Facebook Launches Internet.org Platform and Opens Up To More Developers 32
Mark Wilson writes: The aim behind Facebook's Internet.org program is to bring internet access to the wider world. While an undeniably praise-worthy venture, it came in for criticism for going against the principles of net neutrality. Now, the company is launching the Internet.org Platform with a view to countering this criticism. The platform opens up Internet.org to more developers, giving them the chance to bring 'free basic services' to people around the world. There's also the promise of greater transparency.
Re: (Score:2)
(Apologies to William Goldman)
why do we need a walled garden? (Score:4, Insightful)
What's wrong with the plain old internet that we need this? I'm thinking that the notion here is that by making money by limiting access that they can give people free internet. AOL.com sort of started with the notion of monetizing a walled garden to offer cheaper internet access and it did spread to eventually giving access to the whole internet. But you could also describe indentured servitude in a similar rosie way of giving people opportunities.
Re:why do we need a walled garden? (Score:4, Informative)
FTFY (Score:2)
Because the plain old internet doesn't make much money for anyone.
You're talking about putting infrastructure into places where there is no expectation of the local population valuing the connection enough to pay for it. And infrastructure doesn't pop up for free.
Philanthropy is wonderful, but it's not generally part of the business plan for major corporations. Especially when that philanthropy would allow competitors direct access to users.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the plain old internet doesn't make much money for anyone.
You're kidding right? Never mind the large sector of the American economy built on the plain old internet.
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen internet kiosks that work something like this. To access the raw internet was $5/hour but certain companies
have paid the kiosk to allow their services to be accessed for free.
The later versions of AOL, the old style kindles, and even some internet tvs and game consoles work on a similiar approach.
The "start screen" is a bunch of apps, but you could still mostly access the "raw internet" 3 levels deep via a menu item.
I guess I'm not completely opposed to trying to figure out a way to monetize aka
Re: (Score:1)
I doubt there will be any "raw internet" with Fuckerberg in charge.
Re: (Score:2)
The walled garden here means free access for the user - no data charges, no access charges.
The alternative is for a user to have to pay data charges and/or access charges - in other words, the status quo. In many places, data charges can be expensive - in many parts of Africa, you can buy airtime in 15 cent vouchers, which sort of indicates the level of disposable funds people have. Data charges can fairly rapidly wipe out 15 cents, so people generally dont bother and stick to cheaper SMS and voice services
Re: (Score:1)
You're misinformed. Facebook isn't picking up the tab, operators are.
It's not a charity, it's a marketing expense - operators calculate that they will make money overall when more people upgrade to full internet plans. Any site entering the walled garden must be approved by both Facebook *and* the operator in question. Also, it isn't really free, just bundled with certain voice plans that users must pay for - operators also benefit because it might get people switch to them from their competitors. [All this
Re: (Score:2)
>> why do we need a walled garden?
This is for India (note the primary video is in Hindi) and other places used to paying for crappy Internet. In these cases, a less-crappy Internet from Facebook is deemed (cue Martha Stewart) a good thing. However, if (or when if you're Google) someone figures out how to give Indians full-blown Internet for free, then Facebook's partial Internet thing dies and two years later no one will remember it anymore.
To be fair (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't trust Zuckerberg or Facebook as far as I can throw them, if only because of their desire to turn IT into minimum wage labor via immigration, but the fact is that there are no cartoon villains in real life. Some people I don't like, and who I genuinely believe are ruining our industry, are just as capable of philanthropy and good works as a dedicated activist. Perhaps more so. Another example is Bill Gates.
This is shady (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Corporate censorship (Score:2)
You seem to use that word a lot (Score:2)
While an undeniably praise-worthy venture, it came in for criticism [...]
I don't think "undeniably" means what you think it means.
A gift at a cost. (Score:1)
Heh (Score:1)
Internet.org
I wonder how much that domain cost.
Re: (Score:2)
mod parent up
all it says = true
Not with a barge pole (Score:2)
For all of you who "need" facebook, good luck suckers. I won't click on their links, I block their domains, scripts and even their iframes. Have fun.