Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Is Talking To the White House About Giving You 'Free' Internet (washingtonpost.com)
Facebook is in talks with the government and wireless carriers to bring its 'Free Basics' internet service to the United States, reports Washington Post, citing sources. If everything goes as planned for Facebook, it would target "low-income and rural Americans who cannot afford reliable, high-speed internet at home or on smartphones," (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled; alternate source) the paper adds. From the report: Exactly what specific services would be offered in the U.S. app has not been determined. But the idea to bring Free Basics to the United States is likely to rekindle a long-running debate about the future of the Internet. On one side are those who view services such as Facebook's as a critical tool in connecting underserved populations to the Internet, in some cases for the first time. On the other side are those who argue that exempting services from data caps creates a multitiered playing field that favors businesses with the expertise and budgets to participate in such programs. The fight over this tactic, known as "zero-rating," has largely taken place overseas where local start-ups are mixing with globally established firms in still-nascent Internet economies. But a launch of Free Basics would bring the discussion to U.S. shores in a major way.India banned Free Basics program in the country earlier this year, stating that Facebook's initiative violates net neutrality. The government told Facebook to open Free Basics so that underserved Indians could access any website that would like -- as opposed to select websites handpicked by Facebook. The government added that if it is not feasible for Facebook to offer unlimited access to every website, it could look into introducing limited monthly data plans (like 500MB or 1GB for users). India was not open to the idea of Facebook offering users access to select websites.
Required Facebook login
It's like if McDonalds reached out to the government to start a "free lunch" program...
crazy dynamite monkey
Memo to Zuckerberg: If you want to give poor people 'free internet', then give them free internet, not the 2016 version of AOL. I agree with India on this: This idea violates the concept of net neutrality. You either give people complete access, or give them no access, you should not get to decide what they do and do not have access to.
If free basics was 64kbps to access anything on the web (basically what tmobile, etc.. do when you run out of data) then I might be ok with it.
If free basics was html only and no video/multimedia then this again might be ok.
I'm completely against zero rating but if you did it this way then you are basically giving a low bandwidth "text only" version of the web away for free.
It makes no sense the other way where facebook is exempt but linkedin isn't because it didn't pay the right person.
Now if facebook wants to pay my my cellular provider for my bandwidth usage (and pay the same consumer rate I do) then I would be ok with that too.
It would have to be closely watched though so that you don't end up with a tiered web where the only sites most people visit are the ones that are "free".
Don't worry. Mark Zuckerberg and Washington DC politicians are working on a plan to solve all your problems.
A Teenage Hacker Figured Out How To Get Free Data On His Phone
No, because McDonald's doesn't impose terms of service that lock out people in such a way that they can't fix it (IOW, yes, you need to wear shoes to be served, but if you aren't wearing them, you can go get them.)
Not only does Facebook do this, some states do it too, on Facebook's behalf.
On one side are those who view services such as Facebook's as a critical tool
I'm not seeing facebook as a critical tool...
doesn't mean you have to get into his windowless van.
Let me translate that: "Free" meaning "Give Facebook all your personal information and let us monitor everything you do."
Will the NSA still spy on it? I bet they will.
As a matter of fact, I'll give you 5 BTC if you can prove the NSA isn't spying on this "free internet".
Your fun at partys
Facebood (Zuck) is just trying to banish all the Gay Zuck fan pages and Gay Zuck Porn sites.
Just will not work.
I don't want wall garden internet access. Besides I already have a provider the does deep packet inspection and sends all of my data to the NSA.
We all know Facebook sells influence, and being able to tap into a new market allows them the opportunity to sell more influence. I have yet to find a truly charitable cooperation so it a guarded approach makes sense. Kudos to India for seeing through this, allowing an entity influence over your poor is a fools move.
"These commies want to hand out free BernieNet on a free ObamaPhone!"
Table-ized A.I.
Can you explain what would be wrong with McDonald's offering free lunches to some people? As long as no-one was coerced to accept these lunches, I'd say this would be a wonderful development.
It may be that these free lunches would be unhealthy, or that they would cause children to get used to eating a lot of McDonald's food. But the people who would be offered these lunches could decide for themselves whether they want the food. There are other ways of getting food too.
The situation here is the same: Facebook offering "free internet" which is primarily good for using Facebook is certainly good for Facebook. But since this offering doesn't prevent other ISPs from making competing offers (either free or for-pay), this offering simply provides people more choices which inherently cannot make them worse off. Are we really so much smarter than Facebook's potential customers that we know for sure that they would prefer no service to Facebook's crippled one?
Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
Does anyone else find this absolutely hilarious?
Everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who is posting on Slashdot against the idea already has Internet access!
"I've got mine, and screw everyone else, even if getting a cut-down version would be astronomically better than what they currently have!"
One has to wonder if the people against the plan really have their own interests in mind, and want to have free, unrestricted Internet for themselves, rather than paying for it, and so are dragging out these "But it won't help the poor people get jobs, if they can only access 'Indeed' or 'Monster.com', instead of my asinine 0.001% of the market jobs web site instead, just because I'm unwilling to help pay to subsidize access for the poor people in the first place!" arguments as a strawman...
If anyone who doesn't have Internet access disagrees with this assessment of what's going on, please speak up now!
On the 2016 internet, how far does 1 gigabyte go if you're not blocking ads?
I haven't gone without an ad/script blocker for years now. People who have never had internet access before won't even know how to do this immediately.
Betting the acronym TANSTAAFL never even thinks of coming close to these discussions...
(or if they do, the sentence "We'll tell 'em that e're gonna make the one-percenters will pay for it!" will be uttered, followed by a lot of laughter...)
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This isn't a question about whether poor people should have free internet access. (there will be a lot of people for and against that for various reasons).
This is against Facebook abusing and manipulating their power to promote specific websites and potentially strangling their rivals using government money to do so.
Everyone should be able to agree that Facebook shouldn't be able to take government funds to strengthen their own product and weaken their rivals in a pseudo-claim that they're doing it for the poor. That's called corruption.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Because it breaks Net Neutrality.
I give India credit for being smart.
Here in Amerika the Republican controlled Congress will propose another tax cut for the 1%, try to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and give Facebook Free Basics the thumbs up.
I love the idea of free Facebook Network. Zuckerberg has probably worked out how much local, and long distance, bandwidth is needed for a local Facebook server node. Since most people tend to socialize with people near them, the amount of long haul bandwidth might be low for a social network. Also, news can be cached locally.
I also think Mark Zuckerberg is a lying sleaseball, and that his 'internet' should absolutely not be called internet.
"But it won't help the poor people get jobs, if they can only access 'Indeed' or 'Monster.com',
Free internet won't help poor people find jobs. I've never found a job through any online job board, therefore all online job boards are useless. Lemme tell ya, man, wow, are these grapes sour.
They'd spy on it no matter what, that's not the issue here.
The issue here is that this internet is "free" because they would have direct access to everything you do on their "free" internet, which in Facebook's case means they'll be building ever larger dossiers on all the unfortunate sods stuck on this garbage.
Clearly they'll do this anyway, but this just cuts out the Facebook webbug middle man and feeds your internet activity directly into FB's data gathering apparatus. I'm sure the terms of service for this shit full of "consumer protection" and "privacy guarentees". By which they mean "we'll protect you by keeping you in FBs walled garden" and "we guarentee to abuse your privacy in every way possible".
Tag this monstrosity as "donotwant"
The whole world as captive audience, whether they want it or not. Backed by Tah Gubmint. He must be creaming his jeans.
Just think...an all expense paid pandering access where their propaganda can be distributed at no cost.
Legions of poor and "undeserved" being proselytized by liberals at Facebook.
Then India is right.
What about "giving" free access to Conservapedia?
And what would be so bad about that exactly? You just don't like it because it expresses a point of view you despise. But nothing would be stopping someone from freely distributing Liberalpedia.
Some access is better than nothing, and if it's limited enough people will not use it - something as narrow as a "storefront only" wifi would be used by few indeed, even by people that liked the site!
Facebook's approach is a good compromise. It would give people a fair amount of access to family and also useful online tools, even if it's not the "full internet". But for really poor areas it would be a huge boon.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And it's not "free internet". It's "free Facebook". Which is more than slightly different.
This is the year of the trifecta:
1) Linux on the desktop
2) Cubs win the World Series
3) President Trump!
When the walls fell...gilgamesh
Not free as in free beer, but free as in freedom or speech or Free Software Foundation!
Maybe Trump? I mean, he's promised making someone build something and pay for it, too, before...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Betting the acronym TANSTAAFL never even thinks of coming close to these discussions
Of course TANSTAAFL. There is always a price to pay. But for a poor person with no Internet, is it worth seeing some ads to get it? I think most poor people would say yes. I use plenty of ad supported services, even though I am not poor, just cheap.
I'm mostly concerned that it would set a potentially dangerous precedent. It starts with free access to a limited internet and gradually works towards the norm of paying for a limited internet.
Our bugs are smarter than your test scripts.
Went too colege
Maybe you should buy a pharmaceutical company and jack up the price on some low cost drug....
Everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who is posting on Slashdot against the idea already has Internet access!
"I've got mine, and screw everyone else, even if getting a cut-down version would be astronomically better than what they currently have!"
The "I've got mine" attitude works a whole lot more for a limited commodity, not so well as adding another node to a network. Plus, given that this wireless Facebook access wouldn't allow for access to Slashdot, it's not hypocritical to the Slashdot crowd.
I would certainly not mind if Zuckerberg wanted to give poor people free internet. Hell, I'd chip in, I think the idea is awesome! I can't stand that sleazebag and I would probably only hand him a glass of water if he was already drowning, but if he actually did that, I would actually say that at least something good came out of the total surveillance tool that Facebook is.
But that is not the case. He is exactly NOT offering free internet to the poor. What his "generous offer" is, is that these people will get access to Facebook. There is not a single altruistic fiber in this move. It's an attempt to corner the market, on the expense of people who already have nothing.
One could now argue "but hey, at least they get Facebook!" Yes, that would be an argument. Except that this also means that it is unfeasible for an ISP to even attempt getting a foot into a "poor" area where they might not get a lot of customers, but at least a few. But that way, they will not get enough, which also means that poor people who would make the sacrifice to pay for "real"internet access (to give their kids a chance to have access to more knowledge and research information) don't even get the chance to do so.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Anyone who ever played any kind of Cyberpunk game has wondered why the hell decks and net access are so damn expensive. I mean, computers and internet are already dirt cheap in our world today, and they'd only get cheaper as time goes by.
The reason gets clearer every day, what makes decks and decker access expensive is that the access is not limited by what you may see and no DRM clogs your deck that limits what software may run...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I want nothing from, nor to do with Facebook. Ever.
They can take their thinly veiled and disingenuous charity and stuff it up their rectums.
It will be called FBI - Face Book Internet.
I think the OP is retarded...
If Facebook gets it set up so everyone has free access to all their cloned services while having to pay for the originals that's going to give them a huge advantage
Maybe it's a huge advantage (though how many non-care Facebook services have you used and then abandoned?).
But it also is a GIANT expense for Facebook, in terms of hardware and support. In that sense you could say that other competitors would be on equal footing in terms of being able to turn a profit on paid services, they may have somewhat fewer customers but lots less overhead.
In return though, you have literally a whole class of people that almost never use the internet now that would access to decent internet everywhere. That is far better than some crappy "poor people only" Texternet the person you were responding to proposed. It would give a lot of the very poorest people equal educational opportunity with anyone in the world, including the upper echelons of wealth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> On one side are those who view services such as Facebook's as a critical tool
I started wondering who these freaks might be, but then I realized its probably mostly employees of car dent repair shops.
Get the Obama/Democratic White House behind this idea.
Not only will it enable another freebie giveaway, but left-leaning Zuckerberg will also be supplying an ideologically curated platform of left wing messages to the unwashed masses, ensuring that Democratic ideology remains front and center.
No wonder facebooks working so hard for Hillary. The fix is already in.
This is disgusting and vile and another reason we need President Trump. I hope he as Zuckerberg executed for Treason for letting the "assassinate Trump" page stay up.
For whatever reason (antitrust!), product dumping at below cost has been prohibited in the past.
If you're anti-antitrust, then I understand: this is probably viewed as an injustice; the line between anti-competitive behavior and competitive behavior is a fine one.
For everyone else, if this dumping is allowed, then there are concerns that previous prohibitions against product dumping will be successfully challenged. So the anti-trust crowd needs to keep a sharp eye out for this sort of thing.
Have you ever been out on the street and some stranger wanted to "give" you something? That's a reliable way to set off plenty of peoples' alarm bells. At a minimum I think it's probably good to ask: if this serves the interests of the people, then why is Facebook doing it? You don't normally expect Facebook's and peoples' interests to align, even if it is possible. And it's borderline impossible to believe it's an altruistic move by Facebook (if it were, their stockholders would sue), so if it's selfish, then who is paying the cost and how?
They wouldn't just be competing with no service. They'd be competing with existing ISPs.
Nsa wont be given unlimited access to spy through this service. Its Facebook, the cia will.
Article keeps using the word "app," like this is software from Facebook that you execute and then it .. does something. Would this "app" be a UI to the internet, or does it create a new interface that other software can use, or what?
It sounds like it might be AOL. Is this AOL?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The US already has problems with tel-cos indulging their conflict of interest; so of the government wants a different corporation to join in and indulge in a different conflict of interest. But hey, the USA has a history of privatizing infrastructure, particularly digital communications, so why demand better outcomes now?
If congress really cared about the people, they would mandate a voice and 128 Kb minimum data connection to every subscriber. At the moment, the tel-cos can drop phone cabling and all the restrictive laws too, leaving the subscriber unprotected.
Given the limited access provided by this program elsewhere in the world, it needs to be spelled: 'Free' 'Internet'
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Sorry, I don't see a incredible lack of internet access for anyone if they want it. Some people actually don't want internet. Hard for people like Zuck to believe. But many people get along fine without it. Or they have plenty of cellular access on their phones so lack of home internet isn't a problem.
If you look at the poor, many go without food and cloths but have a smartphone. Comcast offers a economy plan for low incomes for around $10 a month. Sure, work to provide internet to those who want it, but for me government or a Facebook CEO is not people I want doing that.
You are correct that this is not an altruistic move. We know this because if it were, he would not be going to the government. He would just do it.
If it's Zuck's idea, then let HIM pay for it!
I can barely pay all my bills now. I don't need another tax to pay.
It just means the recipients aren't the ones footing the bill...You and I are.
Tlambert, we understand your efforts. It's very important for everyone to look in the mirror sometimes to get perspective, it really it. BUT you come across (or perceive US as coming across), as very aggravated. Take a chill pill and listen to this -->
- gifts like this are self-serving.
- getting the government to support it is to guise it as some kind of legislated right or freedom initiative, with the power of law behind it.
*- this is beyond lobbying, this is exactly the definition of corruption we (and you) have fussed about in other topics.
>"I've got mine, and screw everyone else..."
My oh my you really advertise a hostile tone. Do we REALLY sound like that?
> If anyone who doesn't have Internet access disagrees with this assessment ...
Didn't for 8 years. Used the public library often, and sometimes the school's email. Both of which I arrived on bicycle, not even $ for public transportation. Believe me 'Zucker's Internet' is a very-focused project that will route users into a walled garden. This is the digital version of using the city bus, a school lunch, government cheese, obama phone, section 8 housing, etc. Actually using it will be shameful though the local mayor will say is to help everyone- and then find out no body uses it except when they're desperate.
Please tone it down tlambert, free internet, (in MANY, MANY cities around the US), are sponsored by the local governments themselves- and involve no corporate masters. These networks are often in place for emergency staff, (cops, ambulance, municipal staff, etc), and the residents can sign on too. Very available already. **Us naysayers are saying no to ZUCKY not to free municipal internet access, so your stance, (while very heroic), is nonetheless moot.
You are arguing just to argue. Please take a look at * and ** again. And then again.
love, the non-internet people.
I thought that in a democracy the politicians are voted for and represent the people. It looks to me that in America politicians are voted by the people are represent businesses. Why do we always hear about politicians talking with businesses, rather than people and their advocates?
respect to the man in the ice cream van.
Here we have a large, Internet based business pursuing government favors in promotion of themselves. Like the oil, farm, defense and other big industries get government support from tax dollars. Maybe we should be happy that Internet based business are normal enough to feed at the public trough.
I'm not happy about it, for some reason.
Mod parent up. This is exactly what Facebook's offer is.
Captcha: Agreed
No, that's what makes these talks so suspicious.
If a private corporation 'talks' to 'the government', then it's almost exclusively either about collusion and corruption or it is plain fascism.
Also, don't forget the large amount of Facebook shares that Goldman Sachs owns. They invested heavily in this company.
Why? Cashless society of course. If everybody has 'free' internet, it's easy to implement exclusively digital financial transactions.
And guess how big your (negative) interest will be and where your data is going.
And guess what happens if you express opinions that Zuckerberg et. al. don't like? You'll get shut off. No more food, no more groceries, no more access to your money. Of course due to a 'technical glitch'.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.
Is this the same company that wants to quadruple the H1B visa holders to undermine the already depressed US Information Technology sector?
More black people shitting up the internet.
Why not give all of US free internet?
The phony plastic banana internet meme version of "fascism" is either "anything I don't like" or "nasty racist jerks goosestepping". ACTUAL fascism as created by Italian Socialist dictator Benito Mussolini and the copied by herr Hitler is indirect socialism where government allows the private sector to still pretend to own the means of production but actually controls it through a private-public "partnership" in which government sets the rules of the market even deciding what products are available , what prices will be, what quantities are available, etc. Eventually, all that nasty jackbooted stuff becomes necessary because some portion of the population will always reject such things. In other words: the evil goosestepping is a late and necessary symptom NOT the core disease of this unholy alliance of the corporate and the government swirled together in a stew of socialist utopianism. Hitler was happily embracing the Volkswagens and in "partnerships" with all the media companies long before Jews were going into gas chambers. All the mind-blowingly evil stuff is a tad down the road which is paved with supposedly good intentions.
Any free person SHOULD shudder at all these "partnerships".
Just look at Obamacare: Government and insurance companies climbed into bed together with insurance companies actually running campaign ads in favor of Obamacare years ago. The corporate "partners" were invited into the negotiations behind closed doors where no elected Republican politicians were allowed, and they partly funded the political activities in support of the takeover, probably partly to curry favor with the politicians and partly out of eagerness for a plan that would have government order every American to buy their products. The government "partner" wanted control over that entire segment of the economy and now sets the product parameters for health insurance and is involved in setting prices, adjusting availability, controlling which part of the calendar year average people will be allowed to buy the product, etc. Now, with companies pulling out of some regions, the government response is to threaten to take over the entire thing and make it government. This is textbook fascism people should really fear and which ends badly, rather than the cartoon version many people fear and which is all in their heads.
Zuck's not pushing for everybody to have free access to Slashdot and Drudge and the myriad of other sites he does not profit from, might disagree with, might actually compete against him, and more. He's pushing for a scheme that unites government and Facebook and gently eases the people into that ecosystem. Very bad stuff.
It's like a drug dealer offering a few free doses to those poor folk who cannot afford to get started on the habit on their own
The issue for myself and many others is not so much the advertising but the data aggregation and control/censorship-by-exclusion inherent in such a system. It will literally become FBInet in more ways than one.
I see this as a way to corral the masses living on entitlements into an internet 'safe space' ("safe" as defined by TPTB) where information can be controlled and individuals and their communications monitored.
Once such a system was rolled out and the masses flood to it and away from regular ISPs, the rates ISPs would have to charge with a massive reduction in customers would necessarily have to skyrocket, thus forcing even more people onto the 'free but "managed"' internet. The result? A gradually increasing balkanization of the internet divided between the proles and members of the oligarchy with the proles receiving the "government-approved, FB-friendly, child-safe, terrist/pedo-free, RIAA/MPAA-approved" version.
Goebbels or Stalin would be SO jealous!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
This is against Facebook abusing and manipulating their power to promote specific websites and potentially strangling their rivals using government money to do so.
That's just the thing, though, isn't it?
This is about "zero-rating", meaning that there is no government money involved.
I know that it's fashionable to not ready the articles before commenting, but had you read the article, this will be paid for by Facebook, the carriers (as a loss-leader to get people to buy into paid data plans instead), and by the major web sites that would be accessible without code (including, but not limited to, Facebook).
If they were spending tax dollars on it, that'd be one thing, but talking to the White House to get your political pull lined up to allow you to offer something at your own cost, instead of having the public pay for it? That's not spending tax dollars.
Everyone -- absolutely everyone -- who is posting on Slashdot against the idea already has Internet access!
"I've got mine, and screw everyone else, even if getting a cut-down version would be astronomically better than what they currently have!"
The "I've got mine" attitude works a whole lot more for a limited commodity, not so well as adding another node to a network. Plus, given that this wireless Facebook access wouldn't allow for access to Slashdot, it's not hypocritical to the Slashdot crowd.
Actually, it is.
The people who already pay for Internet access are the ones bitching about other people not paying, if they don't care about web sites too poor to help pay for the subsidy to allow access to their sites.
There's no question that it's anticompetitive against poor sites -- but given that the target market aren't seeing any sites right now, them continuing to not see your site because your company is unwilling to help pay for subsidy access really could mean three different things:
1. (the one you want it to mean) People don't get the full Internet for free, and so they should get absolutely no Internet instead, because it's somehow better for them that, if they can't look at my site using the subsidy service, they should simply have no Internet access whatsoever.
2. (the one I think it actually means) Your company is a cheap ass company that wants any free offering to include it without having to pay their fair share of the access subsidy so they get whitelisted with the other altruistic companies.
3. (the "dog in the manger" version) I have Internet access I pay for, and if some sites are free to other people, they should be free to me, too, but I have some cheapskate sites that I like to go to, so they shouldn't have to pay, but I shouldn't have to pay either.
And if you don't think Internet access is a limited quantity, I invite you to spend a summer in La Verkin, Utah -- Population 4,060, and not worth U.S. West's time to put in high speed network access for anyone.
There is not a single altruistic fiber in this move. It's an attempt to corner the market, on the expense of people who already have nothing.
This would be the lucrative market of "advertising things people can't afford to people who have no money to buy them in the first place"?
I'm thinking that the pre-dot.bomb Internet is calling, and they say they want their business model back.
Don't worry. Mark Zuckerberg and Washington DC politicians are working on a plan to solve all your problems.
Business and government working together...controlling mass communication and information platforms...I know there's a name for that! Something that started with an 'F', I think...
Oh well, I'm sure it's nothing to worry about!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Yeah, and they want the governments to lay down the hardware to support the project. You think that's free too? Or that Facebook is paying for that? Nothing the government does is free.
Even Facebook bringing this up is costing the government (you and I) money in discussing this.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Zuck maybe the most dangerous silicon billionaire of all.
If it's "free" you're what is being sold.
tlambert, again you're looking to sharpen your axe for a non-existent enemy.
>The people who already pay for Internet access are the ones bitching about other people not paying
Only an extreme person would rant & rave about someone not paying for their internet because there are free wi-fii spots all over the modern world, US especially. McDonald's hello! Local city, municipal internets, libraries, etc- the list goes on & on.
When you have an outlook & demeanor like this: ... ...
>absolutely everyone [thinks] I've got mine, and screw everyone else...
>Your company is a cheap ass company
>[believing that we think other] People don't get the full Internet for free, and so they should get absolutely no Internet instead...
>but I have some cheapskate sites
You mad bro? Write a little less aggravated to your audience and you might get some sane responses. As it is you (accidently?) come across as a troll.
As to your point: >"I invite you to spend a summer in La Verkin, Utah -- Population 4,060, and not worth U.S. West's time to put in high speed network access for anyone" Well I get your point now, (though you should not be so aggravated, we didn't do that to the community or make you visit there). We're your audience, not your opponents- learn to connect. Anyway, yes those communities have HugesNet, DSL, and other options. Oh and don't forget Verizon's service. The PHYSICAL limitations of running fiber out there are not a conspiracy... it's real math and logistics. No one is out to 'put the little guy down' this town is far away from modern tech, that's IT and is all it is. If you're from there, have family there, or grew up rural- then realize that it is YOU who have a victim complex and think that you're being attacked. May explain your sour language when talking to strangers...
The hardware is "existing cellular infrastructure and telephone handsets to be provided by the carriers".
Still not seeing the government paying for anything.
I agree that them discussing it at all is time politicians could be better spending doing things like honoring their campaign promises (e.g. closing GITMO), but realistically: if you pay a politician for access, you get access.
You can "dude" and "bro" me all you want.
The point is that Facebook is willing to pay to get people without any access service to the point that they have at least some access .
Bitching about that access not leading to all possible places on the Internet is like bitching about the food bank not guaranteeing that the food they give you is Halal food.
And if you don't think Internet access is a limited quantity, I invite you to spend a summer in La Verkin, Utah -- Population 4,060, and not worth U.S. West's time to put in high speed network access for anyone.
It sounds like people in La Verkin do have internet access, just perhaps at the speeds you want. My point is that adding everyone in La Verkin doesn't reduce my ability to access the internet.
yet another reason why i should simply quit working
Here's a rebuttal to a rebuttal by Indian VC Mahesh Murthy when Facebook tried to introduce its Free Basics here last year. This attempt came just after a backlash against local mobile operator Airtel, who wanted to charge extra for using Whatsapp and Viber since they claimed to be losing money on SMS revenue as a result.
Read this piece to see the FUD that FB has been spreading and how it was countered.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
It probably isn't. After all, Facebook wasn't.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."