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.

8 of 75 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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.

    3. 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?

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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

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

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