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.

Comments

Let me guess

[decipher_saint]

Required Facebook login

It's like if McDonalds reached out to the government to start a "free lunch" program...

Sounds more like 'Facebooknet' than 'Internet'

[Rick Schumann]

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.

Re:Sounds more like 'Facebooknet' than 'Internet'

[Rick Schumann]

It's unethical because he wants to give them only the parts of the Internet that he wants them to have -- which includes Facebook, of course. It's a conflict of interest; his so-called 'charity' is tainted by his own special interests.

Re:Sounds more like 'Facebooknet' than 'Internet'

[TimothyHollins]

Except it's not a gift.

What about "giving" free access to Conservapedia? Or that wonky church with all the protesting? Or the Stormfront webpage?

You cannot leave the role of education and exploration to a private interest group.

Re:Sounds more like 'Facebooknet' than 'Internet'

[fluffernutter]

You realize this is similar to how radical groups get formed, right? ISIS 'gives' education to the poor and desperate in the nation and, oh, it turns out they actually start to understand the world in the way ISIS wants them to and it starts to makes sense that they should strap a bomb to their body. Not that I am suggesting Facebook is a terrorist group but they are a group with their own interests, thus making it a dangerous enough power (to disseminate propaganda no matter how subtle) that should be closely monitored. A massive group of people understanding the world according to Facebook is not good for anyone.

I might not be opposed to this if done right.

[Wycliffe]

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".

Re:I might not be opposed to this if done right.

[Daetrin]

I agree with your cautionary side! Just within the last week or two we've had stories about new or upcoming Facebook services that will be competing directly with ebay, Craigslist, Slack, LinkedIn, and probably others. And i'm sure they've got other services planned that haven't been well publicized yet.

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 and could easily lead to a monopoly situation.

Giving Facebook an economically reinforced status as the gateway to the internet seems like a bad idea to me.

Translation

[Fire_Wraith]

Let me translate that: "Free" meaning "Give Facebook all your personal information and let us monitor everything you do."

Re:Translation

[geekmux]

Facebook can save the government money when it is census time. Just force everyone in America to use Facebook and then they can pull the data for them. How selfless of Facebook.

Oh, is THAT how they save the government money?

I thought they did that by choosing to pay nothing in Federal taxes for years.

Silly me.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

[Brigadier]

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.

What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch?

[l2718]

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?

Re:What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch?

[Obfuscant]

Can you explain what would be wrong with McDonald's offering free lunches to some people?

And what's wrong with T-Mobile offering zero-rated services to some people?

More seriously, if McDonalds did such a thing, then it would remove pressure to create a system to provide free lunches to people who really need them that WASN'T McDonalds, so other providers would see less reason to do it. Eventually you'll wind up with McDonalds as the only choice for a free lunch.

But since this offering doesn't prevent other ISPs from making competing offers (either free or for-pay)

No, it doesn't prevent them from making offers, but it does remove customers.

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?

If you read the fine summary, you'll note that this service is intended for "low-income and rural" who cannot afford internet at home or on smartphones. Those rural people who probably don't have cell service to start with, and low-income people who cannot afford it.

"Free internet on an app that you can't run because you don't have a phone or phone service, but sign up and give us your data anyway..."

Re:What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch?

[Penguinisto]

Can you explain what would be wrong with McDonald's offering free lunches to some people?

...because it starts out that way, quickly followed by Mickey D's stating "Oh, we can't keep up with the ballooning costs! Help us Uncle Sam!" Of course, no politician wants to be seen as taking free food away from starving children' mouths, so of course a big appropriations bill will be launched, then objectors will be bullied until it gets signed into law.

About a year or two after that, the taxpayers end up covering 150-200% of the initial cost, as Mickey D's sends massively inflated invoices to Washington DC... you know, to "cover the increased costs of compliance."

Now - how much do you want to bet that TFA ends up doing the same thing with 'free' Internet, given a couple of years and the never-satiated demand for YoY growth by shareholders?

Re:What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch?

[Opportunist]

For the same reason this is going to hurt other ISPs.

If McD handed out "free" meals, other restaurants would have to shut down or find a way to lower their own prices, essentially having to do the same shit. In the end, you will be left with either only McD to go to or a load of restaurants that offer exactly the same crappy junk because there is simply not enough of a market for quality.

Re:What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch?

[jader3rd]

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.

But sometimes it does harm them. There's goodness in net neutrality. If a lower cost offering exists, which limits the information the people can get, they may not accept the full internet (even if available to them), because it will cost more. As a result the people are unknowingly harmed, because they won't chose to get full access to the plethora of ideas which exist on a net neutral internet.

Re:What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is the first step to create a monopoly. Why eat in other restaurants or even cook your own food when you get food for free in McDonald's?

Why pay for internet when you get FaceBook and certified websites for free? Not only are the people restricted on the internet since they can only visit what Facebook wants them to visit, but website builders are also forced to get their website certified. But how do you make your website available on FaceBook's free internet? I'm certain it will not be free as in free speech, probably only free as in free beer.
 
Theoretically it was possible for every individual to start his own radio or television station in the past. But the bandwidth of antenna's was limited so the governments had to hand out certifications. This was not ideal, but was necessary due to technical limitations.
 
The internet is rather unlimited, everyone can build their own websites, put many radio and television streams online, and there is no restriction as long as you can be found on search engines. This requires a neutral search engine in the first place, and it is already worrisome that private companies with their own agenda control what can and can't be found. But having a company like FaceBook handing out free internet will be a nightmare. Only a handful of selected pages will be available to the users of the 'free' internet. Free in this case doesn't mean free at all, and the users will not even know they are stuck in a gated online world once they get used to it. Compare it to the big blue E equals internet only 15 years ago. People didn't even know there were other browsers. But even the Internet Explorer only websites are far from the evils of FaceBook certified internet gates. It's almost like the dark ages were people didn't move out of their villages and didn't even know there were things like books or cities or irrigation or....

It is a very bad idea. There should not even be a talk in the white house. Just imagine this would become a success.
It only requires like 10-20% of the Internet users to use free FaceBook internet to control future elections. It is like a Chinese firewall, but the other way around. Websites aren't simply blocked but only made available within the walled garden (of Eden with the forbidden tree of knowledge that our Lord Zuckerberg protects, say something wrong and Lord Zuckerberg will throw you out of the garden of Eden together with an 'original sin'). There would be even no ability to use VPN or build your own website behind the firewall.
Just imagine that about 40% uses FaceBook's free internet and Zuckerberg decides to make useful and popular websites only available through free internet and hides it for non free internet.

Re:What's wrong with a McDonald's Free lunch?

[Opportunist]

The point is, right now you will, even in poor neighborhoods, have a few people who will pay for internet, and hence providing the service is a viable business for ISPs. With FB muscling in, this ceases to be the case, so if you're poor, your only chance will be to get Facebooknet, because no other ISP will service your area.

Re:Does anyone else find this absolutely hilarious

[Oswald McWeany]

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.

Re:Great

[yuriklastalov]

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 Cyberpunk RPG starts to make sense

[Opportunist]

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...

Re:What about it???

[Alypius]

Actually some access may be worse than nothing, if they limit, control, or deny access to sites that the de facto censors don't like.

The same company???

[rholtzjr]

Is this the same company that wants to quadruple the H1B visa holders to undermine the already depressed US Information Technology sector?