Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Launches Internet.org Platform and Opens Up To More Developers

Posted by Soulskill on from the have-it-your-way dept.

Mark Wilson writes: The aim behind Facebook's Internet.org program is to bring internet access to the wider world. While an undeniably praise-worthy venture, it came in for criticism for going against the principles of net neutrality. Now, the company is launching the Internet.org Platform with a view to countering this criticism. The platform opens up Internet.org to more developers, giving them the chance to bring 'free basic services' to people around the world. There's also the promise of greater transparency.

32 comments

  1. why do we need a walled garden? by goombah99 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What's wrong with the plain old internet that we need this? I'm thinking that the notion here is that by making money by limiting access that they can give people free internet. AOL.com sort of started with the notion of monetizing a walled garden to offer cheaper internet access and it did spread to eventually giving access to the whole internet. But you could also describe indentured servitude in a similar rosie way of giving people opportunities.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:why do we need a walled garden? by bulled · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because the plain old internet doesn't make as much money for Facebook. Walled gardens are great for corralling profits and that is the real driver here, of course you can view facebook with all of its ads for free with one of these connections.

    2. Re:why do we need a walled garden? by Wycliffe · · Score: 1

      I've seen internet kiosks that work something like this. To access the raw internet was $5/hour but certain companies
      have paid the kiosk to allow their services to be accessed for free.

      The later versions of AOL, the old style kindles, and even some internet tvs and game consoles work on a similiar approach.
      The "start screen" is a bunch of apps, but you could still mostly access the "raw internet" 3 levels deep via a menu item.

      I guess I'm not completely opposed to trying to figure out a way to monetize aka subsidize the internet if it means we can
      get more people connected but it definitely sounds alot less like a charity and more like a business venture.

    3. Re:why do we need a walled garden? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      The walled garden here means free access for the user - no data charges, no access charges.

      The alternative is for a user to have to pay data charges and/or access charges - in other words, the status quo. In many places, data charges can be expensive - in many parts of Africa, you can buy airtime in 15 cent vouchers, which sort of indicates the level of disposable funds people have. Data charges can fairly rapidly wipe out 15 cents, so people generally dont bother and stick to cheaper SMS and voice services.

      So if the user isn't paying the data charges, who picks up the bills? Someone has to...

      So why the hate for Facebook et al doing this? Do people really expect them to pick up the tab for everyone just because?

    4. Re:why do we need a walled garden? by koan · · Score: 1

      I doubt there will be any "raw internet" with Fuckerberg in charge.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    5. Re:why do we need a walled garden? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      >> why do we need a walled garden?

      This is for India (note the primary video is in Hindi) and other places used to paying for crappy Internet. In these cases, a less-crappy Internet from Facebook is deemed (cue Martha Stewart) a good thing. However, if (or when if you're Google) someone figures out how to give Indians full-blown Internet for free, then Facebook's partial Internet thing dies and two years later no one will remember it anymore.

    6. Re:why do we need a walled garden? by arvin · · Score: 1

      You're misinformed. Facebook isn't picking up the tab, operators are.

      It's not a charity, it's a marketing expense - operators calculate that they will make money overall when more people upgrade to full internet plans. Any site entering the walled garden must be approved by both Facebook *and* the operator in question. Also, it isn't really free, just bundled with certain voice plans that users must pay for - operators also benefit because it might get people switch to them from their competitors. [All this is from the linked article.]

      People think the alternative to Internet.org is no bundled internet. That isn't necessarily true - 1Mb of an internet.org site costs operators exactly the same to carry as 1Mb of some other website, and they have demonstrated that there is some number of Mbs/user/month that is *profitable* for them to offer for free to sell more data plans. Whatever this number is, they can offer a free internet plan with this as a data cap if India gets a net neutrality law.

      Note that internet.org app + service would still exist and likely be very popular in this scenario, as it helps users conserve data. The only thing it does *not* prevent is Google bundling its own data compression proxy in Android and competing with internet.org.

      Operators aren't doing this right now because they lose the marketing that comes with having the internet.org logo. Facebook has never said why an open internet plan with data caps is incompatible with internet.org, other than a hand-wavy "poor people don't understand data caps because they don't know what megabytes are".

      For the record, anyone who has a prepaid phone connection in, say, India understands how to navigate the bewildering complexity of phone plans (pay Rs. 30 to decrease the cost of calls by 50% between 10pm and 6am for 30 days). As long as users can check how many MBs they have left, they will be fine.

      I suspect that the real reason facebook opposes this is because it is Facebook's attempt to offset Google's power as gatekeeper on the device (via Android) by becoming the gatekeeper at the network. This requires that net neutrality be subverted.

  2. That's still overbearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It means that now more developers get a chance to be in the facebook-defined walled garden they offer to people with no bargaining power in lieu of real internet access.

    That doesn't change that it is a walled garden.

  3. To be fair by halivar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't trust Zuckerberg or Facebook as far as I can throw them, if only because of their desire to turn IT into minimum wage labor via immigration, but the fact is that there are no cartoon villains in real life. Some people I don't like, and who I genuinely believe are ruining our industry, are just as capable of philanthropy and good works as a dedicated activist. Perhaps more so. Another example is Bill Gates.

    1. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't trust Zuckerberg or Facebook as far as I can throw them

      And I trust them about as far as I can puke them. And they make me puke, repeatedly, but they don't go far...

    2. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't that be Fuckerberg and Zacebook?

    3. Re:To be fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >but the fact is that there are no cartoon villains in real life.

      Not even Larry Ellison

  4. This is shady by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I used to think a company wouldn't make a web service designed to lure people into a situation where they and their friends would be monitored. That is shady to me, and interestingly it was Facebook where I really first noticed that. I guess it remains to be seen whether a company can start a web service designed to help people promote and yet still find a way to have it promote their agenda.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:This is shady by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      start a web service to promote a good cause on the surface*, yet still find a way to have it serve their agenda

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  5. Corporate censorship by Meniconi,Nando · · Score: 2

    Up until yesterday Facebook was preventing any posts linking to prospect.org, flagging them as a security threat. You think FB censorship logic will get better once it becomes a ISP?

    1. Re:Corporate censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know - if you can pay for people to filing requests to unblock you on Facebook, you're probably providing some useful service to someone.

  6. FTFY by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Because the plain old internet doesn't make much money for anyone.

    You're talking about putting infrastructure into places where there is no expectation of the local population valuing the connection enough to pay for it. And infrastructure doesn't pop up for free.

    Philanthropy is wonderful, but it's not generally part of the business plan for major corporations. Especially when that philanthropy would allow competitors direct access to users.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Because the plain old internet doesn't make much money for any *big fat corp*

      There, corrected for you. And then -- why should it?

      It's time that politics steps up to its job, making everyone's life a bit better (that's why we pay taxes, after all) instead of leaving that to "capitalism", which (obviously) ain't working everywhere, and stuffing said taxes up the bigcorp's asses (or spending them on snort and hookers).

      I'm not talking about oldskool socialism/communism (we know that didn't work either) but just of a better balance. Someplace where a municipality can lay fiber to the home (approval of the electors assumed) without being sued by Comcast, for example.

    2. Re:FTFY by bulled · · Score: 1

      Because the plain old internet doesn't make much money for anyone.

      You're kidding right? Never mind the large sector of the American economy built on the plain old internet.

  7. Not the Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The aim behind Facebook's Internet.org program is to bring Facebook access to the wider world

    FTFY.

    The "Internet access" they provide is still heavily filtered, despite this claim of "opening up".

  8. Internet = Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Facebook = Internet

  9. You seem to use that word a lot by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    While an undeniably praise-worthy venture, it came in for criticism [...]

    I don't think "undeniably" means what you think it means.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  10. Built for the third world by H1Bs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks Zuck!

  11. A gift at a cost. by vattuvarg · · Score: 1

    Facebook recently changed the use of an open standard (XMPP) to a proprietary one. Keep this in mind when you read the phrase 'free basic services'.

    --
    all human societies will be judged by their ability to care for the weak.
    1. Re:A gift at a cost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was about to make a similar point. Open! Ha!

  12. Heh by koan · · Score: 1

    Internet.org

    I wonder how much that domain cost.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  13. Facebook = AOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AOL used to co-exist with the internet as a completely separate entity. You could dial into AOL and read news, send messages to friends, host your own pages (AOL keywords), etc. Facebook has become that. They don't want you to leave the website, they want to keep everything inside their walled garden. No thank you.

    I remember years ago when Facebook was just starting out, the tech community rejected it because it was a walled garden. Search engines could not index the pages. You could not view content without creating an account and logging in. Now adays this is not only acceptable, it's common sense according to the average person. They want to control who can view their messages and photos. What ever happened to the idea of a real blog and photo gallery that did not restrict access to it? This is the reason why people are locked into Facebook.

    1. Re:Facebook = AOL by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

      mod parent up
      all it says = true

  14. all you need is USENET News .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "giving them the chance to bring 'free basic services' to people"

    There's the way -- allow USENET Newsgroups free to everyone.

    Fat chance, I expect.

    Because the advertisers can't crap it up.
    Because Killfile works to choose not to see what you don't like
    Because you can block 99.99 percent and see only what you want.
    Because it's simple, and fast, and free.

  15. Re:king frosty the first by OhSoLaMeow · · Score: 1

    And that's what he is, the King of Refuse. So bow down to him if you want, bow to him. Bow to the King of Slime, the King of Filth, the King of Putrescence. Boo. Boo. Rubbish. Filth. Slime. Muck. Boo. Boo. Boo.

    (Apologies to William Goldman)

    --
    They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
  16. Not with a barge pole by ronmon · · Score: 1

    For all of you who "need" facebook, good luck suckers. I won't click on their links, I block their domains, scripts and even their iframes. Have fun.