Slashdot Mirror
India Blocks Facebook's Free Basics Internet Service (thestack.com)
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.
No they insist on equal pricing. They don't care if the provider is net neutral, just that they don't compete with them.
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.
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.
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.