Subject: [gaia] fb's Free Basics in India

From: "El Khatib, Yehia (elkhatib)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 17:51:52 +0000

Tension between Indian telecom regulators and Facebook over its Free Basics program
http://tcrn.ch/1On2V1P

/Yehia

---

From: Richard Dent <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 10:48:38 +0000

Zuckerberg responds to the move with editorial:
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/

On 23/12/2015 17:51, El Khatib, Yehia (elkhatib) wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia

-- 
PhD Candidate
Department of Sociology
University of Cambridge

www.openaccessphd.com
@richarddent
Tel: 07827 537537

---

From: Nick Feamster <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 13:09:03 +0200

As long as you define “Facebook” as “basics”, his argument might make sense.  That is the crux of the issue and perhaps why he may be (willfully?) blind to the seemingly obvious sticking point: Who gets to decide what’s free vs. paid? Talk about a lever for control—by the companies who govern free basics, if not the governments themselves who might eventually wish to control access through this chokepoint.

-Nick

> On Dec 28, 2015, at 12:48 PM, Richard Dent <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:53:29 +0000

Facebook have (at least) two questions to answer:

1/ how do they decide transparently, what not to let people get to via
"basics"?
is it something that costs facebook too much, or is it just something that
doesn't earn facebook more money (e.g. through advertising revenue)?
(the regulatory position is obviously more general than this, but I'd just
ask this to start with, as I think the idea of not reaching all internet
sites that have a public IP is a Very Bad Precedent that better have a Very
Good Governance answer).

2/  if facebook are so nice, howcome I can't friend someone on another
social network directly from my facebook account? frankly, a facebook page
is a web page. I can link to anyone's web page from my home page, and they
can link to mine. Apps can follow those links. and if the pages have any
scripts/active/upload capability, can modify/add info there - so what are
the motives for facebook preventing this (and they do)? I can think of
some, but I'd like to know their specific business case arguments that an
open web (and open social media) is not as good or better than a walled
garden (see 1/ :-)

IP connectivity, and HTTP/URL connectivity are both network economies, and
various scaling laws apply (whether you buy Metcalfe's law or the
variants). Walled gardens are semi-monopolies, whatever level they operate
at. They may not necessarily be evil, but they better operate transparently
so the anti-trust people can check they are not just abusing their
privileged market position, or they are not welcome in democratic
capitalist societies...(or some other societies either:)

cheers
jon

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:48 AM, Richard Dent <[email-masked]> wrote:

> <http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/>
> gaia mailing [email-masked]://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
>
> --
> PhD Candidate
> Department of Sociology
> University of Cambridge
> www.openaccessphd.com
> @richarddent
> Tel: 07827 537537
>
>

---

From: Nick Feamster <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:13:30 +0200

Agreed, and I hadn’t even thought about point #2.  I don’t use Facebook, and it’s quite frustrating when people/groups/etc. have their “web pages” as Facebook pages that require me to sign up for Facebook just to see a web page.  This happens before pricing even comes into play; what happens when the Facebook webpages are free but other webpages are not? 

One company having increasing control over “the Internet” (or at least what some people think of as the Internet) seems like it carries significant potential for abuse of monopoly in the best case scenario. In the worst cast scenario, governments who want to censors or control the Internet no longer need to play with the ISPs… they can just work quietly with Facebook (often circumventing rule of law, e.g., wiretapping, etc.).

-Nick

> On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 1/ how do they decide transparently, what not to let people get to via "basics"?
> is it something that costs facebook too much, or is it just something that doesn't earn facebook more money (e.g. through advertising revenue)?
> (the regulatory position is obviously more general than this, but I'd just ask this to start with, as I think the idea of not reaching all internet sites that have a public IP is a Very Bad Precedent that better have a Very Good Governance answer).
> 
> 2/  if facebook are so nice, howcome I can't friend someone on another social network directly from my facebook account? frankly, a facebook page is a web page. I can link to anyone's web page from my home page, and they can link to mine. Apps can follow those links. and if the pages have any scripts/active/upload capability, can modify/add info there - so what are the motives for facebook preventing this (and they do)? I can think of some, but I'd like to know their specific business case arguments that an open web (and open social media) is not as good or better than a walled garden (see 1/ :-)
> 
> IP connectivity, and HTTP/URL connectivity are both network economies, and various scaling laws apply (whether you buy Metcalfe's law or the variants). Walled gardens are semi-monopolies, whatever level they operate at. They may not necessarily be evil, but they better operate transparently so the anti-trust people can check they are not just abusing their privileged market position, or they are not welcome in democratic capitalist societies...(or some other societies either:)
> 
> cheers
> jon
> 
>

---

From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:26:28 +0000

Probably MZ is following the law no 8 of the 22 immutable laws of marketing
pretty strongly :)

"Law # 8 – The Law of Category – A leading brand should promote the
category, not the brand"

Arjuna
On 28 Dec 2015 12:14, "Nick Feamster" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Agreed, and I hadn’t even thought about point #2.  I don’t use Facebook,
> and it’s quite frustrating when people/groups/etc. have their “web pages”
> as Facebook pages that require me to sign up for Facebook just to see a web
> page.  This happens before pricing even comes into play; what happens when
> the Facebook webpages are free but other webpages are not?
>
> One company having increasing control over “the Internet” (or at least
> what some people think of as the Internet) seems like it carries
> significant potential for abuse of monopoly in the best case scenario. In
> the worst cast scenario, governments who want to censors or control the
> Internet no longer need to play with the ISPs… they can just work quietly
> with Facebook (often circumventing rule of law, e.g., wiretapping, etc.).
>
> -Nick
>
> > is it something that costs facebook too much, or is it just something
> that doesn't earn facebook more money (e.g. through advertising revenue)?
> > (the regulatory position is obviously more general than this, but I'd
> just ask this to start with, as I think the idea of not reaching all
> internet sites that have a public IP is a Very Bad Precedent that better
> have a Very Good Governance answer).
> >
> > IP connectivity, and HTTP/URL connectivity are both network economies,
> and various scaling laws apply (whether you buy Metcalfe's law or the