Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook's Free Basics App Has Been Temporarily Banned in India (fastcompany.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-you-don't dept.

An anonymous reader writes that Facebook's plan to provide Indians with free access to a number of chosen internet services has run into some big trouble. FC reports: "Indian telecom regulators have reportedly halted Facebook's "Free Basics" mobile Internet service, formerly known as Internet.org, over net neutrality concerns. The controversial program allows mobile customers free access to a limited set of Internet services, including certain online shopping, employment and health sites, Wikipedia and, naturally, Facebook itself. While Facebook has said the program offers limited Internet access to more than 1 billion people, those who might otherwise have none, it's come under fire from net neutrality activists and others in the industry who say it limits users to a walled garden populated solely by Facebook's partners.

75 comments

  1. Walls are free? by sinij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I share concerns that such service violates Net Neutrality rules and imposes walled garden on its users. The fact that it is free is irrelevant, as the principle it violates has nothing to do with the cost.

    1. Re:Walls are free? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 0

      So it is acceptable to you that the destitute of India get ZERO connectivity, as opposed to a free walled garden? On principle, of course.

    2. Re:Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What principle does it violate?

    3. Re:Walls are free? by fluffernutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I told you that you could live totally free of cost, but it would be in a prison, would you accept?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    4. Re:Walls are free? by sglewis100 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Me? No. Although it's a bad analogy (you can choose to stop using their app and get paid service). And also, yes, I believe there are some people who choose three free meals a day in prison over a life on the streets. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a better alternative for those people, but yes, some people would make that choice.

    5. Re:Walls are free? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 2

      If I told you that you could live totally free of cost, but it would be in a prison, would you accept?

      If I had the choice to enter and leave the prison at will? I certainly don't see anyone claiming that once a person uses the plan they can never leave ...

      I mean, the salient thing about a prison isn't the lack of freedom to do what you will inside the prison, it's the fact that you can't leave of your own free will. If you can walk out at any time, it's just not a prison -- much the way this plan is not a prison, it's just a kind of not-nice-place.

    6. Re:Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So say, I create a gaming console, and you can use it to connect to my private wireless network to play games I stream via my private connections, I am required to provide blanket unfettered internet access?

      Now if the wireless network is public, or was publicly funded, etc, then I can see some concerns. But really only if they also block access on paid connections. To compare it to the US issue that is common....Cable and Netflix. I wouldn't have much of an issue if Cable was free and I got only "On Demand" access, but if I paid for full connectivity I would be free to access Netflix/Hulu/etc. In that case, Cable isn't blocking the other competitors from profiting while also profiting. In fact, the only way most people would pay for Cable at that point would be to gain access to and purchase the competing services! So it is actually a win/win....unless you consider people just wouldn't purchase Cable, and would use the free version instead. Which would in turn kill the Cable industry as they would lose a ton of clients, yet be on the hook to provide all their "free" on-demand access.

      The parrellels aren't perfect, but you get the picture. If Facebook wants to provide their product and a few others for free, thats fine imo. If no one wants to use their network for anything but the free stuff, good luck with sustaining that model.

    7. Re:Walls are free? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Man robs bank of $1 to get free health care in jail http://idle.slashdot.org/story...

      Some people really do need help.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    8. Re:Walls are free? by xappax · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Facebook's scheme is analogous to giving people a Star Trek replicator that's been programmed to only produce heroin.

      One one hand, replicators are sweet and it's great to get them to more people. On the other hand, since these replicators are obviously just being handed out to get people hooked on heroin, I feel safe saying folks are better off with nothing.

      And by the way, how diabolical do you have to be to take a technology that's already, out of the box, capable of producing virtually anything, and deliberately restrict it to producing only your product?

    9. Re:Walls are free? by mysidia · · Score: 1

      So it is acceptable to you that the destitute of India get ZERO connectivity, as opposed to a free walled garden?

      It's obviously not a "Free" walled garden. Whoever is paying the cost of the data is subsidizing those sites out of pocket.

      Can you provide a basis for allowing traffic to another provider to be free other than "That provider is financing the ISP in exchange for unfavorably preferable treatment" ?

    10. Re:Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are OK with keeping competitors out and closing the market by offering a free walled garden (prison)?

    11. Re:Walls are free? by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had the choice to enter and leave the prison at will?

      Imagine, you go to visit your local public library, and to gain access, you have to pay per page you are allowed to read.

      But through an exclusive deal with the reigning Republican majority party; "You will be allowed to browse an unlimited number of pages from the books of select partners who agree with our world view and finance our campaigns".

      Meanwhile, books such as those from authors opposing the death penalty, favoring gun control, might cost double.

    12. Re:Walls are free? by Calydor · · Score: 0

      This isn't very different from the argument on here a few days ago about the three guys who were sharing karaoke songs that were no longer available for purchase anywhere.

      The target demographic of this offer are those people who are so poor they will never, EVER be able to afford 'full' internet access - the options boil down to free but walled garden, or no internet at all. There IS no third option for them. There is no market to close because there is no market in the first place.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    13. Re: Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      There's a cost at running this service, at least you can't afford that everyone downloads porn on it. Net neutrality is based on the assumption that it's easy to do, i.e. network resources are abundant and easily affordable, which is not the case in India.

    14. Re:Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better prison analogy would be: If you have no place to stay, you can use a prison cell as your go-to-hotel for the odd-night you really need a free bed and breakfast. If you can afford a hotel, go there. If you can't, then perhaps a prison cell provides an adequate shelter for the night?

    15. Re:Walls are free? by Jiro · · Score: 1

      He had health care available.

    16. Re:Walls are free? by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      The only thing that bothers me about this is that Facebook gets to control (and profit from) what the poor masses see. It amounts to a sort of controlled propaganda. As long as they are being regulated and show a range of competitors and not just have an invitation only competition free service, then I am ok with it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    17. Re:Walls are free? by Silverhammer · · Score: 0

      Protip: Such arguments would be more persuasive without the gratuitous partisanship.

    18. Re:Walls are free? by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that its not often I get to see the rest of the story. I just remembered that story from a few years ago. I had not looked into it further since that time.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    19. Re:Walls are free? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you are saying that the government pays for this access and Facebook is charging people?

      Change your public library for a book store and change your republican partisanship for owners and it might make a little more sense. But then it just sounds silly.

    20. Re:Walls are free? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I share concerns that such service violates Net Neutrality rules and imposes walled garden on its users. The fact that it is free is irrelevant, as the principle it violates has nothing to do with the cost.

      You are a moron!

      To access these services, one would STILL need some sort of Internet access, unless Facebook has suddenly decided to become a carrier in India. One would have to contact an Airtel or a Reliance or whatever, and either get a cellular service, or a broadband service from one of the providers. Once they get it, they get to access 'Free Basics'. In other words, 'Free Basics' is no different from any other free app already available in the online stores.

      Walled Garden only applies if Facebook came out w/ a phone of its own, a la Google, and made the above Free Basics content the only content available. That's not the case when it is one of the many things available from the store.

      On a different note, since when is the Indian government supportive of Net Neutrality? They OPPOSE it - since they are in the pockets of THEIR Telecom lobbyists - Reliance, Airtel, et al. In the above case, Facebook's partner is Reliance, and the reason they are offering only a limited set of things is that their partner Reliance WANTS it that way. Indian Telecom companies are dead against people getting unlimited content over the Internet if it competes w/ their other business lines, and sometimes, even when it doesn't.

    21. Re:Walls are free? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Facebook's Free Basics is the value added that Reliance is bringing to its customers. Facebook is not the one getting paid by the subscribers - Reliance is. If Facebook gets paid at all, it would be from Reliance.

    22. Re:Walls are free? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      well, as long as I'm one of the few that actually get a heroin-locked replicator, then I'm totally cool with that. Heroin is pretty expensive, and easy to move. In this case, there has got to be some bribes not spent to the correct TRAI people, and they're throwing a fit. Seems to be an unenforceable threat, since India has no Net Neutrality laws...not sure why Reliance actually backed down here.

    23. Re:Walls are free? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      Your idea actually sounds somewhat like legislatures in my fine state They wanted to toss out what other college-bound kids learn and replace it with "sermons known as A Model of Christian Charity, another sermon called "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth", and some Bush / Reagen speeches. Luckily it never made it to the point of being challenged in court.

    24. Re:Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm sorry, this is just not true. Just to set some context, I'm an indian, currently living in India.

      The plan has *no* provision to provide internet by making it possible for very poor people to access devices with internet. So they are right of the table. Thus it gets targeted to people who already have a smart/feature phone which can access internet. This by itself is very broad reach of population in India (somewhat around 50% of 1.2 billion ppl). So essentially this service is targeted towards people who can afford such a phone (Rs 3000 - Rs 5000 - Rs12000) range where a further mobile plan would cost around Rs100 for 300MB. Who can afford it but the further Rs 100 - Rs 300 a month for the internet plan pinches just a bit. In essence, college students. This can be further noted in the adverts for such plans which are obviously youth targeted (*1).

      It's not about getting internet to the poor who can't afford it. It's about capturing the youth market by making it more expensive to get on actual internet where competing services (to facebook for example) can breed. Thus locking them in to whatever is already on 'Free Basics'.

      * 1 -> http://www.rcom.co.in/Rcom/personal/internet/internet-org.html

    25. Re:Walls are free? by khoonirobo · · Score: 1

      OK Damn, hadn't logged in so can't edit it for spelling / grammar mistakes now.

    26. Re:Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long you are free to walk out of prison at anytime ... some would take that option. If it's only place I can get a roof over my head and food then yes I would.

    27. Re: Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vast majority of people would accept that, if the choice was to be between poverty and prison. The vast majority of people would also gladly accept to live in a gilded cage and I guess they're getting their wish soon.

    28. Re:Walls are free? by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Forget facebook , lets not forget that this walled garden has free Wikipedia!!! thats something for the millions who cannot afford 3G in India

    29. Re:Walls are free? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      The fact that it is free is irrelevant...

      There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say; as a user, you pay many times over for this kind of 'free' by being exposed to adverts, having you every move tracked and your information sold off to unknown third parties. This sort of watering down the concept of what is 'free' is a bad thing - quite apart from the inevitable association with important ideas of freedom, it is simply a barefaced lie.

    30. Re:Walls are free? by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      If they let two way flow of information, then it's (bit) okay. By two-way, you should be able to voice your opinion -- things like email, twitter, blogs. Else all they offer is like a TV where you are shoved with information (mostly ads, agenda-driven-info) which you can't truly choose. Anything that helps in free flow of information is good for all. Again unless you have freedom to access any site, the whole plan is like the private-media driven pre-internet days. Just to aid the powers that be to maintain/strengthen status-quo.

    31. Re:Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I share concerns that such service violates Net Neutrality rules and imposes walled garden on its users. The fact that it is free is irrelevant, as the principle it violates has nothing to do with the cost.

      How is this so-called walled-garden any different from services such as the former CompuServe and America On-Line for example? I thought we are supposed to be in favour of providing access to information. I realise the Facebook "free Internet" is not the entire World Wide Web but if the people can send and receive messages, check the weather forecast, read about various topics albeit with Wikipeedia's horrendous editing policy which should result in certain "editors" being criminally charged and subject to other civil penalties. For that matter Mark Zuckerburg would do more for the world by giving the masses in India and China a free vitamin laced with a reproductive sterilisation drug; this is exactly what I woud do if I was a multi-billionaire because I could get away with it. The overpopulated countries are flooding into the First World countries. Nobody needs the people in most of that region of the world; they are parasites perpetually living in poverty and corruption.

    32. Re: Walls are free? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. A limited rate or total download cap would satisfy the network neutrality requirements and cost no more than allowing unlimited access to a restricted set of sites.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    33. Re: Walls are free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On AOL and compuserve I could visit any website that I wanted to. Aol bombarded you with all their stuff, but they still had a browser that allowed you to access any website on the web. Facebook is restricting access to only partner websites and apps.

    34. Re:Walls are free? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, books such as those from authors opposing the death penalty, favoring gun control, might cost double.

      And that's where this facile comparison finally goes off the rails -- no one even remotely hinted that the introduction of this plan would increase (let alone double) the cost of any other plan. In fact, by lowering barriers to entry and increasing demand, it will likely lower the cost of every other plan.

    35. Re:Walls are free? by kcn.viper9451 · · Score: 1

      Forget facebook , lets not forget that this walled garden has free Wikipedia!!! thats something for the millions who cannot afford 3G in India

      I believe yours is a very valid point. Those who have an issue can start a similar app or service. The app is not enforced on users - they have a choice to use it or not.

  2. It's free kids. Give it a try. by ITRambo · · Score: 1

    I'll take free Internet access even if it's based around Facebook's version of the web. You can still get things done, get email, etc. The government of India may be pandering to, or paid by, India's ISP's to bend to their will. The excuse about lack of net neutrality is nonsense. This seems to be the Facebook version of AOL, only without the floppy disks or $22 per month charge.

    1. Re:It's free kids. Give it a try. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just install AOL and open a real browser once it is running. Some of the latest versions didn't let you do that. Check the proxy settings in their browser and you can then get IE/Netscape/Firefox to connect.

  3. This is an app? by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

    That runs on your phone? How did your phone get the app? How does the app reach the internet? Is this just a web browser? Do I live under a rock? (yes)

    1. Re:This is an app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe FB provides the mobile phones/tables?

    2. Re:This is an app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the tables flippable, or do I have to view ads and take a survey first?

    3. Re:This is an app? by tepples · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the phone got the app through the carrier's preload list, through some public Wi-Fi hotspot, or through a small download on pay-per-GB terms.

  4. Free connection to shopping and marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Nobel Peace Prize in the making.

    1. Re:Free connection to shopping and marketing by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why not Economics?

    2. Re:Free connection to shopping and marketing by tepples · · Score: 1

      Because the prize for economics is not technically a Nobel prize; it's the Bank of Sweden's prize in memory of Nobel. Or because the Nobel committee has shown itself willing to award prizes based on promises rather than actions, as in 2009 when it awarded the prize for peace to newly elected US President Barack Obama.

    3. Re: Free connection to shopping and marketing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Caution, citizen. Criticizing our President, Barack Hussein Obama, and His right to the Nobel Prize as awarded by cultured and sophisticated European intellectuals may constitute an act of treason with life-altering consequences. We may forgive a momentary lapse of reason that led you to formulate ill-advised words, but we will not be lenient a second time. Remember, citizen, we are watching you for your own good.

    4. Re:Free connection to shopping and marketing by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I think Obama got that prize mostly for keeping McCain out.

    5. Re: Free connection to shopping and marketing by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      wanker

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re: Free connection to shopping and marketing by tepples · · Score: 1

      "Criticizing our President [...] may constitute an act of treason"
      That's technically correct in that there may exist extreme scenarios where criticism rises to the level of "levying war against [the United States], or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (U.S. Const. III.3; 18 U.S.C. 2381). But the First Amendment has been interpreted to state that these are few and far between, and questioning the motivations of the Nobel committee is highly unlikely to be among them.

  5. The principle of assholish-ness by Kludge · · Score: 1, Troll

    In reality it would cost Facebook no more to allow these people full internet access than it does to allow them the limited access that they have. The reality is that they are just being assholes, limiting peoples' access. But by giving it to poor people for "free", they can get all sorts of ignorant people to come to their defense. "Oh, restricted internet is better than no internet."
    Facebook, Google, etc. are evil.

    1. Re: The principle of assholish-ness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it would cost more for Facebook to offer internet than not doing so.

    2. Re: The principle of assholish-ness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course Facebook makes money from the sites that are approved, and uses that cost to maintain the service. Then they couldn't make as much money if it was full internet and would be unable to offer any internet access.

  6. If it was really about helping people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it was really about helping people by providing online access, then the access would not be limited to specific web sites. The other sites are just the fig leaf for getting a billion people hooked on Facebook.

  7. Free shuttle bus service is the same by climb_no_fear · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So companies that provide free shuttle bus service to their business or a set of businesses like a mall are somehow different than this?

    1. Re:Free shuttle bus service is the same by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is like having a bus route that can take you anywhere you want to go, but you're only allowed to get off at certain free stops unless you pay. The limitation is somewhere between arbitrary and anti-competitive.

  8. The AOL of 2016 by cHiphead · · Score: 1

    Facebook is the new AOL, just worldwide.

    --

    This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:The AOL of 2016 by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      Can't wait for those free drink coasters in the mail.

  9. Do as I say, I say. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > who say it limits users to a walled garden populated solely by Facebook's partners.

    It's interesting how socialist governments that specialize in forcing walled gardens of services, making illegal competition by the private sector, suddenly get bent out of shape over it when a private co.pany offers voluntary participation.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  10. They'll get creative by unencode200x · · Score: 1

    While I disagree with the walled garden, I wonder if the Indians will find workarounds. Perhaps they'll post news articles's text or send each other files through chat to spread information they would otherwise not have access to.

    --

    Chance favors the prepared mind.
    Perfect is the enemy of good.
  11. Get some by 101percent · · Score: 1

    Get some India. I stand with you and admire your steadfast. I'm sure there are some /. users in India; Alexa confirms this, but not netcraft.

  12. Net Neutrality in India? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 0

    Quite bizarre, especially since there seems to be no actual Net Neutrality laws in India. They've been talking about it recently quite a bit, yet TRAI has only a draft that they just recently stopped taking comments on. I'm surprised Reliance Communications didn't tell the TRAI to go shove off until the Indian Parliament actually has a law on the books. This would never happen in the US, just imagine AT&T actually stopping to do anything just because there MIGHT soon be a law against it.

    1. Re:Net Neutrality in India? by yes-but-no · · Score: 1

      Indian preamble has the word 'socialist'. It's not a nation of free-run capitalism. For all the bad mouthing by western media, the life condition of vast majority of the billion folks is fine .if not great. Hardly anyone worries about roof over their head or food on the table or getting medical help. It's not a land ruled only by money (hopefully it stays for a long time like that)

    2. Re: Net Neutrality in India? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India is estimated to be the home to 78 million homeless people, including 11 million street children.

      America, 1.6 - 3.5 million homeless.

      Basically India has more homeless children then the USA has homeless people all together.

      Keep eating that propaganda pie. Taste good doesn't it?

      Source:

      https://www.homelessworldcup.org

  13. And nothing of value was lost. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

    > Fazebook is the new AOL

    LOL. Brilliant! But, FTFY. :-)

    Facebook is yet-another-stupid-fad. If you're dumb enough to use Facebook, well, nothing more really needs to be said.

    1. Re:And nothing of value was lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kinda like color television? I find it difficult to call something that's been in existence since 2004 and widely available since 2005 (and available to essentially everyone since 2006) a fad...

      I'll get off your lawn now...

    2. Re:And nothing of value was lost. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Fazebook is nothing new as this history of social media shows; before it there were:

      * Classmates
      * Open Diary
      * Friendster
      * myspace
      * Live Journal
      * Plaxo

      Fazebook is the only one that gained critical mass. So yeah, Fazebook is just-another-gossip-fad.

  14. Isn't this the same as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. T-Online giving free access with their access-points at lots of airports worldwide to only their own website, and only giving access to the whole internet for those who pay?

    2. AOL, actually never had a real internet-connection but always was limited to http

    3. your free daily newspaper, which barefacely does not contain all other newspapers that exist?

  15. anonymous cow tally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    SO, Its no big deal..

    You might end up with a few friends you requested you can't remember. A fresh Jamaican hanging out at the top of your people you may no. No new friend requests. No big deal he could have done that himself. What with all the death threats it only makes sense that they would make the people you might no list almost entirely female..

  16. Boots on the ground vs. Game of Drones? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Would McCain's boots on the ground have necessarily been more destructive than Obama's Game of Drones?

  17. He's comparing apples to oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you give someone access to books or health care it takes more resources to provide more physical items such as books, and health care items. For the internet however if you provide access to someone then they inherit access to everything the internet has to offer. In his case he's explicitly walling access for the internet to the sites that he makes money from and then acts like it's similar to sharing free physical resources. It's not the case and it's good to see that other countries are blocking their attempts to lock everyone into a walled internet garden.