9 ms·

content

684 points by scorpion032 11y ago

scorpion032 11y ago
Probably the most progressive regulation among anywhere in the world. Enforcement of these #NetNeutrality principles is the literal granting of the Liberties and Equalities of opportunities, granted to individuals and as such this is a landmark order that will have far reaching repercussions. Worth noting how this played out. A bunch of folks on the internet, organised themselves and campaigned to stop a $300B market cap corporation and a bunch of telecoms with strong lobbying capabilities. Who would have thought they would win? The situation is worth a Harvard case study or a Nate Silver book. The future of influencing policy making is right here; and you ain't seen anything yet! Save The Internet team clearly seems to understand the virality of social networks better than Facebook does!
- intended 11y ago
  While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors. We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.
  - eterm 11y ago
    How do we focus instead on changes required for a better internet? The internet was originally designed (imagined?) to route around bad actors, congestion, censorship. If it no longer does that (and there's some truth to say it never has) then we've failed to build in the necessary incentives for that to happen.
    - intended 11y ago
      This is a ridiculously hard question to answer correctly. At best I can point out that theres 2 parts to this - the internet infrastructure and the regulatory frameworks. Till now, we've worked without having to explicitly state the philosophical underpinnings of the web, nor convert that into a law/legal framework. The slow lumbering leviathans have finally caught up to the nimble minnows of the 2000s. Telecom operators and other incumbents, including governments now know how the web works, and how to make it work for them (to the detriment of the commons). We can limit the damage of the second, by help build and maintain transparent regulatory frameworks, and in particular - be able to mobilize rebuttals or examples to future papers released by TRAI, or other GoI institutions. Whats learned here and other countries over the next 5 years, can be used to push for a stronger global framework.
  - jace 11y ago
    > We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Which is exactly what we will do.
    - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
      And does #savetheInternet have or want branches outside India. It's not a local problem? Is there somewhere I can go and lend support ?
    - intended 11y ago
      Eagerly awaited. I wouldn't be surprised if something else comes up around May, or December again this year.
  - mtgx 11y ago
    Even in the US we see people finally getting tired of the candidates pushed by Big Money, and many appear to have woken up and reject the candidates pushed by Big Money by default - like they won't even give them a second look. I think this trend will only grow in the future, and I hope it grows enough and it gathers enough political will to actually drastically limit Big Money influence (that includes limiting corporate lobbying), and to move to a proportional representation system, like what 90 other countries in the world have. There's a reason why there are like 40% Independents in the US - they are sick and tired of the two existing parties, but those two parties are making it virtually impossible for them to support anyone else. So either they are forced to vote for a Democrat or Republican (because we wouldn't that other monster to win) or they just refuse to vote. Not to mention that for Congress elections, people virtually have no say in who's elected because of gerrymandering. At least 85% of the seats this year will be safe for those who already own them. So no wonder people think "why vote?" The system is rigged against them by design. This is no democracy. Can you imagine if they actually had a choice for various other parties that could be guaranteed to be represented in Congress? We'd probably see the Democratic and Republican parties die off pretty quickly (within 10-15 years) if they wouldn't seriously reform themselves. Lessig actually aggregated many of the extremely important reforms that the US needs to restore its democracy, under his "Citizen Equality Act", but too bad the "Democratic" party never even gave him a chance, and kept changing the rules mid-game to excuse itself for eliminating him. His plan includes national election day, automatic registration, proportional representation, lobbying reform and citizen funded elections: https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/ https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/
    - Manishearth 11y ago
      I'm an expat and wanted to vote in absentia for the presidential election (which you can do) when it was first legal for me to do so. The procedure isn't too hard, but I decided it was not worth it when I remembered that my official "home state" is a blue state, and the electoral college means that my vote won't matter :|
  - shostack 11y ago
    Fair point and you can look at examples elsewhere in politics and business. TPP is a great example of something that went through iteration after iteration before finally being rammed through. CISPA and its predecessors were similar. The entities with a vested interest in having these things come to pass have essentially endless coffers to take the long view. All they need is to succeed once whereas we need to succeed in stopping these things each and every time. It is a war of attrition.
- geodel 11y ago
  It does not look as simple to me. From what I hear it's other VC funded e-commerce companies who were most vocal against FB. Using their foreign investors' money to to heavy discount and simultaneously blocking smaller companies does not seem anything right/decent or progressive.
  - nileshtrivedi 11y ago
    VC-funded companies actually wanted differential pricing (which allows FreeBasics). Flipkart, for example, signed up as a partner for Airtel Zero. Among the 700 startups who signed the petition against differential pricing, there are very few big names in startups - because they stand to gain from differential pricing.
- randyrand 11y ago
  > progressive How is it progressive? This is conservative (not wanting change).
  - quickben 11y ago
    Can you consider that the change wound have been (in utilitarian terms) detrimental?
    - randyrand 11y ago
      When someone is a progressive, it does not require that everyone actually thinks what they advocate for is actually progress. There are always two sides to every change. In that light, many people would consider Free Basics to be progress, and as such those people are progressives. Those not wanting change are the conservatives.
dingo_bat 11y ago
>Two key aspects of the Net Neutrality consultation that remain: firstly, the proposed requirement for providers of VoIP services like Whatsapp, Viber and Skype to obtain a government licence, which would mean that telecom operators could be required to treat traffic from unlicensed VoIP providers differently from the rest, and secondly, allowing telecom operators the ability to slow down and speed up websites, giving them the ability to play king-makers and gate-keepers. Citizens should be vigilant, as always, and should consider participating in this process in the future. SaveTheInternet opposes any form of licensing of Internet Services. This includes VoIP. So even though discriminatory pricing is not allowed, operators can still slow/speed down/up apps and websites. Seems to me a key aspect of net neutrality has not been upheld. For eg, what if an ISP decides to "slow down" Netflix to 0.1 kbps? I believe this is a wholly unsatisfactory outcome of the entire national debate over the last several months.
- cmadan 11y ago
  Its a step in the right direction. TRAI was only deciding on differential pricing not slow/fast lanes and currently no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes whereas differential pricing (i.e. free plans for Facebook, Whatsapp, their own shitty apps etc) were all over.
  - dingo_bat 11y ago
    >no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes How do we know that? And even if they aren't, they will start doing it. This was a great chance to disallow all of that crap but instead TRAI has been tempted to regulate voice apps, a task that they are simply incapable of performing effectively anyway.
    - cmadan 11y ago
      The new regulations by TRAI does not mention anything about regulation of voice apps (or about slow/fast lanes). I think you have misinterpreted the comment by SaveTheInternet.in. What they're saying is that while differential pricing has been dealt with in accordance with NN principles, there are two more battles which are going to be fought i.e. i. Defeating the proposal to regulate voice apps ii. Ensuring that no slow/fast lanes are there on the Internet. Its a "yes, we won a major battle but the war is not over yet" caution. Not an indictment on what TRAI is going to do for voice apps & slow/fast lanes.
atroyn 11y ago
Could Facebook not simply have outmanoeuvred the problem here by providing free access to the wider web, perhaps in a rolling fashion? Does Facebook have any real 'native' competition in India?
- anilgulecha 11y ago
  Aircel provide a fully-free low-speed internet in some regions.
- scorpion032 11y ago
  If their motive were genuinely connectivity, as they advertised it, they can still do it. #EqualRating is allowed, so are charitable initiatives such as Free Data to everyone. But what do they really want? The next billion internet users hooked onto their platform. That's what they paid Whatsapp a whooping $19B for. I can't presume to know for sure. We'll both see what will they do of their Freebasics program now.
  - atroyn 11y ago
    But won't they be just as hooked as in markets where Facebook has already penetrated? Seems like the smart play is just getting people on-line, and getting them onto Facebook the same way they always have. Why wouldn't that work in India?
    - ethanbond 11y ago
      It would. But why not cheat if you can get away with it?
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Facebook in others markets isn't paying for the Internet connections of their clients.
    - cmadan 11y ago
      I don't believe they ever had any intention of getting the poor online. They have so far never released ANY data regarding how many of the users of Free Basics are first time Internet users despite it being one of the top demands of critics of the Free Basics program. Some independent third party analysis suggest that the overwhelming majority of users of Free Basics are existing Internet users, many of them who have no idea they are on Free Basics. Reliance (the telco that Facebook has partnered with) doesn't advertise the Free Basics program as "access for the poor" but as "Free Facebook" and doesn't even mention the additional websites available for free on Free Basics. My guess is that with Free Basics rolled out in 36 countries without any issues, Facebook never expected any opposition.
fiatjaf 11y ago
Take that, free market!
- msh 11y ago
  Wireless telecom will never be a free marked as long as the is a limited amount of spectrum auctioned off.
  - tajen 11y ago
    Not the right argument. All resources are limited, and the free market deals better with those other resources. Anyway I'm happy that India resisted this lobby. We should take note for our own system.
  - fiatjaf 11y ago
    Do you think it is better to hamper the market forces even more?
    - pbkhrv 11y ago
      I see it as being more complicated than that. Quoting wikipedia on "Free market" [1], "A free market is a market economy system ... in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority." One can argue that programs like Facebook's "Free Basics" that just got banned [2] are a "price-setting monopoly". And now that the ban is in place, you have more "intervention by a government". That looks to me like India didn't really have "free market" for internet services before this ruling either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [2] http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/08/india-bans-zero-rating-internet-schemes/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/08/india-bans-zero-rating-in...
rooneyyyy 11y ago
http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Pres...
madaxe_again 11y ago
So - I wonder how Facebook will respond to their market penetration and lock-in effort being declared illegal, as granting access to one set of sites for free and not allowing access to others surely falls under this legislation. I expect that they'll continue business as usual, and will drag out the battle until they have a captive and indoctrinated audience (after all, they control the content, so you can be sure folks won't be reading about this, but they will be reading about how internet.org gives you freedom and is great and wonderful) who will push the government in favour of banning non-discriminatory pricing.
- rasz_pl 11y ago
  They will offer all of the web in free package, throttled to 100bytes/second. Because current legislation was solely about pricing.
  - rohmish 11y ago
    Now that's something we actually can accept. 100bytes/sec is too low for any practical use but 64kbps-128kbps is a good speed.
- icebraining 11y ago
  they control the content, so you can be sure folks won't be reading about this Unless they just go to https://www.facebook.com/netneutralityin/ https://www.facebook.com/netneutralityin/
  - mbrutsch 11y ago
    You are undermining the popular narrative with your facts and what-not.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      I've been here over a year, so I'm allowed [0] to complain that this comment is contributing to HN morphing into reddit. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
retube 11y ago
As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more, which is being universally applauded as a good thing. But isn't this contrary to the whole inequality issue? Shouldn't richer people be charged more? Richer people are being charged more for state infrastructure via higher taxes - which is also generally applauded as a good thing amongst the young/liberal demographic (in fact it doesn't go far enough many would argue). So why is it bad for companies to charge more to certain demographics? If people are prepared to pay why's that wrong? Isn't value pricing actually intrinsically "fair" as richer customers are effectively subsiding poorer customers?
- rtdp 11y ago
  This was not about charging differently based on how much people have. It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. So, if I have much money, I can have my service freely for everyone, while this other startup, unless pays to internet providers, will be available over the paid internet.
  - retube 11y ago
    > It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth
    - Manishearth 11y ago
      > Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth Do you have an example of a case where sites rich people use were being priced higher? It's not enough to say "what you use is correlated with wealth" to support "this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more", you need to show where websites being used by rich people were being charged for. This does stop Facebook from giving Free Facebook (+ other services), agreed. Which is a service used by basically everyone.
- toyg 11y ago
  The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen over and over again, removing cost barriers for utility infrastructure is a tremendous spark for all sorts of economic activity.
Magnets 11y ago
Where does the article mention anything about discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content in the linked article?
- jace 11y ago
  Here's the order this article is referring to: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regu...
jiraaya 11y ago
It is extremely dubious if someone turns up with a "Knight in shining armor" plan for saving the world. It would be safe to say that outsiders who are not a part of the "plan" do not have all the information to figure out the true motive behind these initiatives. It is also safe to say that direct or indirect monetary profit is almost always behind such initiatives. First it was monsanto exploiting farmers http://www.globalresearch.ca/independent-india-selling-out-to-monsanto-gmos-and-the-bigger-picture/5395187 http://www.globalresearch.ca/independent-india-selling-out-t... Then came Bill Gates with his vaccines and testing them on tribal children just because the regulatory environment makes it easier to test them in India https://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/ https://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/ And now comes Mr. Zuckerberg with dubious claims about "one person brought out of poverty for every five people who get access to internet" which seems to be a textbook causation-correlation misinterpretation. The general public must awaken to the fact that the so called third world is seen as a market with potential for double digit growth and the easiest way to enter them might just be through false pre-texts of heart warming charity.
- spatulan 11y ago
  I suspect a website called vactruth may not be the most impartial website around.
  - jiraaya 11y ago
    I agree. CNN may be? http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073 http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073
    - fkooman 11y ago
      About this iReport Not verified by CNN Doesn't meant it is not true, but I am not sure you can claim that this article is endorsed by CNN.
    - ascorbic 11y ago
      That's not CNN. That's an "iReport", which anyone can post. This one was posted by an anti-vaxxer called "VaccineThis". Zero credibility. http://ireport.cnn.com/people/VaccineThis http://ireport.cnn.com/people/VaccineThis
jasonkester 11y ago
I'm having trouble parsing this article through all the propaganda speak. Clearly whoever wrote it is happy that a victory has been scored and that the Internet is no longer broken (and has possibly even been saved) with the help of some agency that did something important that we should know about. But it's so thick with its own team's code language that I can't actually parse out what happened. Anybody know what's going on?
- scorpion032 11y ago
  I wrote up a "let's get this straight" message earlier, may be that will appeal to you more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10932166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10932166
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
electriclove 11y ago
Great quote on a different article covering the same story: http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/technology/india-facebook-free-basics-internet/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/technology/india-facebook-fr... ---------- Mahesh Murthy, a prominent Indian venture capitalist, last year described the program as "imperialism and the East India Company all over again," carried out under the guise of "digital equality." "What Facebook wants is our less fortunate brothers and sisters should be able to poke each other and play Candy Crush, but not be able to look up a fact on Google, or learn something on Khan Academy or sell their produce on a commodity market or even search for a job," he said.
- NoPiece 11y ago
  Can a quote be great if it is also completely factually inaccurate?
  - gnaddel 11y ago
    Could you elaborate why it is inaccurate?
    - NoPiece 11y ago
      For example Facebook explicitly does want to support job searches. (Babajob)
      - anon1385 11y ago
        Facebook has a list of all current and future job search sites that anybody in India might want to use? What about job adverts that are just posted on the employers own website? Unless you meant "Facebook wants to monopolise the entire Indian job search market with their own job search site while preventing people from accessing any competitors". That's more believable but hardly undermines the original quote.
        NoPiece 11y ago
mwsherman 11y ago
I don’t see any quotes from users of the service, in this article or in the CNN article. Seems salient.
gamekathu 11y ago
full regulation paper from TRAI : http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulati...
Sven7 11y ago
This has been like watching one form of misinformation battling another form of misinformation. One set of misguided people battling another set of misguided people. NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies. It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context. Activists in the West (who's rep and rent are based on their commitment to netneutrality) without knowing anything about the local context have been cheering on local activists. Local activists (led by stand up comedians ofcourse similar to Glenn Beck\Jon Stewart) getting carried away by this support (cause Urban India has this strange craving for western validation which I still don't fully understand) have now convinced the regulator to step in and are celebrating victory. This is similar to how the Egyptians celebrated victory after the army stepped in to depose a democratically elected govt. Just Unbelievable! Free markets are dead. Regulation driven by manufactured outrage or vested interests manufacturing outrage are alive and thriving. Ofcourse it doesn't help that Facebook and their games are involved which automatically swings every debate into deeply religious territory. As much as I can't stand Facebook and will have nothing to do with them ever, the point of a free market (which produces innovation) has been lost. If Christian missionaries or Hindu missions go and setup schools and libraries for free in Rural India is someone protesting differential pricing in Urban India. It's ridiculous. The people who loose out are the farmer\weaver who just need an email address to be linked to the cities. Who is going to provide that now? Rural India is so vast and voiceless that they are the automatic loosers in such a debate. Congratulations NetNeutrality activists! Well done.
- manish_gill 11y ago
  Wow, such holier than thou attitude. Anything thinking the problem is that the poor people aren't connected enough is seriously misinformed. India connected over 300mil people last year, and guess what, Facebook's effort only contributed ~1% of that number. Not to mention, over the long term, the very real problem that the Facebook walled garden of apps would present in terms of opportunities for entrepreneurs is much more urgent in an emerging economy like India. India has tried (and is still trying) subsidies for the poor, that hasn't helped. Facebook wanted everyone to go through their platform before reaching those users. Will that help the guy from the small town who just created an app? No it won't. So yeah, your condescending comparisons to Egypt and your "think of the poor!" argument is the exact same thing Zuckerberg said in his op-ed in Times of India. It didn't work then and it is not gonna work now.
dhawalhs 11y ago
Couple of articles I would recommend reading about Free Basics 1. Here’s How Free Basics Is Actually Being Sold Around The World http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/heres-how-free-basics-is-actually-being-sold-around-the-worl http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/heres-how-free-basi... 2. How India Pierced Facebook’s Free Internet Program https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-internet-program-6ae3f9ffd1b4 https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-... For the second article, reporter asked Facebook to put her in touch with Free Basics users. All the people that Facebook connected her were already internet users. But Mark Zuckerberg in an FB post claimed that "19 million people were connected to the internet for the first time with free basics". Both these articles present examples of how Free Basics is actually advertised in rest of the world.
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  Indeed. "Free Basics was ostensibly targeted at Indians who had never experienced the Internet or could not pay for data plans. However, Facebook recently struggled to provide a reporter with the name of a single Free Basics user in India who had never been online before." Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/india-ruling-trai-free-basics#.oxy4QoMy8 http://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/india-ruling-trai-free-b...
titomc 11y ago
Mark "tried to solve a non existent problem" and fell over. India is not a country where everyone rides on bullocarts or tuk tuks. Its a fast developing nation. Its not what you see in Hollywood movies or western medias. India do not need help on the internet side of things.
- tzs 11y ago
  > Its a fast developing nation The benefits of development are very unevenly distributed. Some areas are the equal of any first world country...and others lag behind even the poorest African countries. > India do not need help on the internet side of things. The 800 million Indians [1] without internet might disagree with that. I think you've forgotten just how freaking big India is. They have 400 million people online, which is the second most of any country (only China has more, with 670 million online)...yet they are so big that this is only 1/3 of their population. [1] Indian population: 1200 million - 400 million with access [2] = 800 million without. [2] http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-to-have-402-million-internet-users-by-december-end-iamai-766216 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-to-have-402-mill...
- sremani 11y ago
  With 56% of population agrarian, India is not as modern as the Urban Middle Class wants itself to believe.
- randyrand 11y ago
  People don't know they need something until you tell them they do. We didn't have a problem in the 1990s by not having a smartphones. We didn't have a problem without the internet. We didn't have a problem without electricity.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
dang 11y ago
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35522899 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35522899 gives the background without an autoplay video like the CNN link has.
kaka189 11y ago
https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251 Everyone in the world should have access to the internet. That's why we launched Internet.org with so many different initiatives -- including extending networks through solar-powered planes, satellites and lasers, providing free data access through Free Basics, reducing data use through apps, and empowering local entrepreneurs through Express Wi-Fi. Today India's telecom regulator decided to restrict programs that provide free access to data. This restricts one of Internet.org's initiatives, Free Basics, as well as programs by other organizations that provide free access to data. While we're disappointed with today's decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet. Our work with Internet.org around the world has already improved many people's lives. More than 19 million people in 38 countries have been connected through our different programs. Connecting India is an important goal we won't give up on, because more than a billion people in India don't have access to the internet. We know that connecting them can help lift people out of poverty, create millions of jobs and spread education opportunities. We care about these people, and that's why we're so committed to connecting them. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. That mission continues, and so does our commitment to India.
suyash 11y ago
Congratulations..this is great news for India!
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
thetruthseeker1 11y ago
Note in the USA, Verizon does not ding uses of their data cap if they use Verizon's video content Go90, however it does if the users use YouTube. It is interesting that in India the net neutrality has been taken to a much higher degree than in the US itself. But I don't think what India did is a bad thing in the long run(even though the acceleration of people moving to use Internet for first time will get hurt a little bit in the short term)
- rohmish 11y ago
  As stated above, even Facebook themselves couldn't point to a single user that for to internet for first time using the free basics campaign. People who want internet and a smartphone required to connect to internet can already get to internet. On other end, people don't have a smartphone to access the free basics program and Facebook doesn't solve that problem. Facebook is jsut trying to get more people to use Facebook by giving access for free and bundling a few low usage apps people rarely use in name of charity
randyrand 11y ago
1) I think it's ironic that the people most opposed to Free Basics are the ones who already have internet. 2) I'm curious how the legislation prevents FB from charging for this service. And what the minimum cost is regulated at.
known 11y ago
FB should have donated/bribed appropriate people in India https://twitter.com/rss_org https://twitter.com/rss_org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India
tn13 11y ago
As an Indian I feel a bit sad that a few elitist managed to hijack the entire propaganda and denied access to millions of poor people. US readers: Please note that T-Mobile Binge on and other similar services would be illegal under new TRAI guidelines in India.

684 points by scorpion032 11y ago

Probably the most progressive regulation among anywhere in the world. Enforcement of these #NetNeutrality principles is the literal granting of the Liberties and Equalities of opportunities, granted to individuals and as such this is a landmark order that will have far reaching repercussions. Worth noting how this played out. A bunch of folks on the internet, organised themselves and campaigned to stop a $300B market cap corporation and a bunch of telecoms with strong lobbying capabilities. Who would have thought they would win? The situation is worth a Harvard case study or a Nate Silver book. The future of influencing policy making is right here; and you ain't seen anything yet! Save The Internet team clearly seems to understand the virality of social networks better than Facebook does!

intended 11y ago
While the David's won this round, it was against an opponent (or group of) which made several tactical errors. We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Because Next time it may not be Facebook, it may be the GoI itself, or reliance.
- eterm 11y ago
  How do we focus instead on changes required for a better internet? The internet was originally designed (imagined?) to route around bad actors, congestion, censorship. If it no longer does that (and there's some truth to say it never has) then we've failed to build in the necessary incentives for that to happen.
  - intended 11y ago
    This is a ridiculously hard question to answer correctly. At best I can point out that theres 2 parts to this - the internet infrastructure and the regulatory frameworks. Till now, we've worked without having to explicitly state the philosophical underpinnings of the web, nor convert that into a law/legal framework. The slow lumbering leviathans have finally caught up to the nimble minnows of the 2000s. Telecom operators and other incumbents, including governments now know how the web works, and how to make it work for them (to the detriment of the commons). We can limit the damage of the second, by help build and maintain transparent regulatory frameworks, and in particular - be able to mobilize rebuttals or examples to future papers released by TRAI, or other GoI institutions. Whats learned here and other countries over the next 5 years, can be used to push for a stronger global framework.
- jace 11y ago
  > We need to build a more lasting institution to prepare in advance for future papers, have lists of people it can reach out to, and manage the hidden minutiae required to combat these issues. Which is exactly what we will do.
  - lifeisstillgood 11y ago
    And does #savetheInternet have or want branches outside India. It's not a local problem? Is there somewhere I can go and lend support ?
  - intended 11y ago
    Eagerly awaited. I wouldn't be surprised if something else comes up around May, or December again this year.
- mtgx 11y ago
  Even in the US we see people finally getting tired of the candidates pushed by Big Money, and many appear to have woken up and reject the candidates pushed by Big Money by default - like they won't even give them a second look. I think this trend will only grow in the future, and I hope it grows enough and it gathers enough political will to actually drastically limit Big Money influence (that includes limiting corporate lobbying), and to move to a proportional representation system, like what 90 other countries in the world have. There's a reason why there are like 40% Independents in the US - they are sick and tired of the two existing parties, but those two parties are making it virtually impossible for them to support anyone else. So either they are forced to vote for a Democrat or Republican (because we wouldn't that other monster to win) or they just refuse to vote. Not to mention that for Congress elections, people virtually have no say in who's elected because of gerrymandering. At least 85% of the seats this year will be safe for those who already own them. So no wonder people think "why vote?" The system is rigged against them by design. This is no democracy. Can you imagine if they actually had a choice for various other parties that could be guaranteed to be represented in Congress? We'd probably see the Democratic and Republican parties die off pretty quickly (within 10-15 years) if they wouldn't seriously reform themselves. Lessig actually aggregated many of the extremely important reforms that the US needs to restore its democracy, under his "Citizen Equality Act", but too bad the "Democratic" party never even gave him a chance, and kept changing the rules mid-game to excuse itself for eliminating him. His plan includes national election day, automatic registration, proportional representation, lobbying reform and citizen funded elections: https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/ https://lessig2016.us/the-plan/
  - Manishearth 11y ago
    I'm an expat and wanted to vote in absentia for the presidential election (which you can do) when it was first legal for me to do so. The procedure isn't too hard, but I decided it was not worth it when I remembered that my official "home state" is a blue state, and the electoral college means that my vote won't matter :|
- shostack 11y ago
  Fair point and you can look at examples elsewhere in politics and business. TPP is a great example of something that went through iteration after iteration before finally being rammed through. CISPA and its predecessors were similar. The entities with a vested interest in having these things come to pass have essentially endless coffers to take the long view. All they need is to succeed once whereas we need to succeed in stopping these things each and every time. It is a war of attrition.
geodel 11y ago
It does not look as simple to me. From what I hear it's other VC funded e-commerce companies who were most vocal against FB. Using their foreign investors' money to to heavy discount and simultaneously blocking smaller companies does not seem anything right/decent or progressive.
- nileshtrivedi 11y ago
  VC-funded companies actually wanted differential pricing (which allows FreeBasics). Flipkart, for example, signed up as a partner for Airtel Zero. Among the 700 startups who signed the petition against differential pricing, there are very few big names in startups - because they stand to gain from differential pricing.
randyrand 11y ago
> progressive How is it progressive? This is conservative (not wanting change).
- quickben 11y ago
  Can you consider that the change wound have been (in utilitarian terms) detrimental?
  - randyrand 11y ago
    When someone is a progressive, it does not require that everyone actually thinks what they advocate for is actually progress. There are always two sides to every change. In that light, many people would consider Free Basics to be progress, and as such those people are progressives. Those not wanting change are the conservatives.

dingo_bat 11y ago

>Two key aspects of the Net Neutrality consultation that remain: firstly, the proposed requirement for providers of VoIP services like Whatsapp, Viber and Skype to obtain a government licence, which would mean that telecom operators could be required to treat traffic from unlicensed VoIP providers differently from the rest, and secondly, allowing telecom operators the ability to slow down and speed up websites, giving them the ability to play king-makers and gate-keepers. Citizens should be vigilant, as always, and should consider participating in this process in the future. SaveTheInternet opposes any form of licensing of Internet Services. This includes VoIP. So even though discriminatory pricing is not allowed, operators can still slow/speed down/up apps and websites. Seems to me a key aspect of net neutrality has not been upheld. For eg, what if an ISP decides to "slow down" Netflix to 0.1 kbps? I believe this is a wholly unsatisfactory outcome of the entire national debate over the last several months.

cmadan 11y ago
Its a step in the right direction. TRAI was only deciding on differential pricing not slow/fast lanes and currently no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes whereas differential pricing (i.e. free plans for Facebook, Whatsapp, their own shitty apps etc) were all over.
- dingo_bat 11y ago
  >no ISPs are implementing slow/fast lanes How do we know that? And even if they aren't, they will start doing it. This was a great chance to disallow all of that crap but instead TRAI has been tempted to regulate voice apps, a task that they are simply incapable of performing effectively anyway.
  - cmadan 11y ago
    The new regulations by TRAI does not mention anything about regulation of voice apps (or about slow/fast lanes). I think you have misinterpreted the comment by SaveTheInternet.in. What they're saying is that while differential pricing has been dealt with in accordance with NN principles, there are two more battles which are going to be fought i.e. i. Defeating the proposal to regulate voice apps ii. Ensuring that no slow/fast lanes are there on the Internet. Its a "yes, we won a major battle but the war is not over yet" caution. Not an indictment on what TRAI is going to do for voice apps & slow/fast lanes.

atroyn 11y ago

Could Facebook not simply have outmanoeuvred the problem here by providing free access to the wider web, perhaps in a rolling fashion? Does Facebook have any real 'native' competition in India?

anilgulecha 11y ago
Aircel provide a fully-free low-speed internet in some regions.
scorpion032 11y ago
If their motive were genuinely connectivity, as they advertised it, they can still do it. #EqualRating is allowed, so are charitable initiatives such as Free Data to everyone. But what do they really want? The next billion internet users hooked onto their platform. That's what they paid Whatsapp a whooping $19B for. I can't presume to know for sure. We'll both see what will they do of their Freebasics program now.
- atroyn 11y ago
  But won't they be just as hooked as in markets where Facebook has already penetrated? Seems like the smart play is just getting people on-line, and getting them onto Facebook the same way they always have. Why wouldn't that work in India?
  - ethanbond 11y ago
    It would. But why not cheat if you can get away with it?
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Facebook in others markets isn't paying for the Internet connections of their clients.
  - cmadan 11y ago
    I don't believe they ever had any intention of getting the poor online. They have so far never released ANY data regarding how many of the users of Free Basics are first time Internet users despite it being one of the top demands of critics of the Free Basics program. Some independent third party analysis suggest that the overwhelming majority of users of Free Basics are existing Internet users, many of them who have no idea they are on Free Basics. Reliance (the telco that Facebook has partnered with) doesn't advertise the Free Basics program as "access for the poor" but as "Free Facebook" and doesn't even mention the additional websites available for free on Free Basics. My guess is that with Free Basics rolled out in 36 countries without any issues, Facebook never expected any opposition.

fiatjaf 11y ago

Take that, free market!

msh 11y ago
Wireless telecom will never be a free marked as long as the is a limited amount of spectrum auctioned off.
- tajen 11y ago
  Not the right argument. All resources are limited, and the free market deals better with those other resources. Anyway I'm happy that India resisted this lobby. We should take note for our own system.
- fiatjaf 11y ago
  Do you think it is better to hamper the market forces even more?
  - pbkhrv 11y ago
    I see it as being more complicated than that. Quoting wikipedia on "Free market" [1], "A free market is a market economy system ... in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority." One can argue that programs like Facebook's "Free Basics" that just got banned [2] are a "price-setting monopoly". And now that the ban is in place, you have more "intervention by a government". That looks to me like India didn't really have "free market" for internet services before this ruling either. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [2] http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/08/india-bans-zero-rating-internet-schemes/ http://www.engadget.com/2016/02/08/india-bans-zero-rating-in...

rooneyyyy 11y ago

http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Press_Release_No_13%20.pdf http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PressRealease/Document/Pres...

madaxe_again 11y ago

So - I wonder how Facebook will respond to their market penetration and lock-in effort being declared illegal, as granting access to one set of sites for free and not allowing access to others surely falls under this legislation. I expect that they'll continue business as usual, and will drag out the battle until they have a captive and indoctrinated audience (after all, they control the content, so you can be sure folks won't be reading about this, but they will be reading about how internet.org gives you freedom and is great and wonderful) who will push the government in favour of banning non-discriminatory pricing.

rasz_pl 11y ago
They will offer all of the web in free package, throttled to 100bytes/second. Because current legislation was solely about pricing.
- rohmish 11y ago
  Now that's something we actually can accept. 100bytes/sec is too low for any practical use but 64kbps-128kbps is a good speed.
icebraining 11y ago
they control the content, so you can be sure folks won't be reading about this Unless they just go to https://www.facebook.com/netneutralityin/ https://www.facebook.com/netneutralityin/
- mbrutsch 11y ago
  You are undermining the popular narrative with your facts and what-not.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    I've been here over a year, so I'm allowed [0] to complain that this comment is contributing to HN morphing into reddit. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

retube 11y ago

As I understand it this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more, which is being universally applauded as a good thing. But isn't this contrary to the whole inequality issue? Shouldn't richer people be charged more? Richer people are being charged more for state infrastructure via higher taxes - which is also generally applauded as a good thing amongst the young/liberal demographic (in fact it doesn't go far enough many would argue). So why is it bad for companies to charge more to certain demographics? If people are prepared to pay why's that wrong? Isn't value pricing actually intrinsically "fair" as richer customers are effectively subsiding poorer customers?

rtdp 11y ago
This was not about charging differently based on how much people have. It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. So, if I have much money, I can have my service freely for everyone, while this other startup, unless pays to internet providers, will be available over the paid internet.
- retube 11y ago
  > It was about charging differently based on WHAT you are using. Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth
  - Manishearth 11y ago
    > Sure - but what you use, and from where, is highly correlated with wealth Do you have an example of a case where sites rich people use were being priced higher? It's not enough to say "what you use is correlated with wealth" to support "this effectively this stops "richer" people being charged more", you need to show where websites being used by rich people were being charged for. This does stop Facebook from giving Free Facebook (+ other services), agreed. Which is a service used by basically everyone.
toyg 11y ago
The internet is not "a product", it is an essential utility. Rich people pay more than poor people for roads, but they get the same access to them as poor people. This is what the internet should be like. Historically, price differentiation for network infrastructure has been due to costs, not artificial market segmentation; it's important this continues to be the case for the majority of net citizens. As we've seen over and over again, removing cost barriers for utility infrastructure is a tremendous spark for all sorts of economic activity.

Magnets 11y ago

Where does the article mention anything about discriminatory pricing based on source/destination/app/content in the linked article?

jace 11y ago
Here's the order this article is referring to: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regu...

jiraaya 11y ago

It is extremely dubious if someone turns up with a "Knight in shining armor" plan for saving the world. It would be safe to say that outsiders who are not a part of the "plan" do not have all the information to figure out the true motive behind these initiatives. It is also safe to say that direct or indirect monetary profit is almost always behind such initiatives. First it was monsanto exploiting farmers http://www.globalresearch.ca/independent-india-selling-out-to-monsanto-gmos-and-the-bigger-picture/5395187 http://www.globalresearch.ca/independent-india-selling-out-t... Then came Bill Gates with his vaccines and testing them on tribal children just because the regulatory environment makes it easier to test them in India https://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/ https://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/ And now comes Mr. Zuckerberg with dubious claims about "one person brought out of poverty for every five people who get access to internet" which seems to be a textbook causation-correlation misinterpretation. The general public must awaken to the fact that the so called third world is seen as a market with potential for double digit growth and the easiest way to enter them might just be through false pre-texts of heart warming charity.

spatulan 11y ago
I suspect a website called vactruth may not be the most impartial website around.
- jiraaya 11y ago
  I agree. CNN may be? http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073 http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-1170073
  - fkooman 11y ago
    About this iReport Not verified by CNN Doesn't meant it is not true, but I am not sure you can claim that this article is endorsed by CNN.
  - ascorbic 11y ago
    That's not CNN. That's an "iReport", which anyone can post. This one was posted by an anti-vaxxer called "VaccineThis". Zero credibility. http://ireport.cnn.com/people/VaccineThis http://ireport.cnn.com/people/VaccineThis

jasonkester 11y ago

I'm having trouble parsing this article through all the propaganda speak. Clearly whoever wrote it is happy that a victory has been scored and that the Internet is no longer broken (and has possibly even been saved) with the help of some agency that did something important that we should know about. But it's so thick with its own team's code language that I can't actually parse out what happened. Anybody know what's going on?

scorpion032 11y ago
I wrote up a "let's get this straight" message earlier, may be that will appeal to you more: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10932166 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10932166
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

electriclove 11y ago

Great quote on a different article covering the same story: http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/technology/india-facebook-free-basics-internet/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/technology/india-facebook-fr... ---------- Mahesh Murthy, a prominent Indian venture capitalist, last year described the program as "imperialism and the East India Company all over again," carried out under the guise of "digital equality." "What Facebook wants is our less fortunate brothers and sisters should be able to poke each other and play Candy Crush, but not be able to look up a fact on Google, or learn something on Khan Academy or sell their produce on a commodity market or even search for a job," he said.

NoPiece 11y ago
Can a quote be great if it is also completely factually inaccurate?
- gnaddel 11y ago
  Could you elaborate why it is inaccurate?
  - NoPiece 11y ago
    For example Facebook explicitly does want to support job searches. (Babajob)
    - anon1385 11y ago
      Facebook has a list of all current and future job search sites that anybody in India might want to use? What about job adverts that are just posted on the employers own website? Unless you meant "Facebook wants to monopolise the entire Indian job search market with their own job search site while preventing people from accessing any competitors". That's more believable but hardly undermines the original quote.
      - NoPiece 11y ago

mwsherman 11y ago

I don’t see any quotes from users of the service, in this article or in the CNN article. Seems salient.

gamekathu 11y ago

full regulation paper from TRAI : http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulati...

Sven7 11y ago

This has been like watching one form of misinformation battling another form of misinformation. One set of misguided people battling another set of misguided people. NetNeutrality is a concept that makes sense in a western context where carriers are basically monopolies. It's unbelievable how good arguments in one context, have been blindly applied to a completely unrelated context. Activists in the West (who's rep and rent are based on their commitment to netneutrality) without knowing anything about the local context have been cheering on local activists. Local activists (led by stand up comedians ofcourse similar to Glenn Beck\Jon Stewart) getting carried away by this support (cause Urban India has this strange craving for western validation which I still don't fully understand) have now convinced the regulator to step in and are celebrating victory. This is similar to how the Egyptians celebrated victory after the army stepped in to depose a democratically elected govt. Just Unbelievable! Free markets are dead. Regulation driven by manufactured outrage or vested interests manufacturing outrage are alive and thriving. Ofcourse it doesn't help that Facebook and their games are involved which automatically swings every debate into deeply religious territory. As much as I can't stand Facebook and will have nothing to do with them ever, the point of a free market (which produces innovation) has been lost. If Christian missionaries or Hindu missions go and setup schools and libraries for free in Rural India is someone protesting differential pricing in Urban India. It's ridiculous. The people who loose out are the farmer\weaver who just need an email address to be linked to the cities. Who is going to provide that now? Rural India is so vast and voiceless that they are the automatic loosers in such a debate. Congratulations NetNeutrality activists! Well done.

manish_gill 11y ago
Wow, such holier than thou attitude. Anything thinking the problem is that the poor people aren't connected enough is seriously misinformed. India connected over 300mil people last year, and guess what, Facebook's effort only contributed ~1% of that number. Not to mention, over the long term, the very real problem that the Facebook walled garden of apps would present in terms of opportunities for entrepreneurs is much more urgent in an emerging economy like India. India has tried (and is still trying) subsidies for the poor, that hasn't helped. Facebook wanted everyone to go through their platform before reaching those users. Will that help the guy from the small town who just created an app? No it won't. So yeah, your condescending comparisons to Egypt and your "think of the poor!" argument is the exact same thing Zuckerberg said in his op-ed in Times of India. It didn't work then and it is not gonna work now.

dhawalhs 11y ago

Couple of articles I would recommend reading about Free Basics 1. Here’s How Free Basics Is Actually Being Sold Around The World http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/heres-how-free-basics-is-actually-being-sold-around-the-worl http://www.buzzfeed.com/carolineodonovan/heres-how-free-basi... 2. How India Pierced Facebook’s Free Internet Program https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-free-internet-program-6ae3f9ffd1b4 https://medium.com/backchannel/how-india-pierced-facebook-s-... For the second article, reporter asked Facebook to put her in touch with Free Basics users. All the people that Facebook connected her were already internet users. But Mark Zuckerberg in an FB post claimed that "19 million people were connected to the internet for the first time with free basics". Both these articles present examples of how Free Basics is actually advertised in rest of the world.

nileshtrivedi 11y ago
Indeed. "Free Basics was ostensibly targeted at Indians who had never experienced the Internet or could not pay for data plans. However, Facebook recently struggled to provide a reporter with the name of a single Free Basics user in India who had never been online before." Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/india-ruling-trai-free-basics#.oxy4QoMy8 http://www.buzzfeed.com/nitashatiku/india-ruling-trai-free-b...

titomc 11y ago

Mark "tried to solve a non existent problem" and fell over. India is not a country where everyone rides on bullocarts or tuk tuks. Its a fast developing nation. Its not what you see in Hollywood movies or western medias. India do not need help on the internet side of things.

tzs 11y ago
> Its a fast developing nation The benefits of development are very unevenly distributed. Some areas are the equal of any first world country...and others lag behind even the poorest African countries. > India do not need help on the internet side of things. The 800 million Indians [1] without internet might disagree with that. I think you've forgotten just how freaking big India is. They have 400 million people online, which is the second most of any country (only China has more, with 670 million online)...yet they are so big that this is only 1/3 of their population. [1] Indian population: 1200 million - 400 million with access [2] = 800 million without. [2] http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-to-have-402-million-internet-users-by-december-end-iamai-766216 http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/news/india-to-have-402-mill...
sremani 11y ago
With 56% of population agrarian, India is not as modern as the Urban Middle Class wants itself to believe.
randyrand 11y ago
People don't know they need something until you tell them they do. We didn't have a problem in the 1990s by not having a smartphones. We didn't have a problem without the internet. We didn't have a problem without electricity.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

dang 11y ago

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35522899 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35522899 gives the background without an autoplay video like the CNN link has.

kaka189 11y ago

https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251 https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251 Everyone in the world should have access to the internet. That's why we launched Internet.org with so many different initiatives -- including extending networks through solar-powered planes, satellites and lasers, providing free data access through Free Basics, reducing data use through apps, and empowering local entrepreneurs through Express Wi-Fi. Today India's telecom regulator decided to restrict programs that provide free access to data. This restricts one of Internet.org's initiatives, Free Basics, as well as programs by other organizations that provide free access to data. While we're disappointed with today's decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet. Our work with Internet.org around the world has already improved many people's lives. More than 19 million people in 38 countries have been connected through our different programs. Connecting India is an important goal we won't give up on, because more than a billion people in India don't have access to the internet. We know that connecting them can help lift people out of poverty, create millions of jobs and spread education opportunities. We care about these people, and that's why we're so committed to connecting them. Our mission is to make the world more open and connected. That mission continues, and so does our commitment to India.

suyash 11y ago

Congratulations..this is great news for India!

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

thetruthseeker1 11y ago

Note in the USA, Verizon does not ding uses of their data cap if they use Verizon's video content Go90, however it does if the users use YouTube. It is interesting that in India the net neutrality has been taken to a much higher degree than in the US itself. But I don't think what India did is a bad thing in the long run(even though the acceleration of people moving to use Internet for first time will get hurt a little bit in the short term)

rohmish 11y ago
As stated above, even Facebook themselves couldn't point to a single user that for to internet for first time using the free basics campaign. People who want internet and a smartphone required to connect to internet can already get to internet. On other end, people don't have a smartphone to access the free basics program and Facebook doesn't solve that problem. Facebook is jsut trying to get more people to use Facebook by giving access for free and bundling a few low usage apps people rarely use in name of charity

randyrand 11y ago

1) I think it's ironic that the people most opposed to Free Basics are the ones who already have internet. 2) I'm curious how the legislation prevents FB from charging for this service. And what the minimum cost is regulated at.

known 11y ago

FB should have donated/bribed appropriate people in India https://twitter.com/rss_org https://twitter.com/rss_org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality_in_India

tn13 11y ago

As an Indian I feel a bit sad that a few elitist managed to hijack the entire propaganda and denied access to millions of poor people. US readers: Please note that T-Mobile Binge on and other similar services would be illegal under new TRAI guidelines in India.