Are Indians too stupid to be trusted with free Internet? Spurred on by wealthy white activists, the Indian telecoms regulator TRAI has stepped in to save poor Indians from themselves. Western elites think they shouldn’t get free internet. Earlier today, India banned differential pricing for data, a move which outlaws any kind of any out-of-bundle data package. That happens to …
The premise of this article is that India's poor is being treated differently, because us smart westerners think that they'll be 'captured' by "Free Basics". This is a misunderstanding of the situation.
The same would be true true of any internet users in any market. India's poor are not getting treated any differently. If any company anywhere was allowed to offer free-internet then the results would be the same. The competition is killed off, effectively priced out the market, and the company behind the deal is left in a monopoly position. This is as true for rich westerners as it is for poor Indians.
" If any company anywhere was allowed to offer free-internet then the results would be the same. The competition is killed off, effectively priced out the market, and the company behind the deal is left in a monopoly position. This is as true for rich westerners as it is for poor Indians."
Then the government should provide the same kind of service, gratis to their people. Once people gain access to these types of service, they will naturally demand more and hopefully the price will go down as they become more wealthy as a result of the extra services they are able to access.
This has to start somewhere, and they can't afford or currently probably even don't want access to the full internet.
France had Minitel, UK had Prestel & then Teletext, US had bulletin boards, all very primitive by today's standards but satisfied a need for citizens to communicate & disseminate information electronically
Demonstrably, they are. Basics is live in 37 countries and has been shut down by the elites in just two.
Many, but by no means all, countries have legislation preventing the sale of physical goods at below-cost prices, to help prevent monopolisation. Just as in this case, whether to make that illegal is a national decision, taking into account their own national circumstances and their national approach to regulation. Does that mean that the poor in Belgium, Canada and South Africa are being treated unfairly?
The competition is killed off, effectively priced out the market, and the company behind the deal is left in a monopoly position.
This is complete horseshit. Akin to "pre-crime" it identifies the "pre-monopolist" and assumes that any new entrant to the as-yet-nonexistent market can't compete with "basic lousy free". I know of no market where that happens. Some people should get a mighty kick in the nads and be told to go back to micro economics 101, and not the one by the Marxists.
(Kudos btw for using the image adorning the 1982 edition of the Oxford University Press translation of Winfried Baumgart's "Imperialism: The Idea and Reality of British and French Colonial Expansion 1880-1914", a book that deserves to be re-read)
Nothing "pre" about it. There are already companies in India in this market. Facebook is already in this market in India. This is a case of Facebook saying "We've lots of cash, so we can crush this online market in its infancy." It would make it practically impossible for other companies to survive. The masses with little money would use Facebook approved free services. Those who need to talk to the masses will naturally use those same services. Those who need to talk to those who talk to the masses would follow. And so on all the way up. The top tiers may be using the "premier" versions, but it'll still all be based within the companies permitted in Facebook's cosy club at the bottom.
The bait of free internet might seem on the face of it attractive. After all, as long as people are getting online for free that must be good, right? But it would leave India with the internet that Facebook thinks India needs. And don't lets kid ourselves, it will ultimately be run on the basis of what's good for Facebook. Any hope of a vibrant, competitive market would be lost, without any input from Indian companies, who might be far better placed to determine what's good for India.
Here in Western Canada I see people with perfectly good internet connections get introduced to Facebook by well meaning friends trying to "teach them the internet". That appears to kill their wider internet experience which one would hope they would move on to participate in. For some reason Facebook seems to block their progress. I'm not sure how to explain this in terms of this article because these people are definitely not poor, but it would indicate to me that it is not a good idea to start people off with a Facebook experience.
"There is no market. They have no money."
Years ago, that's what I was thinking when people were going on and on about China being a vast uptapped market.
What I didn't realize was that that little problem was going to be solved by sending our jobs over there.
"We fight for a free and open internet, advocating for the Net Neutrality principle that internet access should be offered to everyone on a nondiscriminatory basis, without favoring certain websites, applications, or services." -- Accessnow -- Net Discrimination
Mr. Levy is only parroting the mantra of the organization that employs him. "Access" is what they say it is.
Free Basics has launched in over of the 30 of world’s poorest populations.
And it's not free nor the Internet. It's a malicious exploitation and curated walled garden of data.
I think the Indians are smart.
"Nobody could mistake the Basics walled garden experience for the full internet."
It's not even like AOL or WAP. It's tiny. It's promotion is grossly dishonest.
A fairer analogy would be The Raj's export of Indian Cotton to UK (or maybe just England) and Indians having to buy only British Cotton.
Facebook are only helping themselves.
For people who earn $1 a day, then, Basics is an entry point into a world that was previously out of their reach.
But what are they going to be entering it with? If they're on $1 a day then where do they get the $100's computer from? And if they're accessing via a communal computer, like the sort that's available at public libraries, why do they need their own ISP?
I guess poor people in wealthier countries who can't afford internet access don't qualify for Free Basics because they're not projected to become more "middle class"?
If your choice of food brand was as binding as your social network, food companies would be handing out free food to the world's poor.
This isn't like asking why a poor man needs a bathtub in his home. It's like asking why a poor man needs a bathtub if he doesn't have a home to put it in.
The service (or bathtub) is useless if the owner has no way to take advantage of it. And unlike the bathtub, there's nothing you can do with an internet connection, except sell the copper wire.
Thats not really an anwer and more of a strawman argument. He's not saying they don't NEED computers or that a computer would be wasted on them. He is (rightfuly) wondering how someone on a $1 dollar a day budget is going to get access to even the Basics "internet" on offer. The probable answer is that indeed many communities will be sharing a device paid for from some common source and that then paying for continued full internet access might be too much of a burden.
" They'd only keep coal in them"
Surprisingly - some did. That's not apocryphal.
Just because some things were considered by the middle class to be aspirational - many did not see the need for them. In the same way the middle classes tried to impose their own rules of etiquette and language. The crooked little finger when drinking tea out of a china cup is probably one of the more extreme examples of middle class affectations - and eating perfectly solid cakes with a fork.
1 dollar in India buys you waaaay much more than in USofA or any other first world country, so only people who do not understand basic economy would ever use that argument.
Providing free access to English language content for people who at large do not speak it is on a totally different level of usefulness.
"Providing free access to English language content for people who at large do not speak it is on a totally different level of usefulness."
English has long been the lingua franca of India. There were protests when the government said that it would no longer be the official language. Favouring one of the regional languages instead it is politically/tribally divisive.
As I recall, when India first gained its independence, one of the first things they tried to do was throw out English as the official language because it smacked too much of colonialism. Then they discovered the only way the various regions could talk to one another was in English. So they kept it. I mean, you might like the Germans manage to construct High Indie out of the various dialects (more numerous than they were in Germany) but you'd then have a language nobody knew and everybody would have to learn. Much easier to just stick with English, (Even if it is a bitch to learn since we've imported from damn near every other language on the planet without regularizing things. And that's BEFORE you get to the differences between British and 'Merkin English.)
" I mean, you might like the Germans manage to construct High Indie out of the various dialects [...]"
Hindi is the majority language - if you include the many regional variations of it. Some of the other languages aren't even Indo-Aryan. There are about twenty other officially recognised languages - but that excludes many of the smaller ones. That is why English remains a neutral administrative requirement.
IIRC The recent conservative government tried to establish Hindi as the only official language - and effectively their particular reading of Hindu as the prime religion. The latter has also involved censoring the Hindu religious stories to remove the sexual activities and particularly the homosexuality of the gods. As yet they haven't actually destroyed the ancient temple statues that have shocked/amused many tourists.
This rewriting of the country's cultures into a particular conservative brand has been resisted by many people.
The situation is akin to apartheid South Africa where the lingua franca between the many native tribes was English. An attempt to force Afrikaans to be used instead in their schools led to the township student riots.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_with_official_status_in_India
"[...] any one want to try and justify the caste system?"
Human tribal nature - it's hereditary and is enshrined by nepotism. The UK is now settling into a new era where upward mobility is once again confounded by class barriers in education and careers.
Same as the ruling elite in the UK and probably the USA. Note how many new generation politicians come from elite political families - irrespective of political party. Even theoretically communist countries often establish family dynasties.
AC,
I am well aware of the reason and the tribal nature of human society. That is not a justification for what seems to be a particularly pernicious system. Work hard in the UK and you will be accepted by most of society even if you do not leave your roots behind. A Dalit is always a Dalit and a Brahmin always a Brahmin.
The privileges and limitations that the caste system imposes on Indians, while still present, are rapidly being eliminated. Their constitution (whose primary author, Dr. Ambedkar, was a Dalit), guarantees equality under the law and moreover there are significant reservations (much more prevalent than American affirmative action) in many spheres of life, especially in education and government jobs, to ensure that disadvantaged groups get a leg up.
"And there you have it. Why risk it you are in power or a member of an elite* caste.
* elite - this it is a matter of opinion, any one want to try and justify the caste system?"
Most of them are probably still Mostly Harmless...
(Mine's the one with the Military Lasers in the pocket)
Isn't there some way to support free internet for India's poorest, while not turning them into fodder for the Facebook and Google machines?
To be honest, I am amazed that Zuck hasn't done this. I am certain that he could come up with a subsidy offer that does not require a walled garden, was (at least) financially break-even and which would gather him MASSIVE positive support, and a billion new customers, in the world's largest democracy.
Why not just sponsor (limited speed) internet access, with no site restrictions but with massive advertising and promotion of facebook, and (financially contributing) partner sites. Completely neutral and advertising subsided. The way things work in other markets!
Isn't there some way to support free internet for India's poorest, while not turning them into fodder for the Facebook and Google machines?
There's no free lunch, so there are only three options:
1) you get something "free" but you are in fact the product.
2) Or you pay for it.
3) Or some other group are made to pay on your behalf.
In this case, it seems the Indian government have decided that option 1 is wrong (without needing to let the population decide for themselves), option 3 is not apparently on the table, and as the peasants can't afford option 2, they can do without it.
"fodder for the Facebook and Google machines"
yes, screw those evil parasites , those giant monsters who will just eat a soul up and spit him out when his wallet , and life are fully drained.
Damn them and their completely free services. If only they hadnt made them completely subscription free, optional , easy to use.
I mean that google , a universal search engine that can search the whole internet for you in less than a second (and 100x better than the comptition) - who needs that? screw them , I'd rather flounder around trying random URLS till i get where i want.
I mean a search engine? for free? stupid idea. Once the internet gets big enough it may one day need one . Maybe once it gets as big as my encyclopedia Brittanica cos i definately need the index on that or id be lost.....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
