to, it specifically talked about government providing services to the poor people.
since it was my comment you responded to, i can assure you it did not.
> 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?
How about saying to him that he should make his WhatsApp competitor work well on feature phones and low bandwidth connections, and then submit it for inclusion with Free Basics?
Free Basics is open to almost any site that can meet a few technical requirements, which are basically that it works well on feature phones and in low bandwidth scenarios and when going through a proxy. There are also some non-technical requirements, such as giving permission to use their logos in Free Basics marketing. [1]
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
How about saying to him that he should make his WhatsApp competitor work well on feature phones and low bandwidth connections, and then submit it for inclusion with Free Basics?
Free Basics is open to almost any site that can meet a few technical requirements, which are basically that it works well on feature phones and in low bandwidth scenarios and when going through a proxy. There are also some non-technical requirements, such as giving permission to use their logos in Free Basics marketing. [1]
[1] https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-t...
Yeah Facebook says so. How many times have companies (even Facebook) said something and something entirely different.
Facebook still reserves right to not allow you on their service. In addition they want ability to see and even modify content going between you and the customer.Facebook can actually say that they can't accept you because of reason X while they actually want no competition to Whatsapp or Facebook
and if facebook says no? or decides to drop you because you compete with them?
"... 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]
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]
Nationalism ? No Sir, this is protectionism and dare I say, Xenophobia.
Whatever you call it it works really well and India is stupid to play by the colonialist's rules. Look at China, they banned or restricted all the western web companies now they're home to thriving new web giants. With all of India's world class programmers where is India's Baidu or Wechat or Weibo or Alibaba?
Same place where France's Google, Germany's Amazon is at, they don't need it. China is wasting effort by creating things because they don't wanna use the things rest of the world uses, and the rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy.
>>Same place where France's Google, Germany's Amazon is at, they don't need it.
Germany doesn't have their Amazon. They have their BMW's and Volkswagen's. That's their Amazon.
>>China is wasting effort by creating things because they don't wanna use the things rest of the world uses
So why did Ford have to create his company when Volkswagen existed?
>>rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy.
Democracy doesn't mean two hoots in a world where economy dictates everything from domestic policy to international policy.
Absolutely nothing wrong in being self sufficient. Being self sufficient has helped Asian economies more than we know. India and China both have nuclear programs, our own capabilities to run our space programs, and launch our satellite and take of ourselves and our economies.
If anything we should be building our capabilities than depending on other nations.
Germany doesn't have their Amazon. They have their BMW's and Volkswagen's. That's their Amazon.
>>China is wasting effort by creating things because they don't wanna use the things rest of the world uses
So why did Ford have to create his company when Volkswagen existed?
>>rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy.
Democracy doesn't mean two hoots in a world where economy dictates everything from domestic policy to international policy.
Absolutely nothing wrong in being self sufficient. Being self sufficient has helped Asian economies more than we know. India and China both have nuclear programs, our own capabilities to run our space programs, and launch our satellite and take of ourselves and our economies.
If anything we should be building our capabilities than depending on other nations.
>Same place where France's Google, Germany's Amazon is at, they don't need it.
Germany and France are 1/10 the population of India or smaller. India is 2x+ USA populations.
>China is wasting effort by creating things because they don't wanna use the things rest of the world uses, and the rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy.
Then of course US citizens can have their cake and eat it too, both using what "the whole world uses" AND having control over them because its their services.
Germany and France are 1/10 the population of India or smaller. India is 2x+ USA populations.
>China is wasting effort by creating things because they don't wanna use the things rest of the world uses, and the rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy.
Then of course US citizens can have their cake and eat it too, both using what "the whole world uses" AND having control over them because its their services.
You need to read the glorious days of protectionism and economy of India from 1950-1990. 4% growth has its own nick-name, "Hindu rate of growth".
This has been debated to death. There is no evidence to prove this was wrong.
People who are this childish to question government policy right after independence should understand prevailing conditions then. India just got free from a colonial power which had sneaked in with trade as a excuse and then ruined pretty much everything for the next 3 centuries.
Conditions prevailing, Nehru did what he could. He saw what had emerged from partition riots and saw secularism as the most natural outcome. He realized the only way Indian borders that would ever be secure is we learn to be self sufficient, not just militarily, or with advanced weapons like Nuclear weapons. But with our indigenous economy, with our own industries, with our trained workforce and our own technology and manufacturing capabilities.
If anything you should thank them, what we were was a predominantly peasant economy(like Bangladesh), we now have means to defend any invasion, we have our own nuclear weapons, we have our own space program, we developed a lot of early industrial and manufacturing capabilities. We built our own engineering, medical other academic institutions purely out of nothing. The period between 1950-1990 was a period of institution building.
If you wish to look what has become of other countries with over zealous ideas look at Pakistan, Bangladesh and even Sri Lanka.
In fact bulk of engineering education infrastructure in cities in Bangalore directly derives from industries like ITI, BEL et which were established in the city, fueling the demand.
People who are this childish to question government policy right after independence should understand prevailing conditions then. India just got free from a colonial power which had sneaked in with trade as a excuse and then ruined pretty much everything for the next 3 centuries.
Conditions prevailing, Nehru did what he could. He saw what had emerged from partition riots and saw secularism as the most natural outcome. He realized the only way Indian borders that would ever be secure is we learn to be self sufficient, not just militarily, or with advanced weapons like Nuclear weapons. But with our indigenous economy, with our own industries, with our trained workforce and our own technology and manufacturing capabilities.
If anything you should thank them, what we were was a predominantly peasant economy(like Bangladesh), we now have means to defend any invasion, we have our own nuclear weapons, we have our own space program, we developed a lot of early industrial and manufacturing capabilities. We built our own engineering, medical other academic institutions purely out of nothing. The period between 1950-1990 was a period of institution building.
If you wish to look what has become of other countries with over zealous ideas look at Pakistan, Bangladesh and even Sri Lanka.
In fact bulk of engineering education infrastructure in cities in Bangalore directly derives from industries like ITI, BEL et which were established in the city, fueling the demand.
In 1950s India was actually called "Hope of Asia", even by the Colonialists who left them. But under the auspicious of Nehru and then under Indira Gandhi, India aped Soviet style planning and top down approach for a country that is a "natural confederation", marginalized local government and consolidated power in the Center, and the Nationalization of banks which has not great National Security implications. JRD Tata was correct, if you want to read the counter vision to Nehru, read up on JRD Tata. He was proponent for free market capitalism, which would have had far better results.
India is the top-dog in the region, and trying to show Pakistan which is nothing but an Islamist Garrison State. Coup-ridden and Confused Bangladesh or Civil-War ridden Sri Lanka as counter examples for not following Nehruvian Socialism, makes me feel that intellectually we are in two completely different dimensions.
India is the top-dog in the region, and trying to show Pakistan which is nothing but an Islamist Garrison State. Coup-ridden and Confused Bangladesh or Civil-War ridden Sri Lanka as counter examples for not following Nehruvian Socialism, makes me feel that intellectually we are in two completely different dimensions.
@kamaal.
You are basically proving my point, India is a 4 stage rocket stuck in stage 2. Nehru died in 1964. 52 years ago. India is still a country with 56% population in Agriculture and on top of it, literacy rate of 71% (which I honestly think is padded). And the Alphabet soup of defense establishments, and you got LCA Tejas which is third rate fighter and Indigenous Arjun is miles away from T-92 and the satellite program is not as advanced as NASA in 1960s (they landed a man on the moon).
You are basically proving my point, India is a 4 stage rocket stuck in stage 2. Nehru died in 1964. 52 years ago. India is still a country with 56% population in Agriculture and on top of it, literacy rate of 71% (which I honestly think is padded). And the Alphabet soup of defense establishments, and you got LCA Tejas which is third rate fighter and Indigenous Arjun is miles away from T-92 and the satellite program is not as advanced as NASA in 1960s (they landed a man on the moon).
>>In 1950s India was actually called "Hope of Asia", even by the Colonialists who left them.
Truly so, We didn't have the great famine like China(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine) where close to 45 million people died. We didn't remain like Bangladesh, which is still a peasant economy. Nor do we have internal troubles that Pakistan has currently. We have refused to be proxy states to USSR and USA. And we are quite progressive economically. True we haven't eradicated poverty and hunger yet, but neither has any country of our scale.
>>But under the auspicious of Nehru and then under Indira Gandhi, India aped Soviet style planning and top down approach for a country that is a "natural confederation"
Why wouldn't they copy USSR? It was a economic model that is paying off Russia till date. Russia went from a peasant state, under Tsar's control to becoming a unchallenged super power in half a century. Heck there is no absolute free market anywhere, the only question is to what extent do you allow it. Even countries like US, have a central planning where they decide budgets.
>>RD Tata was correct, if you want to read the counter vision to Nehru, read up on JRD Tata. He was proponent for free market capitalism, which would have had far better results.
If I were the Prime minister of a new independent nation, with no sizable skilled population, and a agrarian peasant ecomony. My priorities would be way different. I would be looking at how I can build the next generation engineering colleges(IIT's), management colleges(IIM's), the best administrative cadre(IAS), I would be looking at building irrigation infrastructure for farm lands to end drought and famine(Dams and reservoirs), I would be looking at energy generation(Power plants, hydel power), I would looking at bringing internal peace and harmony(Police force), I would looking at building in-house skilled labour(Government polytechnics), manufacturing capabilties among my fellow citizens(ITI, BEL, BHEL), my own defence manufacturing, research and developement(HAL, DRDO, ADE etc), I would looking at building my future space program(ISRO), my own nuclear program. All this in a hostile neighbourhood. Without any of these, simply thinking that a smal policy change is over simplification of a very complicated problem.
This is how governments think. Priorities of a business family would be way lower on my list.
Nehru has already done more nation/institution building work, than any Prime minister will ever do.
>>counter examples for not following Nehruvian Socialism, makes me feel that intellectually we are in two completely different dimensions.
No, we are in the same boat. I support hard core free market capitalism. But a child needs to crawl first before it can think of running or beating Usain Bolt.
You can't build a F-16, when you don't even know/have skills to repair a bicycle.
Truly so, We didn't have the great famine like China(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine) where close to 45 million people died. We didn't remain like Bangladesh, which is still a peasant economy. Nor do we have internal troubles that Pakistan has currently. We have refused to be proxy states to USSR and USA. And we are quite progressive economically. True we haven't eradicated poverty and hunger yet, but neither has any country of our scale.
>>But under the auspicious of Nehru and then under Indira Gandhi, India aped Soviet style planning and top down approach for a country that is a "natural confederation"
Why wouldn't they copy USSR? It was a economic model that is paying off Russia till date. Russia went from a peasant state, under Tsar's control to becoming a unchallenged super power in half a century. Heck there is no absolute free market anywhere, the only question is to what extent do you allow it. Even countries like US, have a central planning where they decide budgets.
>>RD Tata was correct, if you want to read the counter vision to Nehru, read up on JRD Tata. He was proponent for free market capitalism, which would have had far better results.
If I were the Prime minister of a new independent nation, with no sizable skilled population, and a agrarian peasant ecomony. My priorities would be way different. I would be looking at how I can build the next generation engineering colleges(IIT's), management colleges(IIM's), the best administrative cadre(IAS), I would be looking at building irrigation infrastructure for farm lands to end drought and famine(Dams and reservoirs), I would be looking at energy generation(Power plants, hydel power), I would looking at bringing internal peace and harmony(Police force), I would looking at building in-house skilled labour(Government polytechnics), manufacturing capabilties among my fellow citizens(ITI, BEL, BHEL), my own defence manufacturing, research and developement(HAL, DRDO, ADE etc), I would looking at building my future space program(ISRO), my own nuclear program. All this in a hostile neighbourhood. Without any of these, simply thinking that a smal policy change is over simplification of a very complicated problem.
This is how governments think. Priorities of a business family would be way lower on my list.
Nehru has already done more nation/institution building work, than any Prime minister will ever do.
>>counter examples for not following Nehruvian Socialism, makes me feel that intellectually we are in two completely different dimensions.
No, we are in the same boat. I support hard core free market capitalism. But a child needs to crawl first before it can think of running or beating Usain Bolt.
You can't build a F-16, when you don't even know/have skills to repair a bicycle.
> India just got free from a colonial power which had sneaked in with trade as a excuse and then ruined pretty much everything for the next 3 centuries. <
It's funny though West Germany, which was completely ruined by WW2 emerged as a lot more prosperous country than what India did for the first 40 years. Do you have any idea how badly Germany was bombed.
If you say things like "But Germany is an exception because X", then think why East Germany couldn't be as rich. East Germany was about as poor as West Germany after WW2.
Similarly, Korean split was another one of those examples. You may say that economics doesn't matter, but the fact is that it does. 1990s onwards we have made our lives so much better, and the shit didn't have to be so bad for our forefathers and parents.
All Indians do is give excuses for why India was poor, but nearly all their excuses can be best represented by the biggest excuse of them all 'Hindu rate of growth'.
It's funny though West Germany, which was completely ruined by WW2 emerged as a lot more prosperous country than what India did for the first 40 years. Do you have any idea how badly Germany was bombed.
If you say things like "But Germany is an exception because X", then think why East Germany couldn't be as rich. East Germany was about as poor as West Germany after WW2.
Similarly, Korean split was another one of those examples. You may say that economics doesn't matter, but the fact is that it does. 1990s onwards we have made our lives so much better, and the shit didn't have to be so bad for our forefathers and parents.
All Indians do is give excuses for why India was poor, but nearly all their excuses can be best represented by the biggest excuse of them all 'Hindu rate of growth'.
South Korea is a country that's like 1/2 the size of Karnataka, and is mostly a US colony. With US military bases and its economy largely set up to keep China in check.
Germany(Which was highly developed nation even before WW2) and Korea, were split to become proxies for USSR and US. A move in which people lost a more than they gained. We opted to be non allied. The magic is not capitalism. The magic is in being a proxy state to a super power(The very thing we gained independence from).
>>1990s onwards we have made our lives so much better, and the shit didn't have to be so bad for our forefathers and parents.
You are looking at the results, without looking at the ingredients and ecosystem required to produce those results. Capitalism doesn't work the way you think. There is no magical wand, or a policy incantation that can fix things without supporting infrastructure and ecosystem. There is no way, no magical mantra to pull out thousands of non existent engineers/doctors/skilled professionals out of the nothing in 1947, in an country where 95% were farmers, and the remainder in non productive jobs. There is also no way without this absent workforce and non existent money for you to build hundreds of industries and businesses. In a non existent government institution to collect taxes, and then build road and other supporting infrastructure. Even the US after all these years heavily relies on skilled professionals from foreign countries coming to their country and builds the ecosystem for them to immigrate, and those skilled professional go there because they are constantly building those infrastructure to support it.
You are inheriting a country, which doesn't have a proper working administration. Let alone institutions to collect taxes, or plan economies at scale. Nor do you have access to skilled talent, or ecosystem or infrastructure to build industries.
Yet despite all this we have crawled our way out.
The only reason why you see the free market reforms in 92 even worked is because, there was an industrial base in South India, and there were engineering colleges that had been developed over time, producing engineers and industries, which can now be scaled to a larger economy.
>>All Indians do is give excuses for why India was poor, but nearly all their excuses can be best represented by the biggest excuse of them all 'Hindu rate of growth'.
Or somebody like you should show us, how one could actually create stuff out of literal nothing.
Germany(Which was highly developed nation even before WW2) and Korea, were split to become proxies for USSR and US. A move in which people lost a more than they gained. We opted to be non allied. The magic is not capitalism. The magic is in being a proxy state to a super power(The very thing we gained independence from).
>>1990s onwards we have made our lives so much better, and the shit didn't have to be so bad for our forefathers and parents.
You are looking at the results, without looking at the ingredients and ecosystem required to produce those results. Capitalism doesn't work the way you think. There is no magical wand, or a policy incantation that can fix things without supporting infrastructure and ecosystem. There is no way, no magical mantra to pull out thousands of non existent engineers/doctors/skilled professionals out of the nothing in 1947, in an country where 95% were farmers, and the remainder in non productive jobs. There is also no way without this absent workforce and non existent money for you to build hundreds of industries and businesses. In a non existent government institution to collect taxes, and then build road and other supporting infrastructure. Even the US after all these years heavily relies on skilled professionals from foreign countries coming to their country and builds the ecosystem for them to immigrate, and those skilled professional go there because they are constantly building those infrastructure to support it.
You are inheriting a country, which doesn't have a proper working administration. Let alone institutions to collect taxes, or plan economies at scale. Nor do you have access to skilled talent, or ecosystem or infrastructure to build industries.
Yet despite all this we have crawled our way out.
The only reason why you see the free market reforms in 92 even worked is because, there was an industrial base in South India, and there were engineering colleges that had been developed over time, producing engineers and industries, which can now be scaled to a larger economy.
>>All Indians do is give excuses for why India was poor, but nearly all their excuses can be best represented by the biggest excuse of them all 'Hindu rate of growth'.
Or somebody like you should show us, how one could actually create stuff out of literal nothing.
> If you say things like "But Germany is an exception because X", then think why East Germany couldn't be as rich. East Germany was about as poor as West Germany after WW2.
West Germany was an exception because the US, primarily, poured vast resources into it as a bulwark against communist expansion, both ideologically and militarily, into Western Europe.
The reasons why that doesn't apply to East Germany are, well, pretty obvious.
> Similarly, Korean split was another one of those examples.
Well, yes, there is a similarity between South Korea and Germany...
West Germany was an exception because the US, primarily, poured vast resources into it as a bulwark against communist expansion, both ideologically and militarily, into Western Europe.
The reasons why that doesn't apply to East Germany are, well, pretty obvious.
> Similarly, Korean split was another one of those examples.
Well, yes, there is a similarity between South Korea and Germany...
>It's funny though West Germany, which was completely ruined by WW2 emerged as a lot more prosperous country than what India did for the first 40 years. Do you have any idea how badly Germany was bombed. If you say things like "But Germany is an exception because X", then think why East Germany couldn't be as rich. East Germany was about as poor as West Germany after WW2.
Well, West Germany is an exception because it gotten a Cold War ally and darling immediately after the war.
They're also very favorably placed in the center of Europe, and were given lots of help to try to rebuild their economy (their sugar daddy allowing them to pay only minimal war recuperations, cheap migrant hands from Turkey and Greece, etc).
They also didn't have instability of the kind India faced post-colonialism, since the ex British rulers (as is their standard mode of operation everywhere, from Israel/Palestine to Cyprus/Northern Cyprus etc.) used a divide and conquer tactic, playing Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc one against the other.
And of course it's not just the starting state (Germany being bombed, India being poor) but also things like human capital, etc. Germany, post WWII, had far more educated people, industrial experience and infrastructure (as a percentage) compared to India.
As for East Germany, it was depended on USSR which didn't have the same kind of economic resources as the US, nor did other communist countries it mostly traded with.
>All Indians do is give excuses for why India was poor
Yes, those lazy Indians, always up to no good. There are no historical reasons, just lazy, ignorant, people.
/s
Well, West Germany is an exception because it gotten a Cold War ally and darling immediately after the war.
They're also very favorably placed in the center of Europe, and were given lots of help to try to rebuild their economy (their sugar daddy allowing them to pay only minimal war recuperations, cheap migrant hands from Turkey and Greece, etc).
They also didn't have instability of the kind India faced post-colonialism, since the ex British rulers (as is their standard mode of operation everywhere, from Israel/Palestine to Cyprus/Northern Cyprus etc.) used a divide and conquer tactic, playing Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc one against the other.
And of course it's not just the starting state (Germany being bombed, India being poor) but also things like human capital, etc. Germany, post WWII, had far more educated people, industrial experience and infrastructure (as a percentage) compared to India.
As for East Germany, it was depended on USSR which didn't have the same kind of economic resources as the US, nor did other communist countries it mostly traded with.
>All Indians do is give excuses for why India was poor
Yes, those lazy Indians, always up to no good. There are no historical reasons, just lazy, ignorant, people.
/s
This year India will be celebrating 70th Independence day, it is not infant democracy as it was in 60s or 70s, but it is about damn time, Indians owned up their own record of self governance and stop blaming the British. The act of blaming Population and British is getting stale and old.
>>Yes, those lazy Indians, always up to no good.
Indians is being used as catch all and you are trying to misrepresent his statement. No one said Indians are lazy, that would be affront to my own family and friends. But Indians need to own up the kind of leadership they have elected and the subsequent results.
>>Yes, those lazy Indians, always up to no good.
Indians is being used as catch all and you are trying to misrepresent his statement. No one said Indians are lazy, that would be affront to my own family and friends. But Indians need to own up the kind of leadership they have elected and the subsequent results.
> Germany and France are 1/10 the population of India or smaller. India is 2x+ USA populations. <
All I am saying is that there is no need of creating the same piece of software by a different team of people just because of NIH Syndrome (Not Invented Here). India should spend time in creating other things.
China created its own search engine because they want a feature i.e. censorship, which Google doesn't offer them. France and Germany don't need their own search engines because there is nothing in Google which they want but latter doesn't offer.
All I am saying is that India should focus on making unique things specific to Indian population only. For instance create a Horoscope matching service similar to OkCupid, now that makes sense. Housing.com makes sense. Indian Facebook doesn't make sense.
All I am saying is that there is no need of creating the same piece of software by a different team of people just because of NIH Syndrome (Not Invented Here). India should spend time in creating other things.
China created its own search engine because they want a feature i.e. censorship, which Google doesn't offer them. France and Germany don't need their own search engines because there is nothing in Google which they want but latter doesn't offer.
All I am saying is that India should focus on making unique things specific to Indian population only. For instance create a Horoscope matching service similar to OkCupid, now that makes sense. Housing.com makes sense. Indian Facebook doesn't make sense.
>All I am saying is that there is no need of creating the same piece of software by a different team of people just because of NIH Syndrome (Not Invented Here). India should spend time in creating other things.
It's not just NIH. If you're in the small leagues you get to use whatever other players offer, but if you're one of the superpowers, like China is and India wants to be, it makes sense to have your own infrastructure that you control.
>China created its own search engine because they want a feature i.e. censorship, which Google doesn't offer them.
Not just that. First, there's surveillance of its citizens. China might be OK with doing it to their own citizens, and the US might be OK with them doing it to their own. But neither the US nor China would be OK with the other doing it to their citizens. Now, a second rate player, like Spain or even Germany (who even was under US governance for a long time after WWII) might be OK with it, and an aggregate big player like the EU might not yet have the power of coordination and political might to fight this situation.
Second, most of the western internet (from news outlets to social media) mostly features and touts the western internets and viewpoints on any matter, from cultural issues to trade agreements. I'm not talking of Chinese government propaganda here either (that of course also exists). I'm talking about all kinds of issues, where there are different national interests at stake. Now, this situation is convenient for the US population, who follows its own websites, never watches e.g. Brazilian or French movies or listens to e.g. Spanish or Chinese pop, and sure as hell never reads foreign newspapers or uses foreign social media platforms anyway ("never" here used as a proxy for "in insignificant amounts"), as all of their media/websites put the culture and interests of the US (or of some US based companies) first.
Of course people sharing those interests and culture (e.g. US citizens, British etc), these media/services might even appear "totally neutral" -- as if they're just describing out objective reality. Or they'll point to things like FOX vs X progressive channel, to show how there's variety of opinion as if that covers the whole spectrum.
People outside the US reading those outlets and using those services though (because of them being early technological pioneers, having the infrastructure and the money, etc) do have this problem -- that the majority of stuff there is more often than not against their national interests/culture/sensitivities/political views/etc.
>Indian Facebook doesn't make sense.
A US based web service having access to all the private data for the Indian population makes even less sense. Would Americans feel the same way if Facebook was, say, Russian? Conveniently they seldom, if ever, have to use a non US-based web service of such scope. It's always the others who have to use theirs.
It's not just NIH. If you're in the small leagues you get to use whatever other players offer, but if you're one of the superpowers, like China is and India wants to be, it makes sense to have your own infrastructure that you control.
>China created its own search engine because they want a feature i.e. censorship, which Google doesn't offer them.
Not just that. First, there's surveillance of its citizens. China might be OK with doing it to their own citizens, and the US might be OK with them doing it to their own. But neither the US nor China would be OK with the other doing it to their citizens. Now, a second rate player, like Spain or even Germany (who even was under US governance for a long time after WWII) might be OK with it, and an aggregate big player like the EU might not yet have the power of coordination and political might to fight this situation.
Second, most of the western internet (from news outlets to social media) mostly features and touts the western internets and viewpoints on any matter, from cultural issues to trade agreements. I'm not talking of Chinese government propaganda here either (that of course also exists). I'm talking about all kinds of issues, where there are different national interests at stake. Now, this situation is convenient for the US population, who follows its own websites, never watches e.g. Brazilian or French movies or listens to e.g. Spanish or Chinese pop, and sure as hell never reads foreign newspapers or uses foreign social media platforms anyway ("never" here used as a proxy for "in insignificant amounts"), as all of their media/websites put the culture and interests of the US (or of some US based companies) first.
Of course people sharing those interests and culture (e.g. US citizens, British etc), these media/services might even appear "totally neutral" -- as if they're just describing out objective reality. Or they'll point to things like FOX vs X progressive channel, to show how there's variety of opinion as if that covers the whole spectrum.
People outside the US reading those outlets and using those services though (because of them being early technological pioneers, having the infrastructure and the money, etc) do have this problem -- that the majority of stuff there is more often than not against their national interests/culture/sensitivities/political views/etc.
>Indian Facebook doesn't make sense.
A US based web service having access to all the private data for the Indian population makes even less sense. Would Americans feel the same way if Facebook was, say, Russian? Conveniently they seldom, if ever, have to use a non US-based web service of such scope. It's always the others who have to use theirs.
[deleted]
thank you for this reply, really puts things into perspective.
> the rest of the world doesn't wanna use their things because it would be giving power to a non-liberal democracy
Let's not get carried away. The rest of the world doesn't want to use their things due to a combination of (a) not knowing about the things; and (b) the things being in Chinese.
Let's not get carried away. The rest of the world doesn't want to use their things due to a combination of (a) not knowing about the things; and (b) the things being in Chinese.
Not sure what you are talking about. Indians have been more than welcoming to other people. We have been screwed over thousands of years now.
Refusing to be screwed and looking after your interests isn't racism or xenophobia.
Refusing to be screwed and looking after your interests isn't racism or xenophobia.
In India Nationalism is a good word, whereas in the rest of the world it's an awful word because the rest of the world saw what Nationalism eventually takes you to (WW2, Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan).
Nobody in US who opposes foreign labor in US would ever wanna be called a 'Nationalist', it is the same thing as being called a racist(actually, it might even be worse).
Nobody in US who opposes foreign labor in US would ever wanna be called a 'Nationalist', it is the same thing as being called a racist(actually, it might even be worse).
Nationalism could be considered good thing if you are in early to mid 20th century. But today when we are this global, being this nationalist makes no sense. Yes I understand nationalism here is grounded in our freedom history but in todays world it makes no sense.
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.
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.
> 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. <
I wanna deal with this monopoly argument I keep hearing everywhere in this thread.
Can there be a monopoly of a web service? Facebook dethrowned MySpace, did myspace have a monopoly? MySpace dethrowned Friendster.
If Google has a monopoly in Search and email then what use is it when it can't push Google Plus? Even with Youtube integration FORCED upon people, nobody used Google plus.
Pretty much every single product other than social networks which Facebook has launched, has been a failure. It couldn't replace Gmail, Snapchat, Instagram.
Microsoft couldn't compete with iPod, Apple couldn't compete on Maps.
It just doesn't matter how much is your market share in a certain existing technology, people judge things based on the products (considering there is no 'price' to lure people away with).
I wanna deal with this monopoly argument I keep hearing everywhere in this thread.
Can there be a monopoly of a web service? Facebook dethrowned MySpace, did myspace have a monopoly? MySpace dethrowned Friendster.
If Google has a monopoly in Search and email then what use is it when it can't push Google Plus? Even with Youtube integration FORCED upon people, nobody used Google plus.
Pretty much every single product other than social networks which Facebook has launched, has been a failure. It couldn't replace Gmail, Snapchat, Instagram.
Microsoft couldn't compete with iPod, Apple couldn't compete on Maps.
It just doesn't matter how much is your market share in a certain existing technology, people judge things based on the products (considering there is no 'price' to lure people away with).
You answered your own question, sir. Democratalized Internet is one way those behemoths are taken down.
At Google they say that the compitetor is just a click away. With the "FreeNarcotics" version of the iternet, that may not be true anymore, and a true one omni-monopoly may emerge.
At Google they say that the compitetor is just a click away. With the "FreeNarcotics" version of the iternet, that may not be true anymore, and a true one omni-monopoly may emerge.
But, if you look people out there is no way they'd even know if something is better...
But there is already a monopoly. By TRAI over 1.25 billions.
If this discision was taken at state or city level, would be much better. Otherwise citizens/customers lose either way.
If this discision was taken at state or city level, would be much better. Otherwise citizens/customers lose either way.
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?
Never said that. Also Net Neutrality regulation isn't the only thing preventing ISPs from blocking all the websites they want willy-nilly.
What ISPs want is ability to charge more for priority services (which includes but not limited to 'express lanes').
What NN supporters think this would mean is that ISPs will block websites.
Anyone has a right to block any content on their private property. Newspapers can censor articles. TV can only air what they wanna air. You can chose to listen to whichever radio station you wanna listen to. Until the ISPs promise you to not block any website, they have a right to block any website or deprioritize it for that matter.
When ISPs sell you an internet package, a 'feature' in non-NN world they would wanna provide you is: 'No blocked sites' in addition to Fiber, fast speeds, low prices, etc.
Any internet package which has blocked content on it, and blocking wouldn't be done proactively or blacklist-based, but rather like Free Basics was. Only a certain whitelisted sites were allowed. Any such package would be priced lower than a no-blocked sites package. Why? Because fewer people would want it. Discrimination of data also allows investment into the internet infrastructure. It's like Facebook ads are paying for the internet for the poor people.
Imagine this, you find out that people in New York love Mangoes, but there is nobody supplying them with Mangoes(and only super rich people are able to afford Mangoes). You find out that the city of Chicago has a LOT of Mangoes and available for very cheap. So you take your savings, buy a truck, drive to Chicago and bring a truck full of Mangoes to NYC. The question arises, since everybody from rich to the poor want Mangoes, at what price do you sell them?
If you auction the Mangoes to the highest bidder, then only the super rich will be able to afford it, if you sell it at a minimal profit(since lets say you're not in it for making profit) then while everybody will be able to afford it, only a few people will be able to acquire them until you bring back the next batch.
If you want to be able to provide Mangoes to maximum number of people, the smartest strategy is to sell them to the highest bidder, and then use the extra money you're getting to buy more trucks and make frequent trips.
This is exactly what Net Neutrality prevents from happening. When discriminatory services are provided, it allows for more services to everyone. You think that Microsoft will be able to pay to block GMail, where as what will happen will be more like UPS's regular mail vs overnight delivery. Amazon will not pay UPS to ship things through regular mail if UPS started accepting money from Walmart to slow down or block Amazon's packages.
What ISPs want is ability to charge more for priority services (which includes but not limited to 'express lanes').
What NN supporters think this would mean is that ISPs will block websites.
Anyone has a right to block any content on their private property. Newspapers can censor articles. TV can only air what they wanna air. You can chose to listen to whichever radio station you wanna listen to. Until the ISPs promise you to not block any website, they have a right to block any website or deprioritize it for that matter.
When ISPs sell you an internet package, a 'feature' in non-NN world they would wanna provide you is: 'No blocked sites' in addition to Fiber, fast speeds, low prices, etc.
Any internet package which has blocked content on it, and blocking wouldn't be done proactively or blacklist-based, but rather like Free Basics was. Only a certain whitelisted sites were allowed. Any such package would be priced lower than a no-blocked sites package. Why? Because fewer people would want it. Discrimination of data also allows investment into the internet infrastructure. It's like Facebook ads are paying for the internet for the poor people.
Imagine this, you find out that people in New York love Mangoes, but there is nobody supplying them with Mangoes(and only super rich people are able to afford Mangoes). You find out that the city of Chicago has a LOT of Mangoes and available for very cheap. So you take your savings, buy a truck, drive to Chicago and bring a truck full of Mangoes to NYC. The question arises, since everybody from rich to the poor want Mangoes, at what price do you sell them?
If you auction the Mangoes to the highest bidder, then only the super rich will be able to afford it, if you sell it at a minimal profit(since lets say you're not in it for making profit) then while everybody will be able to afford it, only a few people will be able to acquire them until you bring back the next batch.
If you want to be able to provide Mangoes to maximum number of people, the smartest strategy is to sell them to the highest bidder, and then use the extra money you're getting to buy more trucks and make frequent trips.
This is exactly what Net Neutrality prevents from happening. When discriminatory services are provided, it allows for more services to everyone. You think that Microsoft will be able to pay to block GMail, where as what will happen will be more like UPS's regular mail vs overnight delivery. Amazon will not pay UPS to ship things through regular mail if UPS started accepting money from Walmart to slow down or block Amazon's packages.
"Anyone has a right to block any content on their private property."
A lot of people would argue that broadband infrastructure shouldn't be considered plain old private property. It's an essential component of a well-functioning society, so it should be among the few things that are collectively managed and supported - like water, fire departments, and the criminal justice system.
I don't think anyone knows whether or not allowing telecom companies more freedom to set prices and provide services however they want would ultimately be better for society than the kind of compromise a lot of places have now. I think it could be worth some experiments.
That said, net neutrality is a known system that more or less works. It's reasonable to be very cautious about any massive change to the current internet ecosystem.
Fire departments in many cities in the US used to be private companies that offered subscription services. They maintained their own infrastructure and sought profits and growth. Eventually cities decided that the fire service market was special in a number of ways that made it better treated as a public good. People were pretty happy about municipal fire departments. [1]
[1] I read about this a while back in a book on the history of New York. I do t have time to look up the details now. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
A lot of people would argue that broadband infrastructure shouldn't be considered plain old private property. It's an essential component of a well-functioning society, so it should be among the few things that are collectively managed and supported - like water, fire departments, and the criminal justice system.
I don't think anyone knows whether or not allowing telecom companies more freedom to set prices and provide services however they want would ultimately be better for society than the kind of compromise a lot of places have now. I think it could be worth some experiments.
That said, net neutrality is a known system that more or less works. It's reasonable to be very cautious about any massive change to the current internet ecosystem.
Fire departments in many cities in the US used to be private companies that offered subscription services. They maintained their own infrastructure and sought profits and growth. Eventually cities decided that the fire service market was special in a number of ways that made it better treated as a public good. People were pretty happy about municipal fire departments. [1]
[1] I read about this a while back in a book on the history of New York. I do t have time to look up the details now. Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this.
I read a book called "Economics in One Lesson" [1] which is quite in few ways similar to your arguments. The gist of the book is Government should avoid doing anything in capitalistic market, goes on to argue against Minimum wage Laws, Labour unions, Price control etc. and how a free market will solve every economic problem.
The problem with your arguments / analogies and of that book, is that they tell a simplistic chain of reasoning without considering hundreds of factors involved in the equation. You say that a 'no-blocked sites package' and 'whitelisted site package' could co-exist but fail to see that, the former one could be priced so high (once the latter gains a very large market share) that it becomes necessary for an ordinary person to limit his choices. The barrier to entry for a telecom network or a broadband service is really high and I can't see a better alternative just coming in quickly.
[1]: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
The problem with your arguments / analogies and of that book, is that they tell a simplistic chain of reasoning without considering hundreds of factors involved in the equation. You say that a 'no-blocked sites package' and 'whitelisted site package' could co-exist but fail to see that, the former one could be priced so high (once the latter gains a very large market share) that it becomes necessary for an ordinary person to limit his choices. The barrier to entry for a telecom network or a broadband service is really high and I can't see a better alternative just coming in quickly.
[1]: http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf
> You say that a 'no-blocked sites package' and 'whitelisted site package' could co-exist but fail to see that, the former one could be priced so high (once the latter gains a very large market share) that it becomes necessary for an ordinary person to limit his choices.<
See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement.
People believe that prices are set by seller or employers, because they are usually the buyer or the employee, and they feel that they don't have the power to set prices, when the truth is that the price they want isn't just being set (and this is a good thing).
General package(no blockage) will be priced based on the supply and demand. Same is with whitelisted site package. The fact is, for most people whitelisted package where a bunch of competition websites are blocked is not a big deal. This annoys people who want cheap 'open' package.
This is precisely the reason where most proponents of net neutrality fall. You want things a certain way, but since the market will not provide you the option you want, you want it to be enforced by the government. If nobody can block anything, then there won't be any non-general packages. So make it about freedom. But it's no different than when groups interfere in the lives of other people, like preventing gay people from having sex by criminalizing it because they themselves are disgusted by it.
At the end of the day, the argument is simple, when you allow people to do something freely, will they do something you don't like?
See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement.
People believe that prices are set by seller or employers, because they are usually the buyer or the employee, and they feel that they don't have the power to set prices, when the truth is that the price they want isn't just being set (and this is a good thing).
General package(no blockage) will be priced based on the supply and demand. Same is with whitelisted site package. The fact is, for most people whitelisted package where a bunch of competition websites are blocked is not a big deal. This annoys people who want cheap 'open' package.
This is precisely the reason where most proponents of net neutrality fall. You want things a certain way, but since the market will not provide you the option you want, you want it to be enforced by the government. If nobody can block anything, then there won't be any non-general packages. So make it about freedom. But it's no different than when groups interfere in the lives of other people, like preventing gay people from having sex by criminalizing it because they themselves are disgusted by it.
At the end of the day, the argument is simple, when you allow people to do something freely, will they do something you don't like?
No. Net Neutrality protects what we already have. We already pay for access to the entire internet. Customers pay ISPs for this access. When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide.
How is it different than saying "Defense of Marriage Act protects what we already have"?
> When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide. <
Every country has consumer protection clause. IF ISPs promise you full internet, but they don't offer you that, then they can be sued under most jurisdictions.
The fact is, you know that this is not what it is about. There is no fraud involved. ISPs want to offer a certain kind of service and you're afraid that most people would take it and you'd be at the losing end, so you want to use the government to force the market to move in a certain direction.
> When ISPs throttle (and effectively block) websites that don't pay for "priority" or inclusion, then they are lying to their customers (consumers) about the service they provide. <
Every country has consumer protection clause. IF ISPs promise you full internet, but they don't offer you that, then they can be sued under most jurisdictions.
The fact is, you know that this is not what it is about. There is no fraud involved. ISPs want to offer a certain kind of service and you're afraid that most people would take it and you'd be at the losing end, so you want to use the government to force the market to move in a certain direction.
>See this is where pretty much everywhere gets it wrong. Prices aren't set by one side. Prices are ALWAYS set by both sides coming to an agreement.
The price will only be efficient in the face of robust competition. The price will not be optimal when there is a monopoly. If the telco/ISP market were actually competitive, a plan that imposed artificial scarcities (like limiting packets based on their content instead of the actual cost to transport them) would never see the light of day as competitors would offer an uncrippled product for essentially the same cost.
The price will only be efficient in the face of robust competition. The price will not be optimal when there is a monopoly. If the telco/ISP market were actually competitive, a plan that imposed artificial scarcities (like limiting packets based on their content instead of the actual cost to transport them) would never see the light of day as competitors would offer an uncrippled product for essentially the same cost.
Your argument about mangoes has a very big assumption involved and that is the supplier wants everyone to have mangoes and isn't in the market just for the profit. This is similar to what Reagan tried to argue with the Trickle-Down economics, he said if you tax the rich less they'll create more jobs and hence it'll benefit everyone. This didn't happen, 'cuz the rich found other better ways (investment funds etc) to use that extra money than create jobs. So, NEVER assume intrinsic goodness. If discriminatory policies are allowed people will misuse them.
> Your argument about mangoes has a very big assumption involved and that is the supplier wants everyone to have mangoes and isn't in the market just for the profit <
I thought someone would raise this point. If the seller is in the market for making the maximum amount of profit, then he would sell his mangoes to the highest bidder at maximum profit, then use that money to expand his business to sell more Mangoes to make every last bit of profit from Mango sales. Correct?
I assumed that everybody understood that selling goods to the highest bidder is what a person motivated by profit does. So all I did was assumed that the seller wants to benefit maximum number of people. By performing that thought experiment, I showed that even THEN he would do the same thing as the person motivated by highest amount of greed would do.
I thought someone would raise this point. If the seller is in the market for making the maximum amount of profit, then he would sell his mangoes to the highest bidder at maximum profit, then use that money to expand his business to sell more Mangoes to make every last bit of profit from Mango sales. Correct?
I assumed that everybody understood that selling goods to the highest bidder is what a person motivated by profit does. So all I did was assumed that the seller wants to benefit maximum number of people. By performing that thought experiment, I showed that even THEN he would do the same thing as the person motivated by highest amount of greed would do.
The good thing is mangoes are available already cheap. So 200 rupees for 1GB .. and with competition it will go down further
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.
Having grown up in Socialist India, the demagogue who summons East India Company talk scares me more than East India Company itself.
People who opposed coke were a minority, who weren't taken seriously by their own political representatives.
Slow adoption of technology had more to do with fear of automation and job losses, than anything.
Slow adoption of technology had more to do with fear of automation and job losses, than anything.
> People who opposed coke were a minority, who weren't taken seriously by their own political representatives. <
Well then why Coca Cola and IBM were forced to leave the country? George Fernandes was Union minister when he ordered them to leave India. I don't think you can get any more high profile than that.
Well then why Coca Cola and IBM were forced to leave the country? George Fernandes was Union minister when he ordered them to leave India. I don't think you can get any more high profile than that.
I don't know where you are getting your information from. I can still buy Pepsi and Coca Cola in India. And I have friends who work for IBM.
Coca Cola has been in bad news for other reasons. If you sell a pesticide poisoned drink, you must expect to be held accountable by the law someday.
Coca Cola has been in bad news for other reasons. If you sell a pesticide poisoned drink, you must expect to be held accountable by the law someday.
For someone who is a License Raj apologist, you clearly don't know enough the History.
In 1977 Janata Party under the leadership of Morarji Desai kicked out Coca Cola and IBM (as the high profile companies). Both the companies came back in 1990s. Go do some research before you start defending economic policies.
In 1977 Janata Party under the leadership of Morarji Desai kicked out Coca Cola and IBM (as the high profile companies). Both the companies came back in 1990s. Go do some research before you start defending economic policies.
[deleted]
Your is a very specific example. My mom can't do that. But father can.
Does she use email?
I don't think she does. Never really thought of that. She's on WhatsApp like all the time, posting at least 20-200 messages a day. That's not just her, a lot of people in my family do the same thing with WhatsApp. And my mom is the smart one in the family (of her generation). She made everyone learn things like the app.
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.
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.
Its a win for India. Win for the free market.
I had a good deal of insight into how this played out at the very top. Behind closed doors there's actually support in a lot of good places, but there is quite a lot of political posturing from people that have a stake in the nationalistic angles. It gets votes.
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.
The issue there is, in the process of not getting f--ed by a US corporation are they not getting f--ed by their own government?
There are a whole lot of people making judgements based purely on numbers, but poverty when you see it isn't just numbers. Even analytical folks like Bill Gates will admit to their stark ignorance toward what poverty actually is until having seen it first hand. There's no substitute for seeing what is actually happening.
I agree talk is important and having this dialog isn't meaningless, but there is quite a lot of pseudo-intellectualism and general disconnectedness where people with power are more concerned with the next step in their career rather than the roles of the office they're actually occupying. Or some notion that the ideas of protecting the ideas of net-neutrality in the west are some sort of modern day "white man's burden." If I needed to fix my roof today and you told you I couldn't have just a hammer and screwdriver because they can't separated from the whole toolbox, I would be heartbroken.
While openly violating net-neutrality isn't going to benefit any politician looking for votes for their next seat in public office, the reality is that net-neutrality has been violated all over the world to the tremendous benefit of the people. It's important to note that, while net-neutrality is mostly upheld in the US, the US suffers plenty of blind spots that result from the biases in general news media, social media, and reporting.
Also, to address your original point, implementing nothing will also have massive issues for decades. Your commentary falls under the same heading as the people intellectualizing the problems without having a stake in it. I don't know where you live or anything about you, but go check out rural India some time and find out what real poverty is. If you've never seen it with your own eyes, you honestly have no idea what it is.
There are a whole lot of people making judgements based purely on numbers, but poverty when you see it isn't just numbers. Even analytical folks like Bill Gates will admit to their stark ignorance toward what poverty actually is until having seen it first hand. There's no substitute for seeing what is actually happening.
I agree talk is important and having this dialog isn't meaningless, but there is quite a lot of pseudo-intellectualism and general disconnectedness where people with power are more concerned with the next step in their career rather than the roles of the office they're actually occupying. Or some notion that the ideas of protecting the ideas of net-neutrality in the west are some sort of modern day "white man's burden." If I needed to fix my roof today and you told you I couldn't have just a hammer and screwdriver because they can't separated from the whole toolbox, I would be heartbroken.
While openly violating net-neutrality isn't going to benefit any politician looking for votes for their next seat in public office, the reality is that net-neutrality has been violated all over the world to the tremendous benefit of the people. It's important to note that, while net-neutrality is mostly upheld in the US, the US suffers plenty of blind spots that result from the biases in general news media, social media, and reporting.
Also, to address your original point, implementing nothing will also have massive issues for decades. Your commentary falls under the same heading as the people intellectualizing the problems without having a stake in it. I don't know where you live or anything about you, but go check out rural India some time and find out what real poverty is. If you've never seen it with your own eyes, you honestly have no idea what it is.
What a bunch proclamation!
Can a quote be great if it is also completely factually inaccurate?
Could you elaborate why it is inaccurate?
For example Facebook explicitly does want to support job searches. (Babajob)
Facebook has a list of all current and future job search sites that anybody in India might want to use? What about job adverts that are just posted on the employers own website?
Unless you meant "Facebook wants to monopolise the entire Indian job search market with their own job search site while preventing people from accessing any competitors". That's more believable but hardly undermines the original quote.
Unless you meant "Facebook wants to monopolise the entire Indian job search market with their own job search site while preventing people from accessing any competitors". That's more believable but hardly undermines the original quote.
Babajob is not Facebook's job search site (nor is the other job search site I just noticed on the list, Times Jobs). Only a couple things on the list of sites included in the program are Facebook's. Here is the list (as of a few months ago):
Aaj Tak
AccuWeather
Amarujala.com
AP Speaks
Babajob
BabyCenter & MAMA
BBC News
Bing Search
Cleartrip
Daily Bhaskar
Dictionary.com
ESPN Cricinfo
Facebook
Facebook Messenger
Facts for life
Girl Effect
HungamaPlay
IBNLive
iLearn
India Today
Internet Basics
Jagran
Jagran Josh
Maalai Malar
Maharastra Times
Malaria No More
manoramanews.com
NDTV
News Hunt
OLX
Reliance Astrology
Reuters Market Lite
Socialblood
Times Jobs
Times of India
Translator
wikiHow
WikipediaIs Facebook being transparent about which of these websites are paying for inclusion in the free tier?
The quote says Facebook doesn't want poor people to be able to search for jobs. That is obviously wrong or else they wouldn't provide job search. You may believe they want to monopolize job search, but that is not what the guy said. And show me an example of a job site that want allowed on their platform.
Helping the poor is a red herring. Facebook could easily give fair, unbiased acccess, but they want a monopoly.
Would you be so apologetic if Comcast gave everyone free NBC streaming but charged more for Netflix?
Would you be so apologetic if Comcast gave everyone free NBC streaming but charged more for Netflix?
How could Facebook give everyone unfettered access? Wouldn't that involve paying for everyone's data plan?
The amount of money they used for lobbying and andverts was enough for them to pay for actual costs of internet packs if they worked with carriers on that
By not using a man-in-the-middle vulnerable proxy and giving fair and unbiased access to all websites.
Who said they would be paying for everyone's data access?
Who said they would be paying for everyone's data access?
I don’t see any quotes from users of the service, in this article or in the CNN article. Seems salient.
full regulation paper from TRAI : http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulati...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Facebooks data has always been vague.
Live in Mumbai and while I dont travel via train every day, I do it quite often and spend hours at the platform or in the train. People actually spend 3-4 hrs in trains traveling.
Yeah. It might have, again might have some benefits I. Short run but free basics is and will hold both the people and companies back. Nobody is criticising Google and others trying to provide free access or subsidised access to internet because they actually befefit from the open internet and there companies aren't breaking net neutrality. Your farmer from rural India probably doesn't need an email address, his needs are quite different.
Live in Mumbai and while I dont travel via train every day, I do it quite often and spend hours at the platform or in the train. People actually spend 3-4 hrs in trains traveling.
Yeah. It might have, again might have some benefits I. Short run but free basics is and will hold both the people and companies back. Nobody is criticising Google and others trying to provide free access or subsidised access to internet because they actually befefit from the open internet and there companies aren't breaking net neutrality. Your farmer from rural India probably doesn't need an email address, his needs are quite different.
1/ Telecom marketing is absolutely central to this discussion. It is THE way that free basics in sold on the street. Even the world bank has said free basics breaks net neutrality (http://www.scoopwhoop.com/The-World-Bank-Has-Said-Free-Basic...)
2/ Clearly you haven't the slightest idea of the number of people that travel by trains in India. In Mumbai alone, close to 8Mn people use the train to get to their place of work EVERYDAY. Many of them travel for over 2 hours at a time (over 4 hours in total). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Suburban_Railway)
3/ You have no idea how rich/poor the ones fighting for net neutrality are. You shouldn't be making such statements. It reflects badly on you. The fact is that a bunch of few activists with no financial backing were able to put an end to intense lobbying by multi-billion dollar telecom and media companies.
This is exactly what you expect from a good regulator. I am extremely happy with TRAI. They saved my bootstrapped education startup.
2/ Clearly you haven't the slightest idea of the number of people that travel by trains in India. In Mumbai alone, close to 8Mn people use the train to get to their place of work EVERYDAY. Many of them travel for over 2 hours at a time (over 4 hours in total). (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumbai_Suburban_Railway)
3/ You have no idea how rich/poor the ones fighting for net neutrality are. You shouldn't be making such statements. It reflects badly on you. The fact is that a bunch of few activists with no financial backing were able to put an end to intense lobbying by multi-billion dollar telecom and media companies.
This is exactly what you expect from a good regulator. I am extremely happy with TRAI. They saved my bootstrapped education startup.
>> 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.
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.
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
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
It will become a large economy, Developed country not in the next 2 decades.
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?
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?
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.
2. They can only do so with their own products now. Not Facebook.
You vastly misunderstand/misjudge the connectivity of India.
I guess we should let a billionaire with obvious conflicts of interest hold control over what poor of the country should use.
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.
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.
> 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
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
A) I don't see the edit button.
B) I don't see you saying the same to the parent comment.
B) I don't see you saying the same to the parent comment.
The 'edit' option lasts for 2 hours. I meant please edit such stuff out of future posts.
The parent comment was wild, inflammatory, and snarky, so it was a bad comment for HN—but still wasn't personally abusive. That is beside the point here though. The rules apply to you whether someone else broke them or not. If we all just point at others, this site is lost.
The parent comment was wild, inflammatory, and snarky, so it was a bad comment for HN—but still wasn't personally abusive. That is beside the point here though. The rules apply to you whether someone else broke them or not. If we all just point at others, this site is lost.
Fair enough. :)
They will protest if the schools restrict to teaching Catholicism or the Vedas respectively.
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.
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.
> 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.
You can't comment like this here. Please post civilly or not at all.
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.
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.
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...
"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...
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.
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.
> 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...
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...
With 56% of population agrarian, India is not as modern as the Urban Middle Class wants itself to believe.
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.
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.