India Blocks Facebook's Free Basics Internet Service (thestack.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

India Blocks Facebook's Free Basics Internet Service (thestack.com)

Posted by timothy on Monday February 8, 2016 @02:22AM from the rich-and-poor-equally-free-to-buy-bread dept.

An anonymous reader writes: India's leading telecom regulator, TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India), has today voted against differential pricing, ruling with immediate effect that all data prices must be equal, and that companies cannot offer cheaper rates than others for certain content. The call is a significant blow to Facebook's Free Basics (previously Internet.org) initiative and Airtel Zero – projects which work to make internet access more accessible by providing a free range of "basic" services. The watchdog confirmed that providers would no longer be able to charge for data based on discriminatory tariffs but instead that pricing must be "content agnostic." It added that fines of Rs. 50,000 – 50 Lakh would be enforced should the regulations be violated.

137 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Alternate title by stoborrobots · 2016-02-08 02:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alternate title: "India insists on network neutrality"

--
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
1. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:32 · Score: 0, Informative
  
  No they insist on equal pricing. They don't care if the provider is net neutral, just that they don't compete with them.
2. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Or another:
  India still on the path to socialism/communism.
  Or another:
  Morons on Slashdot still think Capitalism and free markets work as promised.
3. Re: Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Or, "India outlaws the giving of crappy gifts. Rules they must be really really nice".
4. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Or another yet:
  India believes creating monopolies outside of Govt control is an act of absurd Corporatism.
5. Re:Alternate title by paulpach · 2016-02-08 02:59 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Alternate title: "India insists on network neutrality"
  And this is a prime example of why network neutrality is _wrong_.
  Here is a company, willing to offer free access to some content to many people. People would obviously benefit, otherwise nobody would use it. The company (facebook) would benefit, by having more customers and what not. It is a clear cut win-win. The only party that is negatively affected are competitors ISP which are surely lobbying at the TRAI ears.
  So government steps in and makes it illegal for said free service to be provided, arguing it is the best for its people.
  The net neutrality advocates completely ignore the fact that people (like in this case) would actually prefer a free non network neutral service than an expensive network neutral internet access.
  This is slashdot, 9 out of 10 are in favor of net neutrality, so go ahead, mod me down.
6. Re: Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:00 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  You're using a story about corporate cronyism and government monopoly to support your argument on the benefits of Socialism?
  You are one dumb motherfucker.
7. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No they insist on equal pricing. They don't care if the provider is net neutral, just that they don't compete with them.
  What they actually insists on (for those not RTFA) is the second link in the summary -- pricing must be "content agnostic". If you offer Internet connectivity you can't price data traffic going to Facebook lower than what you price data traffic going to YouTube or whatever. That is indeed a core net neutrality issue, because network providers could otherwise easily use differentiated pricing and zero-rating as an unfair advantage for some internet services over others. A few bundling deals and the market would be locked in for anyone wanting to challenge the established Internet services.
8. Re:Alternate title by houghi · 2016-02-08 03:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  1) This is not directed at the poor. This is directed at others who are already able to pay. This has been posted and explained several times by people living in the country.
  2) The downside is that it is not a complete free Internet service. Other sited are blocked. They are not a provider.
  As some sites are blocked, there is no net neutrality. Now if they were to open everything and become a true free provider (with all the rules that come with it) that would be something else. This is not about what price they charge; but by what rules they play and they do not play by the provder rules, yet they clai, they are.
  A rose by any other name is still a rose. Calling a tulip a rose does not make it a rose.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
9. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  America; where if you're not a corporate drone, you're a communist.
10. Re: Alternate title by Midnight+Thunder · 2016-02-08 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  If Facebook really wanted to provide free access, then thry could always sponsor internet Café, as an alternative.
  
  --
  Jumpstart the tartan drive.
11. Re: Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  They blocked "free" Facebook access, not free internet access. In other words, they blocked Facebook from making a profit by displaying ads to poor people.
12. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Alternate, realistic title: Facebook fails to pay enough bribes.
13. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  My vote is for: "India blocks exploitation of the poor."
14. Re:Alternate title by thegarbz · 2016-02-08 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  First world problem.
  Network neutrality debates are all good and fine in the first world where we're being price gouged by telecoms for unequal access to data, but given that Free Internet Basics is effectively something where the alternative is nothing I would say lack of net neutrality should not hold this up.
15. Re:Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Free Access to 'some content' from Facebook, not the Internet. Riiiiight.
16. Re:Alternate title by jellomizer · 2016-02-08 06:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So you are stating in a story that a free internet meant to be given to the poor, from a For Profit Company, however being blocked by the government because it has interests in keeping the underclass out of power, and probably have ties with other telecom companies, to block competition because they are offer lower price as a key competitive advantage. Is showing the evils of capitalism. Where in this case free market is motivated to provide free infrastructure in order to increase revenue from services offered.
  Stop over simplifying things. Unregulated capitalism is bad, Over regulated capitalism is just as bad too. The details is important, not the political stance.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
17. Re:Alternate title by paulpach · 2016-02-08 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Free Access to 'some content' from Facebook, not the Internet. Riiiiight.
  And explain to me what exactly is wrong with that?
18. Re:Alternate title by paulpach · 2016-02-08 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  2) The downside is that it is not a complete free Internet service. Other sited are blocked.
  And is it better to not have it at all??
19. Re:Alternate title by danbob999 · 2016-02-08 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  They start with free Facebook. Hey it's free, so it's better than not having it!
  Next thing they will add Twitter and some other lame web site, but will charge $1/month. It's so cheap, so it's better than not having it!
  Then they will ask $30/month for "full"-ish Internet, but you will be limited to sites they white list. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
  Then that ISP will buy its competitor, and enforce the same kind of Net Neutrality violations that are first world problems.
  Then they will block some political party web site, because they do not like it. And you will say "it's OK, it's not as if you paid for full internet".
  And then, only then, maybe you will wish they stood up for Net Neutrality right at the beginning.
20. Re: Alternate title by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 09:33 · Score: 0
  
  Don't let facts get in the way of a good anti-facebook post ;)
21. Re:Alternate title by KGIII · 2016-02-08 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  This is very much aimed at the poor. It is not aimed at the poorest-of-the-poor, no. It is almost as if there are varied degrees of wealth! Imagine that.
  This is aimed for those who have phones but can not afford access. This gives them limited access for free. This gives them an option. No, it's not entirely altruistic but it's an option. Why people are advocating against freedom, the freedom to choose, is beyond me. I am not, however, really all that surprised.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
22. Re:Alternate title by thegarbz · 2016-02-08 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah well when you start with something good, and then add speculative garbage to the end of your thought nothing ever looks good.
  I for one hold people to account on their actions, not some deranged negative view of the world at large.
23. Re:Alternate title by danbob999 · 2016-02-09 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  At which point does it stop being acceptable? Why would it be only acceptable when it's free and/or in poor countries?
24. Re:Alternate title by thegarbz · 2016-02-09 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  Its unacceptable when you stop providing something to someone who has nothing, and start actively taking away from someone who otherwise could have something.
  I remember accessing the internet through the local library for free. It was amazing, but it was also censored and limited. But it was better than nothing which is what the people now have.
  As I commented on the other post, when people start complaining about Net Neutrality for Wikipedia Zero and stop applying double standards because %corporation% then I'll let it be.
25. Re:Alternate title by danbob999 · 2016-02-09 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Its unacceptable when you stop providing something to someone who has nothing, and start actively taking away from someone who otherwise could have something.
  What kind of definition is that?
  You realize that for the same price (same investment in the network), users in India could have say, 100 MB per month. But instead, Facebook want them to be stuck on their web site.
  
  I remember accessing the internet through the local library for free. It was amazing, but it was also censored and limited. But it was better than nothing which is what the people now have.
  Net neutrality is a principle that should be applied to networks, not computers or libraries. The local library is free not to give you access at night and this isn't a violation of net neutrality either.
  
  As I commented on the other post, when people start complaining about Net Neutrality for Wikipedia Zero and stop applying double standards because %corporation% then I'll let it be.
  People do complain about Wikipedia zero. Competitors to Wikipedia are indeed disadvantaged by this program. I admit it's also a net neutrality violation.
26. Re:Alternate title by nhat11 · 2016-02-10 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Even if the content is restrictive to a small degree, it will give the poor some type of skill and knowledge to learn and navigate through a basic website that many of us takes advantage of each day.
50 Lakh = 5 million by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:28 · Score: 0

50 Lakh = 5 million
1. Re:50 Lakh = 5 million by devjoe · 2016-02-08 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  But it's 5 million rupees, or about 75,000 US dollars. If that's all the fine is then Facebook will just pay it and move ahead with their Net non-Neutral program.
On paper, this is a good decision by NotDrWho · 2016-02-08 02:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

But I can't help but wonder in practice if it won't leave a lot of poor people with no internet access at all.
Sure, it's nice to have an even playing field. But when you're starving, do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?

--
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
1. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  The Burger King neither asks for nor requires any special treatment, peasant!
2. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by avandesande · 2016-02-08 02:36 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Or maybe it's about a foreign entity putting a bunch of small local providers out of business and then changing their mind about the service being free. I think it is called 'predatory pricing'.
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
3. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by jeffb+(2.718) · 2016-02-08 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  Um, cows?
4. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by jrumney · 2016-02-08 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  But when you're starving, do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?
  No, but I do want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give me free food because of the effect it will have on my health, and the livelihoods of local food sellers.
5. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by jonwil · 2016-02-08 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  It would be more like McDonalds and KFC being told they cant give out free food because it would hurt local small business burger and chicken places.
6. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Crashmarik · 2016-02-08 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  You know that may not be the best metaphor for India and the Hindu relationship with cows.
7. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by NotDrWho · 2016-02-08 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Again, yeah that's great, in theory. But, in practice, when you're poor, I doubt you give a fuck whether the only provider you can afford is foreign or not.
  As for it putting the local ISP's out of business and then beginning to charge, I'm not sure I buy that. If they started to charge, wouldn't local competitors just spring right back up again?
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
8. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Like he said, also getting Internet in India is not that difficult as far as I've been able to tell, Vodaphone and some local players seem to be all over it. Even in rural areas outside of the Western tourist places like Goa it's not hard. Like most other places there's a certain willingness to share such resources around local communities as well.
9. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by NotDrWho · 2016-02-08 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Why should the government be in the business of protecting local food sellers (and telling me what I can and can't eat)? I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly don't need to government to be my parent, thanks.
  Do we need the government to wipe our asses for us too?
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
10. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2016-02-08 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  Um, cows?
  No, chicken:
  http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/...
  http://burgerkingindia.in/menu
  All food "tastes like chicken" anyway.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
11. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by NotDrWho · 2016-02-08 02:57 · Score: 1
  
  McDonalds and Burger King offer plenty of cow-free alternative foods now--for those who love cows, but hate fishes and chickens.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
12. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by codeButcher · 2016-02-08 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  But I can't help but wonder in practice if it won't leave a lot of poor people with no internet access at all.
  Sure, it's nice to have an even playing field. But when you're starving, do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?
  No internet access at all, is still better than access to only Facebook.... I doubt that browsing FB all day long is going to help people out of that poverty.
  
  --
  Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
13. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yes _poor_ people genius. Give them fucking food before fucking internet.
  On a flip note. I do find it absolutely amazing that the stock dropped in lieu of the news that a free service was banned and that somehow impacts the company's profits.
14. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by shortscruffydave · 2016-02-08 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  If they started to charge, wouldn't local competitors just spring right back up again?
  I guess it depends how the local competitors went out of business (and maybe some local laws). If they crashed & burned and directors were declared bankrupt, then they may not be able to start another company for 'x' years. If they liquidated their assets, then maybe they can't raise capital to buy new infrastructure again.
  It's not as cut and dried as going out of business, waiting for circumstances to change, and then going back in business.
15. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by NotDrWho · 2016-02-08 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Great, now I'm hungry for a McAloo, with no way to satisfy my craving!
  Damn you, tasty advertising!
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
16. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by DarkOx · 2016-02-08 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  livelihoods of local food sellers.
  
  Are you sure? There as long been a question on where the dividing line is between food aide and 'dumping'. If you have a bunch of starving people around they will pay there last penny for something to eat. That is a strong intensive for local producers to find a way. You take that away when some third party comes a long to relieve the starvation. The result is you end up with large pockets of the world that never create a sustainable economy.
  The problem with facebook's "free basics" is that its not really Internet access. Its limited social media and fact lookup. Which might be useful, but is it just useful enough that it prevents anyone from being able to deliver real access to the open internet by undermining the market?
  So sure by blocking something like this you deny people something that might be a useful resource for them, but you also hopefully prevent them from being locked out of something much better, that will probably come along eventually if you keep Mark's grubby little mitts off the Monopoly button.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
17. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:09 · Score: 0
  
  Yes _poor_ people genius. Give them fucking food before fucking internet.
  Does it have to be one or the other?
18. Re: On paper, this is a good decision by pdavisgenoa · 2016-02-08 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  FB has never, not once provided a service for free then charged later. You're basing your scenario on zero evidence. Predatory pricing has to have a price before it can be predatory. There is no price and there won't be one. The telecoms are just pissed that they can't keep screwing people for substandard services.
19. Re: On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  Because it is their government?
20. Re: On paper, this is a good decision by pdavisgenoa · 2016-02-08 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Its not access to FB. Educate yourself. The services being offered by FB is basic internet access. All the internet. You don't have to look at FB at all if you don't want. They've done this in several other countries so its not just a theory - we actually "know" exactly what they're providing and it IS basic internet service. All of the internet.
21. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  +1, Knows How To Use "Cut and Dried" Properly
22. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by angel'o'sphere · 2016-02-08 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  As for it putting the local ISP's out of business and then beginning to charge, I'm not sure I buy that. If they started to charge, wouldn't local competitors just spring right back up again?
  No, they would not. How should they? They are bankrupt, if something bad happened the directors might be punished, and the founders likely get no loans anymore from banks and are paying back debts from the bankruptcy for decades.
  Ah, you mean: new local ISPs ... perhaps. Perhaps not. After seeing their brethren stumped over by an Elephant they perhaps don't dare to interfere with the Elephant again?
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
23. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by angel'o'sphere · 2016-02-08 03:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why should the government be in the business of protecting local food sellers
  E.g. because they are tax payers?
  Or when they end on the street in poverty they become bandits? (Ah, yes that is illegal, let the cops and courts deal with that)
  American companies try to ruin local food farming and selling all over the world (and other farming, like for cotton). As the local business often is not strong enough to survive, obviously governments need to introduce laws if they want local companies to survive.
  Luckily for you, you live in a country where the big companies ruling the world have their origin. Luckily for you you seem not to need laws that protect you. Yet.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
24. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by jrumney · 2016-02-08 03:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why should the government be in the business of protecting local food sellers (and telling me what I can and can't eat)?
  
  Because the government is the one who gets to pick up the tab when your local food industry has been destroyed by the multinational companies that are dumping their product, and for the health effects (even if the government doesn't pay directly for health, they pay indirectly through the effect poor health has on the economy). The government is the one who gets to pick up the tab when the local internet industry is destroyed because they don't fit into Facebook's internet.org ecosystem so there is no longer a market for their services, and for the long-term effect on education of being able to access only a limited sandbox instead of the Internet.
25. Re: On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Like broadband access in the US?
26. Re: On paper, this is a good decision by jrumney · 2016-02-08 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  we actually "know" exactly what they're providing and it IS basic internet service. All of the internet.
  That would make this page rather redundant then. "Optimise for feature phones" - what they are offering actually seems more like WAP. It might still work for Africa, but India is already well served by LTE networks and cheap Chinese smartphones.
27. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by NotDrWho · 2016-02-08 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  As the local business often is not strong enough to survive, obviously governments need to introduce laws
  I don't pay taxes so that my money can be used to prop up businesses that can't compete on their own. Fuck that noise. Maybe your business can't compete because your product sucks ass and/or your service is a joke. Why should taxpayers have to bail you or prop you up out just because you suck? I don't believe the government should be bailing out or propping up anyone--not the banks, not GM, not the oil industry, and not "mom and pop" businesses either.
  And, on the same subject, I get sick or people (usually on the left, but on the right too) who romanticize locally-owned businesses and farmers. I grew up in a small town working for local businesses and local farmers. And, let me tell you, they could be every bit as greedy, dishonest, and sleazy as any corporation.
  In particular, the local farmers that I used to work for were the greediest, stingiest bunch of pricks you would ever encounter. I would put them against any wolf of Wall Street any day. I'll never forget back in the 90's when the illegals started coming in and the "noble local farmers" all lowered their crop-picking wages from $7/hr to $4/hr (fucking over the locals and giving them an excuse to only hire illegals from then on). Fuck giving pricks like that ANY taxpayer money. Believe me, they already get way more of it, in bullshit crop subsidies, than they should.
  
  --
  SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
28. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Bwahaha. The US is in dire need of protective legislation from those leaches, but we won't be getting it, because the lobbiests (who hold the real influence, not the voters) wouldn't allow it.
29. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  But I can't help but wonder in practice if it won't leave a lot of poor people with no internet access at all.
  Sure, it's nice to have an even playing field. But when you're starving, do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?
  Well, as Google is proving, that objective can be met without being the content gatekeeper for the whole nation.
30. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by tlambert · 2016-02-08 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  But I can't help but wonder in practice if it won't leave a lot of poor people with no internet access at all.
  Sure, it's nice to have an even playing field. But when you're starving, do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?
  This is the intent.
  You didn't think that all the poor people with no internet access at all were the ones posting online about the lack of neutrality in the offering, did you? The people posting already have Internet access, and so the only impact on them would be:
  (1) If they were one of the companies that refused to partner with Facebook, which means that they were unable to successfully compete in markets (e.g. job sites, etc.) where they were already underdogs, or
  (2) They were ordinary Indians, more well off than the poor, who were suddenly forced to compete with well educated poor, who had the ability to apply for jobs which they coveted
  (3) They were people who had to pay for their service, felt that if poor people received free service, they should too, and were upset that the free service was not as extensive as their current paid service
  So it's basically a strategy to keep the target market segmentation of startup sites focussed on "not the poor", anti-competitive for labor, against the currently disenfranchised (keeping them that way), and people wanting their existing something for nothing, rather than a new thing that is a lesser something for nothing.
  Welcome to India.
31. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by angel'o'sphere · 2016-02-08 04:51 · Score: 2
  
  No idea for what you then pay taxes.
  I for my part pay taxes exactly for the reason that my local "infrastructure" survives onslaughts of greedy US corporations ;D
  I don't pay taxes so that my money can be used to prop up businesses that can't compete on their own.
  How exactly do you think a local business which is doing perhaps $100,000 in turn overs can compete with a multi billion company that "thinks" it can take over the business? How retarded are you?
  If you have a near endless money supply you can drive anyone out of business, unless there are laws preventing exactly that.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
32. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  Since when are McDonalds and KFC in the food business?
33. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  That is not true. Most carriers offer 50MB of free data every month with most of their plans.
34. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by unixisc · 2016-02-08 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  McAloo is potato patty. It's like having a soya sandwich.
35. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by unixisc · 2016-02-08 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  In India, McDonalds and Burger King do NOT offer beef burgers. That may sound strange, but they know that doing so would just ensure that nobody would go there. Even pork is rare
36. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by jbengt · 2016-02-08 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Do we need the government to wipe our asses for us too?
  Well, I have known some indigent senior citizens who did need that kind of help but couldn't afford the nursing care on their own, so yes, I guess, sometimes.
37. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by jbengt · 2016-02-08 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  . . . the stock dropped in lieu of the news that a free service was banned . . .
  
  I do not think "in lieu of" means what you think it means.
38. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by edtice1559 · 2016-02-08 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest enemy of good is not bad, but perfect!
39. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Or the engineers and employees will have found other things that made more money like drugs, crime, and the t word. Or the best and brightest would flee to the West, leaving behind a lack of people who can build the society that they should have. There is also the crowd that works the night shift doing basic work, but getting paid half the US min wage, but doing better than those who studied and worked hard.
40. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  There is no threat of McDonald's giving you free food, nor of Facebook doing anything for free. Facebook is after bodies in all economic strata. One can be too poor for Brand X internet service but not so poor that no advertisers want to reach them. And in this case Facebook is partnered with Brand X, and others, and cellular providers, and advertising companies, and....
41. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 09:49 · Score: 0
  
  It is not about poor people. It is about everyone. First they lock-in the poor, the billions of poor get a little money, they are still locked in, and see no reason to get out, they stick with what they know.
  In order for other people, that is us, to now interact with the formerly poor people, we will have to also use these services. Other services simply cannot compete, because they have no access to those people we want to interact with. Therefor they start losing customers as more and more of us do not see the need to keep using two different services for the same thing.
  End result, we are all locked in. This is just another attempt to corner a market.
42. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Coren22 · 2016-02-08 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  I was looking at the Chicken Maharaja Mac, that looks like an awesome sandwich. I would totally buy that from a Burger King in the US if they offered it.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
43. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by AHuxley · 2016-02-08 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Re "But I can't help but wonder in practice if it won't leave a lot of poor people with no internet access at all."
  Would anyone at a national level really knowingly advise to gift any of its users directly to another nations clandestine services?
  One company that has a brand to sell as a network is not the internet.
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
44. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by KGIII · 2016-02-08 11:56 · Score: 2
  
  Let me try?
  "We'd like to give hungry people a free cookie if they visit our store."
  "If they're hungry, you must give them a full meal. A cookie is not a nutritionally balanced meal."
  "Isn't a cookie better than nothing and we're only going to give free cookies, sorry."
  "We told you once, a cookie is not a nutritionally balanced meal!"
  "We understand that but we also know they're hungry and we're prepared to give them a cookie. That cookie is sure to help at least a li..."
  "We said, NO COOKIE! No CHOICE! No!"
  I'm not really one to support a government abusing its populace and taking away their choices - in most cases. It's the country, their government, and they can do what they want and all but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If I had time and inclination, I'd look to see who it was that had an official's ear and was profiting off of cookies or who had motivation to keep the hungry from eating cookies. I consider myself a fairly well-reasoned individual and I am usually pretty good, I think and am told, at understanding the views offered by others but, try as I might, I am unable to understand what the actual value is here. What value do they get in denying hungry people a cookie, for free, when nobody is offering them a full, balanced, meal?
  They're not targeting the absolute poorest, no. However, they're offering aid to those who are not so wealthy that they can comfortably afford any access at all. No, it's not altruism, not entirely. However, I'm not sure why taking the choice away is beneficial nor do I understand why helping people is ...
  NO COOKIE!
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
45. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by luttapi · 2016-02-08 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  If McDonald offered free burgers, not all burgers but only those containing a substance that would make you addicted to them for a lifetime, I wouldn't be surprised if the government stopped them. I don't think I would protest, even if I was starving.
46. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by tlambert · 2016-02-08 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  This.
47. Re: On paper, this is a good decision by codeButcher · 2016-02-08 18:38 · Score: 1
  So the above page seems to imply that
  
  Your website has to be very basic (without Javascript for instance) so that they can run on "feature phones".
  
  And you have to register your site with them
  
  I couldn't find out what pages are available on the service, but it seems "all of the internet" it is not.
  --
  Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
48. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 19:42 · Score: 0
  
  .... do you really want the government telling McDonalds that they can't give you free food because that wouldn't be fair to Burger King?
  that's not what's happening and this is a common misunderstanding.
  Think of it like this...
  Facebook wanted the right to handout free coupons to poor people to eat food. And then say this food applies only for burgers with chicken at mcdonalds. why? cause Mc Donalds is "approved" (i.e has paid me a fee).
  Said Mc Donald's chicken burger will only be available at a new facebook cafeteria (i.e Data goes thru FB's servers). So Facebook reserves the right to use your presence in this cafeteria for any purposes (ads)
  Want to eat a vegetarian burger or some other flavour burger? or perhaps a chicken burger at Burger king? Or at "Granny's local home made healthy burgers" ? NOT with these coupons you cant.
  What this creates in the eyes of a person with economic struggles is that he/she sees McDonalds as the ONLY source of food for the family (remember. These people cant buy their "food" )
  THIS System is what has been disallowed. This is the real meaning of net neutrality.
  I'm not sure how clear this analogy has been.
49. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by blurtsofakiddo · 2016-02-08 19:54 · Score: 1
  
  ... posted with so many mistakes... and anonymously by accident.... (i aint an AC i swear.. I'm just THIS AC) i'll try again...
  that's not what's happening and this is a common misunderstanding.
  Think of it like this...
  Facebook wanted the right to handout free coupons to poor people to eat food. And then say these coupons apply only for burgers with chicken at mcdonalds. why? cause Mc Donalds is "approved" (i.e has paid Facebook a fee).
  Also, these Mc Donald's chicken burgers will only be available at a new facebook cafeteria (i.e Data goes thru FB's servers). So Facebook reserves the right to use your presence in this cafeteria for any purposes (serve ads)
  Want to eat a vegetarian burger or some other flavour burger? or perhaps a chicken burger at Burger king? Or at "Granny's local home made healthy burgers" ? NOT with these coupons you cant.
  What this creates in the eyes of a person with economic struggles is that he/she sees the facebook cafeteria serving McDonalds as the ONLY source of food for the family (remember. These people cant buy their "food" )
  THIS System is what has been disallowed. This is the real meaning of net neutrality.
  I'm not sure how clear this analogy has been.
50. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  "But, in practice, when you're poor, I doubt you give a fuck whether the only provider you can afford is foreign or not."
  Isn't this similar to the argument, "You're poor, you take what we give you and be happy with it"?
  What would we be saying if Microsoft went to India and said "Hello poor Indians. We will give you all free Internet service. But you have to use Microsoft Windows 8. No Macs or Linux." It's the same sort of thing ... they are poor, they should be happy with what they are given, right? But it's a company saying that they are doing something to benefit others less fortunate, but advancing themselves at the same time. Just because I'm poor, does that mean I should suck it up and be forced to use Facebook instead of some other local variant? Probably created by someone who was poor and is trying to make her country better in fact ...
51. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by whoever57 · 2016-02-14 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  And then the local farmers go out of business or stop growing wheat because they can no longer sell it. Now the population become entirely dependent on those free cookies.
  Was it really a good idea? Or just one that appears good when you only consider the short-term impacts?
  Any offer like this distorts the market. Long term effects are likely to have bad outcomes.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
52. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by KGIII · 2016-02-14 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  The local farmers would be selling the flour regardless of who makes the cookies. Hell, the cookies would consume more flour and enable the wheat farmers to make more money. These are not flour-less cookies. They were people with nothing. They were going to buy nothing. They can not pay for anything. Someone is trying to give them that for free. And you, trying to insinuate something, come in with a comment about flour.
  Well, they're making *more* cookies (and giving them away for free) which means that the free cookies result in more flour being used and more wheat farming needed, having the exact opposite impact of the one you're trying to claim would happen.
  Perhaps you'd like to try again? Or you can just admit that you're concerned about the class system and you don't want those poor people getting free stuff because that puts them on more equal footing and you're worried about your own success?
  No! No cookies for you poors! You go without! My cookies!
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
53. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by whoever57 · 2016-02-14 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  The local farmers would be selling the flour regardless of who makes the cookies.
  In most cases where aid is provided to poor countries, this is *not* how it works. Instead, food is shipped in from abroad, disrupting the entire food delivery chain, starting with the farmers. Care to try again?
  In this case, what is being disrupted is local Internet access. The long-term effect is likely to make *real* Internet access less available to the population. Perhaps you think that is a good thing?
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
54. Re:On paper, this is a good decision by KGIII · 2016-02-14 13:31 · Score: 1
  
  Can you prove that's the likely outcome?
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
"content agnostic" by fustakrakich · 2016-02-08 02:32 · Score: 1

A little closer to a dumb pipe. Now, let's get those upload speeds where they belong.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why is it called differential pricing? by MobyDisk · 2016-02-08 02:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

voted against differential pricing, ruling with immediate effect that all data prices must be equal, and that companies cannot offer cheaper rates than others for certain content
The decision makes sense, but the reasoning and naming is nonsensical. It is fine for data prices to be different, and it is fine for companies to offer cheaper rates than others. The issue is that they cannot offer a "partial" internet. They must offer the entire internet, or none at all. This would make more sense to be called "differential content."
Any vision into the naming here? It seems like it sends the wrong message. Or maybe this is a translation problem?
1. Re:Why is it called differential pricing? by gstoddart · 2016-02-08 02:48 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  As I understand it, differential pricing is "this data will be free for you, whereas accessing this stuff will cost you" -- because you're getting a cut from the revenue of the first set of data.
  Basically people would be pushed to preferentially use Facebook for everything, while being penalized for using anything else.
  So, we'll give you all the Facebook you can handle, but go to YouTube and we'll charge you more.
  It boils down to differential pricing when data from one source is made to artificially cost less than data coming from another source.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
2. Re:Why is it called differential pricing? by fph+il+quozientatore · 2016-02-08 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder if it is possible to use Facebook messages as a transport layer to deliver (encrypted) content. A bit like people have written GMailFS to use GMail's unlimited storage as a generic file system layer.
  
  --
  My first program:
  Hell Segmentation fault
3. Re: Why is it called differential pricing? by pdavisgenoa · 2016-02-08 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Again, this is not the case. Simply look at other places where FB is providing this service and you'll see its access to most of the internet for free. If you want FB services you can certainly pay to get premium services but you can also ignore FB and still have very reasonable and helpful access to pretty much the rest of the net.
4. Re: Why is it called differential pricing? by gstoddart · 2016-02-08 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  So, I've obviously never seen what FB is offering, but this sounds like it's partitioned:
  
  Yet the Free Basics program was controversial from the start in India, where critics accused Facebook of creating a "walled garden" for poor users that only allowed them access to a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.
  Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India's scrappy start-ups and software developers at a disadvantage.
  So, are they really getting "pretty much the rest of the net"? Or are they getting to see the stuff FB controls and nothing else?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re: Why is it called differential pricing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:43 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Again, this is not the case. Simply look at other places where FB is providing this service and you'll see its access to most of the internet for free. If you want FB services you can certainly pay to get premium services but you can also ignore FB and still have very reasonable and helpful access to pretty much the rest of the net.
  It's not "pretty much the rest of the web". Apart from banning high-bandwidth traffic such as videos (which might be understandable on cost grounds) they also ban JS and HTTPS other than Facebook and sites they select. This means you can't provide an alternative social media platform. Nor can you provide any sort of secure service such as shopping or messaging without their collaboration.
  Essentially, FB are using cash from overseas to subsidize this service and therefore are making it commercially impossible to set up a financially self-sustaining internet access business that covers the section of India's huge population who haven't yet reached middle-class income levels. Any who wants to set up an internet business targeting this population will therefore have to go through FB's platform on terms FB imposes. Once India's e-commerce establishes itself using FB's platform it will be very difficult to change - even if FB stops offering this particular free internet deal or if more people can afford to pay for full internet access.
6. Re:Why is it called differential pricing? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 14:06 · Score: 0
  
  gstoddart you give your primitive mongoloid cretin cerebrum too much credit! It's impossible for one as low as yourself to have understanding. Critical thinking is quite beyond the scope of your limited low brow brain housed in your microcephalic skull. You merely recite by rote what others before you wrote taking credit for it yourself, and nothing more. You do realize we know that about you, don't you? Now you do. Let the epiphany of the reality of that wash over you and leave this site.
No data for you! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:40 · Score: 1

Sorry, Zuck. You'll have to look elsewhere for the data of impoverished people with no recourse. Putting the political issue to one side, I am so glad there are still people on earth that will stand up to Ametican corporations!
Facebook by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:40 · Score: 0

Seems a company that had ties with the government was losing money because of facebook.
1. Re:Facebook by Crashmarik · 2016-02-08 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  Seems a company that had ties with the government was losing money because of facebook.
  Either that or were planning to develop this market for themselves.
$735? by koan · 2016-02-08 02:44 · Score: 1

Doesn't seem like much of a fine.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
1. Re:$735? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't seem like much of a fine.
  It starts off at a minimum of $735 but the max is $73500 a day.
2. Re:$735? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:01 · Score: 0
  
  Thats enough to put in like 100 toilets in Bangalore. May stop the designated shitting streets a bit.
Corruption by BitZtream · 2016-02-08 02:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seriously ... one of the most corrupt countries on the planet puts into effect a law to enforce net neutrality and prevent subversion ...
And we (USA) can't ... W ... T ... F ...

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
1. Re:Corruption by swb · 2016-02-08 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's an optimistic reading.
  How do you know that banning this wasn't the result of corruption -- payments by local providers willing to keep Facebook out?
2. Re:Corruption by dell623 · 2016-02-08 04:59 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You can know by wanting to know - this isn't China we are discussing.
  There was a massive public campaign: https://www.savetheinternet.in...
  The founders of hundreds of Indian startups signed a letter calling for net neutrality.
  The regulatory authority TRAI received 2.4 million public submissions, mostly favouring net neutrality.
  India is a corrupt country but don't get so hung up on stereotypes.
  Also, unlike China, Facebook is the dominant social network in India as much as it is everywhere else. There are no local alternatives - most internet users would be comfortable enough with English to just use Facebook and multi language support takes care of the rest. What's app is huge as you would expect. So there is no question of keeping Facebook out. Just the Zuckernet - India doesn't want the Zuckernet.
  I cannot believe an audience like Slashdot does not get the implications of something like this. Imagine if the internet had been considered too expensive for poorer countries and the only 'internet' that reached poorer countries was a curated government managed internet in the guise of making it cheap. Why does India need the real internet at all, they can't afford it anyway, just like they shouldn't be flying rockets and shit. Let's switch the whole country to free Zuckernet.
3. Re:Corruption by KGIII · 2016-02-08 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  The founders of hundreds of Indian startups signed a letter calling for net neutrality.
  The regulatory authority TRAI received 2.4 million public submissions, mostly favoring net neutrality.
  Let me get this straight... The people who can afford internet complained about people who could not afford the internet getting a sub-set of the internet for free. Is that because they don't want increased competition, because they want to restrict access, or because they are trying to still find ways to institute the caste system?
  I understand, while not agreeing with, their sentiment. To them, the 'net is shiny and good. They really don't want the untouchables on it, now do they? They obviously think poor people shouldn't get anything at all, it's not going to benefit those startups any if they do - so why should they support it? And no, no other company is offering free, unfiltered, mobile 'net access.
  This doesn't look like freedom. It looks like protectionism, spite, and disallowing choice. And yes, yes I do say that as someone who's pretty outspoken about not using or liking Facebook. "No, you can't offer poor people a free ride to the library, the school, and your store unless you're going to let them go anywhere they want." So, no free rides for the poor people at all and they weren't even obligated to shop in the sponsor's store. Why? Well, the simplest reason would be that wealthier people don't want poor people in *their* library, school, or store.
  We still get complaints like that (though less public) in my country. It's usually reserved for not wanting "those kinds of people" moving into their neighborhood and using their library, school, and store. We just don't usually let the bigots set policy, at least not often. Then again, there are still people actively practicing the caste system in India - even though it's outlawed. It appears the government supports them, even if just tacitly and by deed. They should probably just be more honest about it.
  How would the responses be if they'd asked the types of people this service was targeting? Nah, fuck that. Who cares what they think? Besides, you're already *got* internet and have a vested interest in less competition. "Which do you prefer, no internet because you can't afford it or limited internet because a company is going to give it to you in order to facilitate your use of their services?"
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
Re:This is why India is poor by frog_strat · 2016-02-08 03:49 · Score: 2

The citizenry of of modern societies face not one potential inside enemy (the government) but two (government and corporations). The trick is to balance these so there is healthy commerce while not abusing too much of the citizenry. To be honest, any sane society will keep an eye on any center of power, it is a problem with all large organizational structures (Scientology). Remember that government is at least theoretically responsible for keeping the system healthy for citizens, while in the US, for practical purposes, corporations have a charter (sometimes enforced by shareholder lawsuit) to make a profit at any cost.
Re:Corruption at every level by danbob999 · 2016-02-08 03:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is Net Neutrality, like it or not.
They are not forbidden to offer Internet for free. If they want to give 200MB/month to everyone for free, it's fine. People will be free to use it for whatever they want however, not just Facebook. There is no technical reason why an ISP could offer free Facebook but not a small, neutral, amount of data.
Price discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 03:58 · Score: 0

It's called price discrimination. It's all around us and in some circumstances (and India looks very much like such circumstance) it makes certain cheap products available to poor people. See Low-cost airlines.
Bad decision.
1. Re:Price discrimination by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  At least RTFA before writing bullshit. This is not price discrimination, this is supporting Net Neutrality. And this happened because a majority of Indians demanded, wanted and got Net Neutrality, despite big corporations wanting otherwise.
  Price Discrimination is ISP1 giving 200MB/day at $x and ISP2 giving 200MB/day at $y, where x y. This is still allowed. What is now illegal, charging more in case the data is not Facebook, or ability to charge more if the data is a torrent. That is what has been banned.
Free is free by sirsky · 2016-02-08 04:24 · Score: 1

FB shouldn't be held accountable to this ruling - there's no such thing as 'differential pricing' when there's no price at all. If you get what you pay for, be thankful you get *something* when you're paying nothing.
Free is free, take it or leave it, no one's forcing anyone. And government be damned if they try to tell me I can't give something away for free if I choose to.
1. Re:Free is free by danbob999 · 2016-02-08 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  There is a price. You must pay if you want to access web sites other than Facebook.
  Use 100GB per month of Facebook? It's free. Use 100MB of a random web site, you must pay. That's a clear violation of the principle of net neutrality.
2. Re:Free is free by damnitalready · 2016-02-09 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  Net neutrality has nothing to do with this. The free offer is your connection to Facebook. That's it. You use your connection for something else that's on you. It's exactly how it would be if you didn't have the free connection from facebook in the first place, i.e., you'd pay for your connection to other sites. Having the facebook free service doesn't change that.
3. Re:Free is free by danbob999 · 2016-02-09 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  It has everything to do with net neutrality. Charging different prices according to the content of the data.
  Just because it's a "good thing" or your like it doesn't make it any less a net neutrality violation.
4. Re:Free is free by damnitalready · 2016-02-10 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Regardless of what you or I think about it, net neutrality doesn't apply.
5. Re:Free is free by danbob999 · 2016-02-11 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  How so?
  
  Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Sounds like the exact definition of what they are doing with zero-rating Facebook but not other kind of data.
This is a good decision. period. by dell623 · 2016-02-08 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is the kind of condescending attitude that people like Mark Zuckerberg have that really pisses off people know who anything about internet access in India. That whole 'let them eat stale bread for free' thing.
The choice between Zuckerberg curated internet and no internet is a made up, false dichotomy. Whatever else you may say or hate about Google, I much much prefer their philosophy of fast internet is good for Google and therefore they focus on improving access to ALL of the internet.
For anyone who has been to a train station in India for example, this is an absolute godsend: http://indianexpress.com/artic...
And a huge number of poorer Indians use trains - we are talking millions of people every day if they cover the 100 largest stations with adequate bandwidth.
The biggest barrier to internet access in India is not just the cost. And the reason for the high cost is not just the fact that people are poor - the licensing regime and restricted spectrum are far bigger factors than price.
This has been big news in India and most opinion was strongly against Facebook. You can read some of the arguments here: http://blogs.timesofindia.indi...
Being poor or poorer doesn't universally bestow some sort of nobility or sense of purpose or a special hunger for knowledge. Most people in the third world use the internet for what the developed world does - games and pointless social media and sharing garbage. That is exactly what the free 'tablets' that a misguided minister subsidized in India a few years ago were mostly used for.
Provide internet access in public spaces, and in schools and universities Mr. Zuckerberg if you really give a shit.
1. Re:This is a good decision. period. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  (stale bread is a deli-cacy in India. _Ask_ around and you ll see)
Re:Corruption at every level by thegarbz · 2016-02-08 04:46 · Score: 1

This is Net Neutrality, like it or not.
Network neutrality is a concept that works great in first world countries where the problem is corporate price gauging for content. It's the idea of restricting content to already paying customers. Here however we are talking about providing content for otherwise non-paying customers. The lack of network neutrality in this argument is a good thing.
It's actually quite telling that the Free Internet Basics is being met with criticism of network neutrality violations but Wikipedia Zero is not.
Re:I am sure the Indian masses are happy by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 04:59 · Score: 0

How does enforcing net neutrality affect running water, electricity and sewage?
Bad Analogy by mrops · 2016-02-08 05:26 · Score: 1

No one is giving free food,
Company = Facebook
Product = Poor People
Consumers = Advertisers
In your example
Company = Mc Donalds
Product = Food
Consumer = Poor People
So bad analogy.
Re:Corruption at every level by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 05:30 · Score: 0

It's actually quite telling that the Free Internet Basics is being met with criticism of network neutrality violations but Wikipedia Zero is not.
Citation needed :-)
'“Facebook, Google and Wikipedia have been long violating net neutrality in India,” said Nikhil Pahwa, publisher of medianama.com, who has long been advocating a free internet. “It’s another thing that we don’t notice it, but giving free access to a certain service is discriminatory to other services.”'
http://scroll.in/article/717663/double-standards-facebook-and-google-are-happy-to-support-net-neutrality-in-us-but-violate-it-in-india
Re:Corruption at every level by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 05:34 · Score: 0

https://www.accessnow.org/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open/
Maybe make the first Xgb free by DigitalPagan · 2016-02-08 07:01 · Score: 1

Maybe if the first 5gb were free or something similar. That way it doesn't discriminate specific content but gets a free internet out there. I'm sure the companies have their own reasons for making some sites free vs others but I also believe they may have had some legit worries about high bandwidth content over taxing a bare bones network.
Re:Corruption at every level by roman_mir · 2016-02-08 07:22 · Score: 1

Ok, I'll explain it to you in a way that makes it easier to understand for somebody who is hang up on the idea that either everything should be provided or nothing at all.
A person can offer you to use his kitchen for free to cook your food if you have no kitchen but in exchange for the free use of his kitchen you have to buy groceries from that person. You could say that the person is running a grocery store and the price of using the 'free' kitchen is included in the price of the groceries.
I can extend this further: you are going to a restaurant and you are not bringing your own food with you, you are getting the nice restaurant experience (the interior, the music, the ambient lighting, the climate, whatever) but you are buying the food from the restaurant, you are not allowed to bring your own with you to eat there.
There is nothing at all wrong with a business model that is offering you a SPECIFIC THING and not other things. Of-course in the so called 'freest country on Earth' this idea is long gone after Obama forced the insurance companies to provide insurance plans that include specific things in them, making it illegal to provide insurance plans without those types of things.
Government interference is bad for the market, not good. If somebody is offering a product, as a potential customer it is your choice to take the product or not to take the product. If the price is 'free' but the government says that this product cannot be provided under those specific conditions, you will not get that product at all.
Is it better for you to get a product with limited functionality than no product at all? You decide, but instead of leaving it up to you, the government says: you cannot decide, you are too stupid to decide, you are too ignorant to decide, you are too childish to decide, et.
That's government oppression, not freedom.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Corruption at every level by danbob999 · 2016-02-08 07:53 · Score: 1

I get it, you are against net neutrality and that's fine. I was replying to the OP, who seems to believe that this isn't a net neutrality violation. At least you understand it is one, but you support it.
Re:Corruption at every level by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 11:17 · Score: 0

Maybe if that is what happened, but it's not.
The people of India got together, business people, activist's, students, you know the citizen's of India.
They got together and said, "hey we don't like this, let's legislate a protection against it." You know, like they passed laws against theft and murder.
Now if you support murder and theft and feel those should be legal, cool just speak up and say so so we know exactly where you stand.
Now some people in India don't like this new rule, just like criminal's don't like laws that get them put in jail don't like some laws.
So, do you argue that laws against murder, rape, and robbery are 'government oppression'? You know, 'not freedom'?
Labelling regulation as the action of the 'government' and turning it into some unknown other rather than your neighbors and friends is a standard method for dehumanizing and ridiculing your opposition. The government is 'people'. People who got together and passed regulation they made an agreement about.
Some people don't like that agreement. Some people don't like laws against robbery.
You simply always argue that any agreement when it is actually enforced is a bad agreement. Based on your fundamental position it seems unwise for people to trust you since you oppose agreements in principle.
Don't understand the big rush by iamacat · 2016-02-08 12:36 · Score: 1

They could let the service be for the time being and keep an eye on both positive and negative effects, then negotiate concessions (or, as the last resort, shut down) if disadvantages become severe.
When US Internet was expensive/poorly accessible outside education, most people got online though walled garden services like Compuserve and AOL. Yet ISPs quickly won out as soon as people could afford an unrestricted connection. I don't see why the same can not happen in India over time.
Re:Corruption at every level by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 15:33 · Score: 0

Now if you support murder and theft and feel those should be legal, cool just speak up and say so so we know exactly where you stand.
Of course he supports theft and murder. He supports slavery, why wouldn't he support theft and murder as well?
Re:Corruption at every level by roman_mir · 2016-02-08 15:48 · Score: 1

Ha, did you just say that providing somebody with a free specific service is in the same category as 'theft and murder'? :) ha ha ha ha ha! Oh my

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Corruption at every level by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-08 15:55 · Score: 0

No, in fact quite the opposite. He said that just as the people got laws passed against theft and murder - which they did not like - they got laws passed against something else they did not like. It doesn't mean the two are somehow interchangeable. If a group of citizens petition their government for a new sidewalk in front of a library, that doesn't mean the previous situation is analogous to murder it just means they think it could be improved upon in a way that would benefit the community.
They also said you're an idiot, and I said you're a fascist member of a fascist cult.
Coren22's "APKolypse" #1/2... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 04:00 · Score: 0

"You are terrified someone will steal your software if you publish the source code." - by Coren22 (1625475)
WTF? You KNOW a respected other in the field of security who is a competent coder himself has SEEN it!
I don't give it away to everyone & W/ GOOD REASON (Google's mistake with CHROME = a prime example) -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...

"you are stealing other people's work in your code" - by Coren22 (1625475)
I don't "steal" anything (projecting YOU DO)!
---

"You have yet to address the issue of name resolution performance of anything not found in your hosts file. This is a serious issue when the hosts file is so large" - by Coren22 (1625475)
By placing users FAVORITE SITES where they spend 95++% of their time online @ the TOP of hosts files cached in RAM, I get them to sites FASTER & MORE RELIABLY than a more-than-potentially REDIRECT POISONED DNS SERVER (99.999% of ISP DNS aren't patched vs. the kaminsky flaw, stupid).
---

"DNS outperforms your hosts file solution several fold" - by Coren22 (1625475)
No it doesn't (see using hardcoded favorites above) - & DNS outperforms hosts in GOING DOWN (does a lot) OR poisoning users via redirect poisonings!

"so why not just run your own DNS server? Oh, resources eh?" - by Coren22 (1625475)
Yes, more resource consumption + moving parts complexity AND POWER USE doesn't = a GOOD solution vs. hosts by using redirect poisoning exploitable DNS locally w/ only a few systems @ home.

"But you have no problem running 100k copies of the hosts file in a domain" - by Coren22 (1625475)
It works easily migrated by central admins via scripts or chronjobs/scheduled tasks with less moving parts complexity, room for exploit & breakdown, OR power usage.

"You have yet to submit to a code review from anyone but your friend. No, I don't trust that he has thoroughly assessed your software." - by Coren22 (1625475)
Yes I have to a seasoned security pro AND coder himself.
APK
P.S.=> You FAIL, MENIAL.. apk
Coren22's "APKolypse" #2/2 by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 04:07 · Score: 0

"the secretary at MalwareBytes took a look at his source code and said it looked all good to them" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
My code went thru verification by Mr. Steven Burn of Malwarebytes' hpHosts
hpHosts Site Admin Mr. Steven Burn quoted:
"I've been asked to further clarify so for the record yes I've seen the code, and yes, it is safe."
FROM http://forum.hosts-file.net/vi...
(On my latest 9.0++ code engine above & from past versions -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
A competent coder & BEST security researcher I know of FROM THE BEST ANTIMALWARE THERE IS http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
NOT a secretary!
I don't give away work to be stolen OR misused like GOOGLE CHROME http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
---

"won't demonstrate security of his product be exposing the source" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday November 18, 2015
Bullshit: 62 reputable sources + /. users say different:
Safe by 57 antivirus programs in 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
the 32-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
&
Per VirScan (installer too)-> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
APK
P.S.=> Eat your words, scumbag:
Tell us about AD + DNS too while you're @ it & how you said I said not to run DNS when I use it myself & said to NOT use external to network DNS with AD http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
OR
About how my program NEEDS admin privelege to update too (& it doesn't http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )
LOL... fool - 'eat your words' on ALL those accounts chump!
... apk
Re:Corruption at every level by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-09 12:41 · Score: 0

(you imply: we want it for free because home we get the money from audience sizes; then India decides all people must pay something so you do not get as much audience to get as much money, but market dynamics prevail for priced goods... so you get: audience size generated income + access income? ) I find the whole discussion vague and ambiguous! Like there is a hidden objective / black agenda under a set of ill defined terms, and the EXACT PRECISE EXAMPLE CASE that makes sense of it all is being omitted from the discussion.