[raghu.t.k]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Its their business model.


Different countries, different products. Do you get the same Swift that is sold in Europe?

....

If its their business model, fine, let them state it as such rather than masquerading it as a noble cause. Let them say who pays for the bandwidth and access, if its not facebook, the mobile company or the accessed website!! Also as a consumer I have the choice of voicing my concerns if we think we are the ones getting affected by having the network polarised.

If I were given a euro spec swift, I would be more than happy. Again, its the same. Since we have accepted the swift in the current version, Maruti does not see a reason to give it even as an option, and we need to live with what the company things is right for us. But the point being highlighted was since we never raise our voice or oppose, we get ads which they think is wrong in other places.

End of the day, you are free to express your opinion, and me, mine.

[dark.knight]

Originally Posted by mayankk

Why is ganesh not provided the freedom to choose what sites he wants to use?

Not seen the advert, why does "Ganesh" if at all the name is really that (which I heavily doubt it is), want to browse the "internet" in the first place? What does "Ganesh" want to do with the browsing? Pump some Bollywood numbers? Or read Bollywood gossip or do shopping so that he too can experience the wonders of home delivery?

Adverts like Idea Internet University or those that portray the internet as the modern messiah here to redeem and equalize humanity are extreme fantasies bordering on chimera. I'm not bashing internet at all, but expecting it to do wonders for the upliftment of the lower echelons of society is just falling prey to those who want to deliver internet to 100% of the population and later bait & trap them. Schooling is required, period.. real life experiences are required.. period, may it be Ganesh or Ramesh. Internet is ALREADY affordable for those who seek to use it infrequently like checking weather or mail etc, last I checked a 1 GB 2G pack hardly is a couple of hundred rupees and when used judiciously will last the whole month.

Free Basics will not be "Free" forever, it will be until enough of the people have jumped into it, after which it will be available at a nominal "Rs.xyz" for the unlimited treasures of the internet. No business is here to do charity work.. not even Zuckerberg who repeatedly happens to donate or pledge a 100 million $ towards charities exactly when its time to pay the taxes (read his strategies).. thus saving a heck of a lot of money by intelligent accounting and acquiring tons of goodwill as well.

[Chetan_Rao]

I'm amused it's the same operator tied up with FB that gave us the 'legendary' unlimited FREE calls on the same network in the early noughties, with phones/plans that cost close to nothing. Does nobody remember how that scheme turned out once enough people had signed on (read taken the bait)? Is the FREE offer still in place?

[ajitstreet]

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Internet in India is expensive, especially on a mobile. If there is a free/low cost service that could take care of the basic stuff, I'd take it.

But that is not my point. I am talking about freedom to choose. I am talking about how people think that they have figured out what is best for the world. And then seek laws around it.

This is in fact not freedom to chose. This is market distortion because those sites who are not with the Facebook will lose. Wonder, why Competition Commission India is not stepping in. Perhaps at a latter date they will. Earlier you have given the example of Swift and stated that different country different version. Is this a good practice? These companies sell safer cars in Europe and dumbed down version in India. In the name of freedom to choose such practices can't be defended. Similarly such programs like Free Basics should be opposed. It's not elitism. May be this is called activism when you go beyond your routine work and try to see beyond facts and give an opinion--and act on it as per your capacity.

[rahulsnh]

I think it is very important to understand what net neutrality means. Only then one can understand why free-basics is a wolf in a sheep's hide, a name that is designed to cheat its way into acceptance. Anything that distorts the market by favoring one over the other cannot be good because it is unfair to start with. But what really bewilders me is that a person like Zuckerberg has no better idea to pursue. The nauseating ad in Hindu that occupied almost half the newspaper reeked of desperation; no wonder Egypt has suspended free basic. If Zuckerberg really has altruism is his heart then why doesn't he retain net neutrality in free-basics? Okay, block porn, pirate site, and the likes. But the idea that say Stanford will be part of free-basics while some lesser known college will not, is grossly unfair and distorting!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by rahulsnh

I think it is very important to understand what net neutrality means.

That is the main trouble here. Lots of people in this thread haven't understood what it means.

Originally Posted by civic-sense

Shouldn't you just let the customer decide?

But customer here doesn't have the best interest of the country in mind. Let's see who are the customers. It will be advertisers on FB, and then the companies that pay money to FB to allow free access to their website. In case of Airtel Zero plan, Flipkart was the customer. Why should flipkart or other customers of FB/Airtel decide what is good for India? They will go by what profits their company.

Originally Posted by civic-sense

And if Facebook succeeds in fooling customers.

Facebook is not fooling their customers, their customers are thrilled and drooling at this chance to get captive audience, and they don't mind paying through their nose for it.

This is one case where I would say customers shouldn't decide, for they are in cahoots with Facebook and ISPs.

[deetjohn]

A good stand from the IT industry body on the subject.

From today' Hindu: Nasscom opposes differential pricing for data services

Says Airtel Zero and Free Basics violate principles of net neutrality by differentiating internet access for certain types of services

The IT industry body, however, said the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) should have powers to approve differential pricing for data services considered to be in public interest. Nasscom reiterated its opposition to platforms such as Airtel Zero and Free Basics, saying these violate the principles of net neutrality. Nasscom President R. Chandrashekhar said: “We strongly oppose any model where telecom services providers [TSPs] or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed etc.”

[civic-sense]

Lets not confuse opinions for facts. Everybody can have their opinions, but leave room for the possibility that you could be wrong. So better apply your opinion to you alone, and not the rest of the public. Here certain people who think they know better than the others are trying to force their opinion on the rest of the population. We have room for all kinds of providers. Free providers and paid providers. If you don't want free basics, don't buy. But don't ask for a ban on it.

Originally Posted by raghu.t.k

End of the day, you are free to express your opinion, and me, mine.

You should voice your opinion but let the people choose. But by asking for a ban on free basics you are taking away somebody's option to choose.

[phamilyman]

Originally Posted by deetjohn

A good stand from the IT industry body on the subject.

From today' Hindu: Nasscom opposes differential pricing for data services

Infact, the government should setup a true FreeBasics - a zero-rated network of NIC.IN and other government websites (say on weather / public service portals / exchanges / mandi prices / health etc) and encyclopaedic sites like wikipedia etc and provide it free to all.

Wonder why the government is sleeping on this one. Free Basics has demonstrated the demand - Govt needs to act.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by phamilyman

Infact, the government should setup a true FreeBasics - a zero-rated network of NIC.IN and other government websites (say on weather / public service portals / exchanges / mandi prices / health etc) and encyclopaedic sites like wikipedia etc and provide it free to all.

Anything from NIC even God may not be able to help us.

Let me take a different perspective, there is no free lunch. So somebody has to pay for the bandwidth, organisation, etc. So it is either us (whether directly or through the govt, ie taxes) or some commercial organization with their own motives. You take your choice. As for me I am just watching from the sidelines.

[ajitstreet]

The Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) has also said that differential pricing models violate the principles net neutrality. They have proposed many alternatives like :

Customer Subsidy Mechanisms: Subsidy schemes as adopted under the flagship Government schemes such as MGNREGA could be adopted to provide free data to the customers. Free internet coupons can be given to consumers who can select which apps or websites to use.

Time Based Model: Operators can provide hourly and daily passes for access to its WiFi network

Freemium Models: Under this model the service providers can offer managed service for public locations (e.g., coffee shops, hotels, airports, stadiums, railway stations) that want to provide free access to their customers and employees.

Wholesale Model: Internet providers can form partnerships with venue owners so they could propose WiFi networks with a discounted or free model to the end customers. In this model the operator shares the investment costs and revenue with the venue partners.

Community Hotspots: This model is popular in western countries where the WiFi connections at home hubs enable users to share their WiFi signals with others.

In Transit Model: IAMAI also said that there is a demand for WiFi roaming among a broad base of consumers, including those who don’t use data at all while roaming for fear of bill shock. Public transport such as bus, train and cabs can be WiFi enabled.

Source

[Lalvaz]

There's already numerous free internet access points set up in many indian states and cities. For example, In Bombay, there's the Reliance internet kiosks, which allow free browsing in 15 min slots. Most airports, coffee shops, cafe's, restaurants offer free wi fi as well.

For people who keep harping on letting people choose, well why does'nt FreeBasic allow people to choose which sites they want to access and how? Why mandatorily route all traffic through FB servers? Why restrict access only to certain sites?

Let Freebasics state emphatically that they will provide free internet access without any strings attached and let consumers make the "CHOICE"

But please do not hide behind the garb of choice when all you're trying to do is rip off consumers. We're not as dumb as you might think.

[rahulsnh]

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Anything from NIC even God may not be able to help us.

Originally Posted by sgiitk

Let me take a different perspective, there is no free lunch. So somebody has to pay for the bandwidth, organisation, etc. So it is either us (whether directly or through the govt, ie taxes) or some commercial organization with their own motives. You take your choice. As for me I am just watching from the sidelines.

Sometimes it is necessary to state the obvious - Its best not to hand it over to commercial entities because to maximize profit they turn to lobbying very quickly. If one can connect dots, on should watch this facebook video:

https://www.facebook.com/ajplusengli...5206957620815/

Right now facebook is just for foot in the door. Once they get entry they would lobby governments to eliminate neutral internet. So, stakes are high but I'm hopeful that it will not be possible to fool the majority.

[civic-sense]

Originally Posted by deetjohn

A good stand from the IT industry body on the subject.

From today' Hindu: Nasscom opposes differential pricing for data services

Remnants of socialism. Take a look at the 2016 US presidential candidates. The divide is clear. All republicans (Trump, Paul, Rubio, Cruz, Rubio) are against net neutrality while the dems (Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley) are for it.

[sgiitk]

Originally Posted by rahulsnh

Right now facebook is just for foot in the door. Once they get entry they would lobby governments to eliminate neutral internet. So, stakes are high but I'm hopeful that it will not be possible to fool the majority.

I am sure competitors will emerge if it is profitable. As for them they cannot afford to have a few million unsubscribe!