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.
Alternate title: "India insists on network neutrality"
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
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.
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!”
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?
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!
Doesn't seem like much of a fine.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.