Facebook's Free Basics App Has Been Temporarily Banned in India

An anonymous reader writes that Facebook's plan to provide Indians with free access to a number of chosen internet services has run into some big trouble. FC reports: "Indian telecom regulators have reportedly halted Facebook's "Free Basics" mobile Internet service, formerly known as Internet.org, over net neutrality concerns. The controversial program allows mobile customers free access to a limited set of Internet services, including certain online shopping, employment and health sites, Wikipedia and, naturally, Facebook itself. While Facebook has said the program offers limited Internet access to more than 1 billion people, those who might otherwise have none, it's come under fire from net neutrality activists and others in the industry who say it limits users to a walled garden populated solely by Facebook's partners.

Walls are free?

[sinij]

I share concerns that such service violates Net Neutrality rules and imposes walled garden on its users. The fact that it is free is irrelevant, as the principle it violates has nothing to do with the cost.

Re:

[CohibaVancouver]

So it is acceptable to you that the destitute of India get ZERO connectivity, as opposed to a free walled garden? On principle, of course.

Re:Walls are free?

[fluffernutter]

If I told you that you could live totally free of cost, but it would be in a prison, would you accept?

Re:

[sglewis100]

Me? No. Although it's a bad analogy (you can choose to stop using their app and get paid service). And also, yes, I believe there are some people who choose three free meals a day in prison over a life on the streets. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a better alternative for those people, but yes, some people would make that choice.

Re:

[Calydor]

This isn't very different from the argument on here a few days ago about the three guys who were sharing karaoke songs that were no longer available for purchase anywhere.

The target demographic of this offer are those people who are so poor they will never, EVER be able to afford 'full' internet access - the options boil down to free but walled garden, or no internet at all. There IS no third option for them. There is no market to close because there is no market in the first place.

Re:

[fluffernutter]

The only thing that bothers me about this is that Facebook gets to control (and profit from) what the poor masses see. It amounts to a sort of controlled propaganda. As long as they are being regulated and show a range of competitors and not just have an invitation only competition free service, then I am ok with it.

Re:

[unixisc]

Facebook's Free Basics is the value added that Reliance is bringing to its customers. Facebook is not the one getting paid by the subscribers - Reliance is. If Facebook gets paid at all, it would be from Reliance.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, this is just not true. Just to set some context, I'm an indian, currently living in India.

The plan has *no* provision to provide internet by making it possible for very poor people to access devices with internet. So they are right of the table. Thus it gets targeted to people who already have a smart/feature phone which can access internet. This by itself is very broad reach of population in India (somewhat around 50% of 1.2 billion ppl). So essentially this service is targeted towards people wh

Re:

[khoonirobo]

OK Damn, hadn't logged in so can't edit it for spelling / grammar mistakes now.

Re:

[invictusvoyd]

Forget facebook , lets not forget that this walled garden has free Wikipedia!!! thats something for the millions who cannot afford 3G in India

Re:

[Chandresh Prakash]

Forget facebook , lets not forget that this walled garden has free Wikipedia!!! thats something for the millions who cannot afford 3G in India

I believe yours is a very valid point. Those who have an issue can start a similar app or service. The app is not enforced on users - they have a choice to use it or not.

Re:

[Wrath0fb0b]

If I told you that you could live totally free of cost, but it would be in a prison, would you accept?

If I had the choice to enter and leave the prison at will? I certainly don't see anyone claiming that once a person uses the plan they can never leave ...

I mean, the salient thing about a prison isn't the lack of freedom to do what you will inside the prison, it's the fact that you can't leave of your own free will. If you can walk out at any time, it's just not a prison -- much the way this plan is not a prison, it's just a kind of not-nice-place.

Re:Walls are free?

[mysidia]

If I had the choice to enter and leave the prison at will?

Imagine, you go to visit your local public library, and to gain access, you have to pay per page you are allowed to read.

But through an exclusive deal with the reigning Republican majority party; "You will be allowed to browse an unlimited number of pages from the books of select partners who agree with our world view and finance our campaigns".

Meanwhile, books such as those from authors opposing the death penalty, favoring gun control, might cost double.

Re:

[Silverhammer]

Protip: Such arguments would be more persuasive without the gratuitous partisanship.

Re:

[sumdumass]

So you are saying that the government pays for this access and Facebook is charging people?

Change your public library for a book store and change your republican partisanship for owners and it might make a little more sense. But then it just sounds silly.

Re:

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Your idea actually sounds somewhat like legislatures in my fine state They wanted to toss out what other college-bound kids learn and replace it with "sermons known as A Model of Christian Charity, another sermon called "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", Carnegie's "Gospel of Wealth", and some Bush / Reagen speeches. Luckily it never made it to the point of being challenged in court. [cnn.com]

Re:

[Wrath0fb0b]

Meanwhile, books such as those from authors opposing the death penalty, favoring gun control, might cost double.

And that's where this facile comparison finally goes off the rails -- no one even remotely hinted that the introduction of this plan would increase (let alone double) the cost of any other plan. In fact, by lowering barriers to entry and increasing demand, it will likely lower the cost of every other plan.

Re:

[sims 2]

Man robs bank of $1 to get free health care in jail http://idle.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]

Some people really do need help.

Re:

[Jiro]

He had health care available [investors.com].

Re:

[sims 2]

Thanks for that its not often I get to see the rest of the story. I just remembered that story from a few years ago. I had not looked into it further since that time.

Re:Walls are free?

[xappax]

Facebook's scheme is analogous to giving people a Star Trek replicator that's been programmed to only produce heroin.

One one hand, replicators are sweet and it's great to get them to more people. On the other hand, since these replicators are obviously just being handed out to get people hooked on heroin, I feel safe saying folks are better off with nothing.

And by the way, how diabolical do you have to be to take a technology that's already, out of the box, capable of producing virtually anything, and deliberately restrict it to producing only your product?

Re:

[TheRaven64]

Nonsense. A limited rate or total download cap would satisfy the network neutrality requirements and cost no more than allowing unlimited access to a restricted set of sites.

Re:

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

well, as long as I'm one of the few that actually get a heroin-locked replicator, then I'm totally cool with that. Heroin is pretty expensive, and easy to move. In this case, there has got to be some bribes not spent to the correct TRAI people, and they're throwing a fit. Seems to be an unenforceable threat, since India has no Net Neutrality laws...not sure why Reliance actually backed down here.

Re:

[mysidia]

So it is acceptable to you that the destitute of India get ZERO connectivity, as opposed to a free walled garden?

It's obviously not a "Free" walled garden. Whoever is paying the cost of the data is subsidizing those sites out of pocket.

Can you provide a basis for allowing traffic to another provider to be free other than "That provider is financing the ISP in exchange for unfavorably preferable treatment" ?

The principle of assholish-ness

[Kludge]

In reality it would cost Facebook no more to allow these people full internet access than it does to allow them the limited access that they have. The reality is that they are just being assholes, limiting peoples' access. But by giving it to poor people for "free", they can get all sorts of ignorant people to come to their defense. "Oh, restricted internet is better than no internet."
Facebook, Google, etc. are evil.

Re:

[unixisc]

I share concerns that such service violates Net Neutrality rules and imposes walled garden on its users. The fact that it is free is irrelevant, as the principle it violates has nothing to do with the cost.

You are a moron!

To access these services, one would STILL need some sort of Internet access, unless Facebook has suddenly decided to become a carrier in India. One would have to contact an Airtel or a Reliance or whatever, and either get a cellular service, or a broadband service from one of the providers. Once they get it, they get to access 'Free Basics'. In other words, 'Free Basics' is no different from any other free app already available in the online stores.

Walled Garden only applies if Fac

Re:

[jandersen]

The fact that it is free is irrelevant...

There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say; as a user, you pay many times over for this kind of 'free' by being exposed to adverts, having you every move tracked and your information sold off to unknown third parties. This sort of watering down the concept of what is 'free' is a bad thing - quite apart from the inevitable association with important ideas of freedom, it is simply a barefaced lie.

Re:

[yes-but-no]

If they let two way flow of information, then it's (bit) okay. By two-way, you should be able to voice your opinion -- things like email, twitter, blogs. Else all they offer is like a TV where you are shoved with information (mostly ads, agenda-driven-info) which you can't truly choose. Anything that helps in free flow of information is good for all. Again unless you have freedom to access any site, the whole plan is like the private-media driven pre-internet days. Just to aid the powers that be to maintain

It's free kids. Give it a try.

[ITRambo]

I'll take free Internet access even if it's based around Facebook's version of the web. You can still get things done, get email, etc. The government of India may be pandering to, or paid by, India's ISP's to bend to their will. The excuse about lack of net neutrality is nonsense. This seems to be the Facebook version of AOL, only without the floppy disks or $22 per month charge.

This is an app?

[truck_soccer]

That runs on your phone? How did your phone get the app? How does the app reach the internet? Is this just a web browser? Do I live under a rock? (yes)

Re:

[tepples]

Perhaps the phone got the app through the carrier's preload list, through some public Wi-Fi hotspot, or through a small download on pay-per-GB terms.

Re:

[unixisc]

Why not Economics?

Re:

[tepples]

Because the prize for economics is not technically a Nobel prize; it's the Bank of Sweden's prize in memory of Nobel. Or because the Nobel committee has shown itself willing to award prizes based on promises rather than actions, as in 2009 when it awarded the prize for peace to newly elected US President Barack Obama.

Re:

[TapeCutter]

wanker

Re:

[tepples]

"Criticizing our President [...] may constitute an act of treason"
That's technically correct in that there may exist extreme scenarios where criticism rises to the level of "levying war against [the United States], or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort" (U.S. Const. III.3; 18 U.S.C. 2381). But the First Amendment has been interpreted to state that these are few and far between, and questioning the motivations of the Nobel committee is highly unlikely to be among them.

Re:

[SuricouRaven]

I think Obama got that prize mostly for keeping McCain out.

Boots on the ground vs. Game of Drones?

[tepples]

Would McCain's boots on the ground have necessarily been more destructive than Obama's Game of Drones?

If it was really about helping people

[Anonymous Coward]

If it was really about helping people by providing online access, then the access would not be limited to specific web sites. The other sites are just the fig leaf for getting a billion people hooked on Facebook.

Free shuttle bus service is the same

[climb_no_fear]

So companies that provide free shuttle bus service to their business or a set of businesses like a mall are somehow different than this?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like having a bus route that can take you anywhere you want to go, but you're only allowed to get off at certain free stops unless you pay. The limitation is somewhere between arbitrary and anti-competitive.

The AOL of 2016

[cHiphead]

Facebook is the new AOL, just worldwide.

Re:

[malditaenvidia]

Can't wait for those free drink coasters in the mail.

And nothing of value was lost.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Fazebook is the new AOL

LOL. Brilliant! But, FTFY. :-)

Facebook is yet-another-stupid-fad. If you're dumb enough to use Facebook, well, nothing more really needs to be said.

Re:

[UnknownSoldier]

Fazebook is nothing new as this history of social media [copyblogger.com] shows; before it there were:

* Classmates
* Open Diary
* Friendster
* myspace
* Live Journal
* Plaxo

Fazebook is the only one that gained critical mass. So yeah, Fazebook is just-another-gossip-fad.

Do as I say, I say.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> who say it limits users to a walled garden populated solely by Facebook's partners.

It's interesting how socialist governments that specialize in forcing walled gardens of services, making illegal competition by the private sector, suddenly get bent out of shape over it when a private co.pany offers voluntary participation.

They'll get creative

[unencode200x]

While I disagree with the walled garden, I wonder if the Indians will find workarounds. Perhaps they'll post news articles's text or send each other files through chat to spread information they would otherwise not have access to.

Get some

[101percent]

Get some India. I stand with you and admire your steadfast. I'm sure there are some /. users in India; Alexa confirms this, but not netcraft.

Net Neutrality in India?

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Quite bizarre, especially since there seems to be no actual Net Neutrality laws in India [wikipedia.org]. They've been talking about it recently quite a bit, yet TRAI has only a draft that they just recently stopped taking comments on. I'm surprised Reliance Communications didn't tell the TRAI to go shove off until the Indian Parliament actually has a law on the books. This would never happen in the US, just imagine AT&T actually stopping to do anything just because there MIGHT soon be a law against it.

Re:

[yes-but-no]

Indian preamble has the word 'socialist'. It's not a nation of free-run capitalism. For all the bad mouthing by western media, the life condition of vast majority of the billion folks is fine .if not great. Hardly anyone worries about roof over their head or food on the table or getting medical help. It's not a land ruled only by money (hopefully it stays for a long time like that)