Slashdot Mirror
India Telecom Regulator Pooh-Poohs Facebook's Orchestrated Lobbying Campaign
theodp writes: After India's telecom regulator asked a local company to temporarily stop Facebook's Free Basics service amid questions about whether it violates net neutrality, Facebook launched a controversial lobbying campaign, encouraging FB users to write to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), which oversees the country's Internet policy, urging the service be preserved. As of Jan. 7, the deadline for accepting comments, the regulator said it had received nearly two million comments from accounts affiliated with the site, including the domain names "@supportfreebasics.in" and "@facebookmail."
But many of these comments, the regulator said in a statement, are "basically template responses and the content are identical in nature." TRAI's we-ain't-buying-it response to the orchestrated flood of millions of comments (from both sides) differs markedly from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, which recently told the Court (PDF) it couldn't possibly comply with a Judge's six-month deadline to address issues with the OPT STEM Extension Program because it was overwhelmed by "the approximately 50,500 comments" (about what the average Slashdot reader reviews in a day!) from individuals urged on by the White House and other organizations. By the way, among the comments received by DHS was one from NAFSA — the lobbying powerhouse that represents 3,500 colleges and universities — calling for DHS to have OPT extensions expanded to include all fields of study (PDF).
But many of these comments, the regulator said in a statement, are "basically template responses and the content are identical in nature." TRAI's we-ain't-buying-it response to the orchestrated flood of millions of comments (from both sides) differs markedly from the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, which recently told the Court (PDF) it couldn't possibly comply with a Judge's six-month deadline to address issues with the OPT STEM Extension Program because it was overwhelmed by "the approximately 50,500 comments" (about what the average Slashdot reader reviews in a day!) from individuals urged on by the White House and other organizations. By the way, among the comments received by DHS was one from NAFSA — the lobbying powerhouse that represents 3,500 colleges and universities — calling for DHS to have OPT extensions expanded to include all fields of study (PDF).
Has theodp finally gone off the deep end? I know he hates Indians and H1B's, but there is no point in this diatribe.
If I remember correctly this was a full page desktop ad that came up and weepingly asked for me to click the send button so the poor babbies in india could get free "internet access".
I ctrl-a/x'ed the form, put in my own verbage about Fuckerberg and his bitch mother and sent that instead.
>> India Telecom Regulator Pooh-Poohs Facebook's Orchestrated Lobbying Campaign
Translation:gimme bigger envelopes under the table. At least that's how it works here in America.
I have no idea what that title is supposed to tell anyone.
I have got a Facebook account to view links on Facebook. But I do not use for other things.
Could you, please, explain me in simple words why I should learn to use it?
I tried to learn Google+, Linkedin, but they are all the time changing, and I did not get it yet. Is it the same or better?
From the summary: "the approximately 50,500 comments" (about what the average Slashdot reader reviews in a day!)
No, the average Slashdot reader does not read that many comments per day. At the rate of one comment per second, that's almost 14 hours straight.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
While Facebook's motives are certainly not selfless and altruistic, they are talking about giving free connectivity to people who'd otherwise have nothing.
That's their argument, but it's based on false premises.
Zero-rated content is problematic because it supplants other means of getting universal access to the internet. We agree that the argument for zero-rating is: 'It's better than nothing.' But that's begging the question. Why does 'nothing' have to be the alternative?
Telco revenues in the developing world have nearly doubled in the last 10 years. Virtually all revenue growth in the telco sector is in the developing world. And yet... not only are we not keeping up with the rate of increase in bandwidth, subscription base and accessibility in the developed world, we're actually falling behind.
Service levels are improving by leaps and bounds in the developed world, in a sector with *stable* income. And yet they're not improving nearly as much in a part of the world that's seen 50% revenue growth in 10 years.
How is it that the only way we can get actual services—you know, the thing telcos are given partial monopolies to deliver—is when customers are commoditised and effectively sold on an exclusive basis to an information service operator?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
If it is a false argument, then are you going to give them the free Internet?
Easy - because the alternative IS nothing. Everyone wants to bash Facebook for offering a walled garden, but there is no alternative to it. No telecom operator, charity or other organization is stepping up to the plate and offering free connectivity to the people.
Facebook's not offering it "for free" for they're gathering information, but people are getting access to limited knowledge and perhaps even staying in touch with family far away through facebook.
Given how much opposition there is to what facebook is offering, you'd think facebook got exclusivity or something and pushed every other free internet provider off the market. Or you'd think they'd get together and be able to offer an alternative that's freer and less walled.
Thank you for spelling "pooh-pooh" correctly.
re " talking about giving free connectivity to people who'd otherwise have nothing."
On their own network...
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Maybe the Free Interweb idea had its merits, but FB and their advertisement / PR goons went about publicizing the worst way possible...the ads showed poor people beaming with joy as if internet access is going to eradicate hunger, poverty and other social ills. This was the 21st century version of "fairness cream" advertisement.
What FB should have was test the service in selected areas, or may be one or two circles before planning a pan-Indian roll out.
Also, I doubt if the feature phones used by a majority of poor / lower income strata citizens (including some of the tech agnostic well off crowd) will have any meaningful browsing experience.
Tat Tvam Asi
That's a lot of commenters. The federal stuff I comment on seems to have about 15 others who care enough to comment. The comments are pretty good though.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Easy - because the alternative IS nothing.
No, it's fucking not. I live in a Least Developed Country and spent a decade assisting it in making region-leading progress in technology. Last year, the UN gave our country an award for its advances. Our Universal Access Policy dictates that 98% of the population will have access to 21/12Mbps bandwidth by the beginning of 2018.
These things are possible when a country actually bucks the lobbyists and industry reps and sets some real goals.
So unless you have some actual real-world insight into this, perhaps you could quit reiterating the same tired point that's just been debunked. 'Is so!' isn't much of an argument, you know.
This is not about free internet for anyone. This is about affordable access to the internet—all of it. Even poor people have money, and they value the internet and the ability to communicate widely. They will pay for the service if it's only offered fairly and affordably.
You say, 'companies don't want to do X' as if that were sufficient reason not to do X. But a country allows a telco a partial monopoly in exchange for a contribution to the public welfare. That includes providing affordable fucking internet to the people of the country.
It astonishes me how people buy the telco line without even questioning it for one second. If you had read the article I linked to, you'd know that telco revenues doubled in the last ten years in the developing world, but services have not grown nearly fast enough to keep up with the developed world. Contrast that with the developed world, where revenues are pretty much flat, but bandwidth use and residential broadband penetration are flying off the top of the X axis on the chart.
Do not try to tell me that telcos can't turn a profit making affordable internet available to most of the developed world. I know that's false, because I'm watching it happen here.
HTH HAND
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Oh please. If FaceBook sets the prescient that Internet should be free then every ISP around the world is sunk.
This is what happens when you put an unsuccessful* business man (child) in charge of a lot of money and resources. A whole pile of stupid stupid boils to the surface.
Yes, FaceBook is an unsuccessful business. Being a successful business means he has to come good on the $100bn IPO position and offer a tangible ROI to everyone who invested in him. Last time I checked FB has a market cap of nearly $300bn and logically speaking (you know 1+1 logic right) FB business activity doesn't come anywhere near substantiating that. Just a bunch of Wall St nutt jobs playing obscene games with other peoples money based on speculation and free lines of credit from the Fed.
So how do you like "Net Neutrality" now? Now that you see what it is about.
For vague fears you couldn't even articulate... you gave up your freedom!
The main source of opposition by the way is ordinary users, not corporations or telcos. The reason for the opposition is not that facebook will become a monopoly ISP. The reason is that facebook's service breaks net neutrality.
Ordinary users everywhere are fighting to preserve net neutrality, while corporations are fighting against it (for it gives them a chance to strong-arm websites and services and extort money from them).
Basic services need to be neutral. If toll roads started charging differently depending on the brand of car you are driving (because they get kickbacks from certain car manufacturers), there would be a shit-storm of controversy. And when it comes to basic services being monopolies, the irony is that the US has far worse monopolies when it comes to services like internet, cable, etc.
India has a rapidly growing startup culture, and a lot of these startups are heavily dependent on the internet for either service delivery or communication. However, if net neutrality breaks, the entry barrier for startups would be so high and cumbersome and expensive, that most of them would die.
You can talk about net neutrality being obsolete in a post internet world, etc. But the reality is that it only works in countries that have very very strong protection against monopoly abuse, so that they can guarantee that the free market works truly like a free market with a chance for everyone to try and succeed. However, this situation is already massively distorted because the big companies have become so big and rich and monopolized that small fry startups essentially pose no competition.
But heck, even in the US, with all the protection, monopolies basically do what they want.
A country like India *needs* its basic services to be open and neutral so the nascent growing companies have half a chance to succeed.
The reason TRAI did not accept comments from FB users is not because they were template responses. TRAI did infact accept template responses from savetheinternet.in. The reason why the FB responses were considered invalid was because they were not comments about "differential pricing" which was the policy under debate. Instead, all the FB responses were supporting Free Basics, a service that Facebook was trying to woo mass rural communities. TRAI in its report has stated that they never asked public about Free Basics and therefore the responses can not be accepted. As a matter of fact, TRAI even extended the deadline by more than a week for FB users to re-send their comments, if they have any on "differential pricing".