back to article Facebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price

Who could possibly be against free internet access? This is the question Mark Zuckerberg asks in a piece for the Times of India in which he claims Facebook’s Free Basics service “protects net neutrality”. Free Basics is the rebranded Internet.org, a Facebook operation where by partnering with local telecoms firms in the …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”.

    Worked in Nigeria, the number of princes now there is amazing.

  2. Commswonk
    Devil

    Time for an old (but appropriate) joke...

    What's the difference between Mark Zuckerberg and God?

    God doesn't think he's Mark Zuckerberg.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Time for an old (but appropriate) joke...

      Sorry, not even close.

      Zuckerberg thinks he's Donald Trump.

      (If you don't understand it... you don't know the Don.)

      Its a great deal for everyone until you realize that he's the only one making money off of it.

      When will people learn... T.A.N.S.T.A.A.F.L applies.

  3. Graham Marsden
    Thumb Down

    Free Basics? Sounds more like Free Basing...

    ... once they've got you hooked, you're stuck with them.

    As always, when someone tells you it's 'free', the first question you need to ask is "What is this *actually* going to cost me?"

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge

      And the second question that should follow is : what profit are you going to make by giving this to me ?

    2. Mark 85

      Re: Free Basics? Sounds more like Free Basing...

      Sounds like the Win10 marketing strategy then, doesn't it?

  4. ppawel
    Devil

    All about those ads

    Get more people online, the ads won't click themselves...

    1. TeeCee Gold badge
      Meh

      Re: All about those ads

      ...the ads won't click themselves...

      Of course not, there are clickbots to do that for them.

      The only people who think that actual, real people click internet ads are the internet advertising agencies.....

      1. csw.reeve

        Re: All about those ads

        I click ads all the time.. Mostly of competitor companies though ;)

      2. LaeMing

        Re: All about those ads

        The only people who think that actual, real people click internet ads are the /clients of/ internet advertising agencies.....

        FIFY

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”

    while of the other nine, three are scammed by Nigerians (I'm sure there are enough poor suckers out of a 1.2 billion to part with their hard-saved cash), another two pwned by a banking trojan, and the rest have been pulled out of their cardboard house into the glorious world economy of call centre sweatshops. But hey, that's "sharing" (profits and labour).

    1. Commswonk

      Re: “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”

      Perhaps more pertinently “for every ten (impoverished) people connected to the internet, roughly nine are not lifted out of poverty”.

      Nine out of ten trains are late or do not arrive at all.

      Nine out of ten patients are not cured by medical treatment.

      Other comparisons are possible, of course; I am merely trying to point out that a 1 in 10 success rate is not entirely impressive.

    2. LaeMing

      Re: “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”

      @what's a handle.

      But at least they can play farmville in their 5-minute meal break (singular) per day.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Spot on

    May I congratulate the Reg for publishing an article that's clear, concise and cuts through all the self-serving corporate BS?

    1. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Spot on

      So very true, however, Zuck, if you manage to introduce "free" internet to North Korea then I will give you an up vote (while still not joining Facebook).

  7. Forget It
    Thumb Up

    This article: LIke!

  8. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Devil

    He's not the Messiah

    He's a very naughty boy.

  9. Seajay#

    The wrong question

    We shouldn't be asking whether Free Basics is better than free, unlimited, unmonitored, ad-free, gluten-free, organic internet. Obviously that would be better but equally obviously that's not on offer. The question is, is Free Basics better than no internet? Because that's the choice that many people actually face.

    I wouldn't want Free Basics of course but I live in the UK so, like everyone here, I am fabulously wealthy by global standards. But it seems wrong to me to ban Free Basics when for at least some people that means that they will go from having very imperfect internet to none. Why do we feel the need to make the decision on their behalf that it would be best for them to have nothing?

    Notwithstanding the above, he is clearly wrong to say that this in any way supports net neutrality.

    1. Steve K

      Re: The wrong question

      This is assuming that the target people have a device to use it on (PC/tablet/smartphone), electricity, comms in-range, literacy, a permanent dwelling etc.

      I think it needs to be asked whether this solving the right problem at the right time, and if it is, any monopoly should be state-run/owned at least in the early years (although there is a quandary involved in turning down a rich funding source like FaceBook...)

      Steve

      1. Seajay#

        Re: The wrong question

        "I think it needs to be asked whether this solving the right problem at the right time"

        I have to disagree with this. When McVities bring out a new flavour of biscuit, we don't ask whether it is solving the right problem at the right time. We ask whether they are causing unreasonable harm to third parties. If the answer to that is no, we don't ask anything else and we let them get on with it.

        Why does this offer of ads for free web access need such tight scrutiny? Does it matter that there is little evidence that internet access lifts people out of poverty? There is almost no evidence of chocolate digestives lifting people out of poverty but we're happy to let them be sold. It's a simple transaction between Facebook and it's Indian users; here's a free web connection but you can only get some parts on the internet and Facebook is the only social network you can get on it, because they are the ones paying. Why does the Indian government need to get involved with that?

        There is little danger of a monopoly in internet access here. The article gives an example from Bangladesh of a competing ads-for-net-access service and most people go on to buy full access anyway. The only people who have something to lose from this are rival social networks but frankly network effects have already buried them.

        1. Lamont Cranston

          Re: ads for free web access

          @Seajay But it isn't free web access in exchange for ads, is it? It's free access to the internet services that Facebook provides (Facebook, Whatsapp, etc.) which is anticompetitive. Whilst free access to a reduced service might sound appealing, when compared to no access to a full service, the truth is that the restriction of choice that it brings is anticompetitive and so likely to harm the interests of those consumers over the long term (by disadvantaging any potential competitors).

          For Zuckerberg to claim that he's protecting net neutrality just shows what a brass neck he has.

        2. heyrick Silver badge

          Re: The wrong question

          "There is almost no evidence of chocolate digestives lifting people out of poverty but we're happy to let them be sold."

          WTF? What does Facebook's service in India have to do with Digestives?

          The big problem as I see it is that the version of Internet in Free Basics is a restricted "Net Lite", and most crucially https is not supported. This in a time when companies such as Google are promoting the use of basic encryption. How will this ultimately help anybody?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The wrong question

            The big problem as I see it is that the version of Internet in Free Basics is a restricted "Net Lite", and most crucially https is not supported. This in a time when companies such as Google are promoting the use of basic encryption. How will this ultimately help anybody?

            Easy: it helps Zuck to rope in all the people who are the moment innocent enough to believe everything you throw at them. In essence, this is offering "free" service (I'll get to that in a minute) in exchange for a monopoly. Even Microsoft in its most evil and powerful days didn't dare try doing this that overtly (as an aside, AFAIK they did it covertly, which is why no government project actually worked between approx 1998 and 2010).

            The "Free" is, of course, the usual blatant lie every US megacorp uses to rope in the idiots (it's self selecting: smarter people see through this, but as they are a minority their contribution isn't really missed). People pay with details of their personal lives and (much worse) by revealing details of their friends' lives, which is information not subject to any privacy law.

            Now, the whole Zuck thing. I think it's actually a good idea he lives in an isolated, private spot now he's bought out all his neighbours. All we need now is a good fence, and a power cut.

            Sorry, was daydreaming for a moment.

            1. Queasy Rider

              'Revealing details of their friends' lives"

              You can run but you can't hide. I bought a snack in K-Mart yesterday. Paid cash. Was asked for my phone number. Said no. But I can't hid from my family, friends and acquaintances, can't say, "Delete that mention of me at your picnic," since I don't even know about it. I don't have credit cards, or loyalty cards, but I'd wager that a thousand times more corporations know my name, address and phone number, than people I actually know.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The wrong question

          <i>"There is almost no evidence of chocolate digestives lifting people out of poverty but we're happy to let them be sold"</i>

          What an utterly absurd argument. Since when did McVities or any similar company start marketing a special derivative of their normal product range targetted at helping poor people in third world countries?

          The point is that Zukerburg is pushing a product claiming to be intended to help poor people in third world countries access 'the internet' as a charitable gesture - however it is clear that the product is actually designed to contain such users within the Facebook walled garden, and closely monitor their activities in order to generate corporate profit and investor growth.

    2. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: The wrong question

      Is Free Basics better than no internet?

      It would be easy to say, yes, but I don't think it is actually that simple. We should not view it as what's better for some but must view it as what's best for all.

      If Free Basics were just a proxy service, allowing access to any and all sites, stripping javascript and compressing images to make it lightweight enough for service providers to carry for free, than I would have few problems with it. I wouldn't begrudge the proxy provider discreetly advertising that they were providing the service. I would probably use it myself; it would likely give a refreshingly speedy experience using bandwidth constrained comms.

      That's not however what Facebook is proposing.

      1. Seajay#

        Re: The wrong question

        @Jason Bloomberg

        You're asking "Would I want this?" and the answer is no for you (as it would be no for me). What I don't see is the jump from "I don't want it" to "The Indian government must step in to ban this activity between consenting adults."

    3. Lars Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: The wrong question

      "Why do we feel the need to make the decision on their behalf". Don't you think you answered your own question.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The wrong question

      STFU arrogant white person. The Indian people themselves are protesting against this, and Facebook felt the burn enough to run propaganda posters in India.

      I'd say the Indian people are expressing their opinion against this pretty well though government.

    5. P. Lee

      Re: The wrong question

      >But it seems wrong to me to ban Free Basics when for at least some people that means that they will go from having very imperfect internet to none.

      It isn't Internet, it's Facebook. They are trying to use past profits to purchase the right to exclude other companies from inter connectivity.

  10. Mage Silver badge
    Flame

    Who could possibly be against free internet access?

    No-one. But Zuckerberg isn't offering the Internet, but a walled garden, worse than the days of WAP in many ways.

    His parasitical company is the gatekeeper.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Who could possibly be against free internet access?

      Walled garden is hardly strong enough language here. If Apple has a walled garden, what Facebook is offering here is a prison yard with 30 foot high walls topped by two layers of razor wire and guard towers at hundred foot intervals each with two men operating 50 cal machine guns and flamethrowers!

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Who could possibly be against free internet access?

        @DougS You forgot the microphones and cameras recording every move, every word of the inmates.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Who could possibly be against free internet access?

          You want to use Facebook on iOS (or Android 6.x) so you can disable access to the camera and mic. I would never use it on anything where you can't.

  11. 2460 Something

    Completely outrageous the he has the audacity to try force the service by a twisted 'if you don't take it you are forcing them to stay in poverty.' Looks like they are thinking quite clearly and know that in the long term they will be much better without your 'free' offerings.

    1. Mark 85

      Outrageous indeed. Yet, Tim W. used to postulate that increased access did work for such things as weather reports, fishing reports, comms in general among the farmers and hunter/gatherer societies. The difference was/is as far as I can tell... Worstall was pushing a free or limited Internet. This "service" of Zuck's wouldn't allow for what Worstall was pushing.

  12. Marvin O'Gravel Balloon Face

    "But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations?"

    Isn't that a bus?

    1. DocJames
      Coat

      Isn't that a bus?

      No, it's a "universal transporter" for the UK that only goes to Nottingham, Manchester and Sunderland and doesn't acknowledge the existence of Sheffield, Leeds or Newcastle.

      If you own all the shops in Nottingham you'd think this was great, and be bewildered by why the UK population didn't love you for putting on for free.

      [I know I take these jokes too seriously. My coat, thank you]

  13. Just Enough

    Self serving Muppet is fooling no-one

    If Zuckerberg is feeling so generous and is so concerned about internet poverty, then why not spend the money on giving everyone in India heavily subsidised data tariffs? Or even handing out free pay-as-you-go cards?

    Then those in poverty can decide for themselves what websites they visit. Or is that a freedom too far?

  14. frank ly

    Communication

    "Ganesh apparently used Free Basics to double his crop yields and get a better deal for his produce."

    People in Kenya had similar experiences when cheap mobile phone communications with text messaging became available. This was because of an increase in communication between people over previously inconvenient distance. It's not about accessing internet websites, it's about people being able to communicate with each other anytime they want to and need to.

    1. Jason Hindle

      Re: Communication

      Yes, mobile phones have already done the job that Free Basics claims to do, and voice services work perfectly well in areas where literacy is low.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Which poor to help?

    By preventing a local Facebook (or whatever service) from starting isn't Mark putting a limit on how far the nations poor can be lifted? ... You can get enough to be a consumer of ads but don't go getting rich from internet entrepreneurial activities! !!

  16. Efros

    Self Serving Twonk

    Comment in the title, really all that can be said about him.

  17. Known Hero

    Mistake in the article ?

    Grameenphone gives users free data after they watch an advert.

    Well its not really free is it then. Is this a broad misconception that is accepted and I am being difficult, or should we realistically try and change people's conception of what is free, monetary value is not the only value.

    1. Lamont Cranston

      Re: Mistake in the article ?

      "Free" and "ad supported" are fairly interchangeable, I would have thought - I've always considered commercial tv and radio broadcasting to be "free", in so much as I don't have to pay any money for them.

      1. Known Hero
        Joke

        Re: Mistake in the article ?

        @Lamont Cranston

        Might want to start paying your TV license then ;)

    2. Jason Hindle

      Re: Mistake in the article ?

      I consider both Google and Facebook to be free. I barely notice the ads.....

  18. Cuddles

    Appeal

    "But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations, or an electricity provider that will only power certain home electrical devices?"

    If the alternative is no access to car travel or no power at all, why would that not be appealing? When it comes down to it, that's the whole point - such a scheme may not be good for society, competition, and so on, but it relies on being extremely good for the individual recipients to get people to accept it. Note that it's the government complaining about it, not mass protests from those being offered free but limited internet.

    1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

      Re: Appeal

      Giving some people the vote while excluding others from being able to vote could be said to be better than no one having a vote.

    2. Lamont Cranston

      Re: Appeal

      In an ideal world, governments look out for the interests of their citizens* - leaving everything in the hands on unregulated markets is just asking for trouble.

      *can't believe I kept a straight face whilst typing that

    3. laughingmyheartout

      Re: Appeal

      "Note that it's the government complaining about it, not mass protests from those being offered free but limited internet."

      They don't give a hoot what internet is, what FB is, who Zuckerberg is, what net neutrality is and what differential pricing is.

      So it has to be the government and the activists.

  19. Lamont Cranston
    Joke

    No Java, No Flash, no large images?

    I'd buy that for a dollar!

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    HTTPS

    I'm a hardliner when it comes to web encryption, and this is yet another reason to put the squeeze on http.

    Zuck could supply a proprietary "browser", but it would further shatter the illusion that this ain't the WWW.

  21. Infostack

    How can 3 sides can be wrong

    What can one say when all 3 sides are morally, technically and economically wrong?

    Is demand infinitely varied and growing an unbelievable rates? Yes.

    Is supply developing and obsoleting rapidly? Yes.

    Do any of the current models solve for these two realities? No.

    So what is the optimal competitive model that provides fast internet free everywhere (FIFE). Of course nothing is free in life; something we now know after 20 years of a fools promise of the "free" internet.

    People who analyze and contribute to this debate should understand how the term "free" developed in the 1990s. They would then know that net neutrality is a contrivance and fiction and that free had more to do with "unencumbered and exposed" and flat rate, than truly free. It came about because of equal access and horizontally scaled protocols and layers.

    But everything, every layer, every boundary point has an associated capex and opex and for investment to occur and new technology to be constantly introduced (ie a sustainable ecosystem) a return needs to be generated.

    Nor does that return need to come at the expense of our privacy or curiosity or desire to grow and change.

    It can be done if we (regulators, trade management, capitalists, academics and users) support and mandate interconnection out to the edge and embrace the notion of market driven internetwork settlements that clear supply and demand efficiently and rapidly north-south and east-west in the informational stack. The result will be pricing that reflects marginal cost across all demand curves. Marginal cost in a rapidly evolving model is never zero, regardless of what most assume about the digital economy.

    The result will be affordable, fast and secure internet for everyone regardless of income levels.

    After all the promise of digital networks and digital disruption of the analog real world, is that things should be cheaper and more accessible everywhere to everyone.

    This approach violates the tenets and principles of all 3 parties in the debate: Facebook's siloed ad model, net neutrality's unsustainable settlement free model, and the regulated monopolies expensive vertically integrated and balkanized edge access model. That's how all 3 parties to a debate can be wrong and on shaky ground.

    Michael Elling

    1. DocJames
      Joke

      Re: How can 3 sides can be wrong

      Has manfrommars1 got a new username?

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: How can 3 sides can be wrong @DocJames

        I was just going to write the same thing - there are some marked similarities!

  22. strum

    Metaphor rot

    >how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations?

    You mean - like a bus?

    No fan of 'Free Basics' but your metaphors need some thought.

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dear Zuck,

    This "charity" is worse than Gates "giving" (read: returning the money he stole from education) to get a knighthood.

    If you honestly wanted to help you would propose an open system, not a monopoly. India has already been colonised once, leave them alone.

  24. defiler

    What are the truly impoverished going to do with Facebook?

    Got dysentery again...

    #monday #fml #thirdworldproblems

  25. laughingmyheartout

    Charity is supposed to begin at home, no?

    They say charity begins at home.

    So charity should have begun from California, then to other states of America, next to Europe and finally Africa and Asia.

    Surprisingly, charity began on the other side of the mud ball.

  26. Crazy Operations Guy

    He has the money to build a proper network

    Why doesn't he just use some of his massive fortune to build a proper network and give everyone free, unrestricted internet access? Build a massive grid of 3G* cell phone towers connected through microwave links and powered by solar/wind.

    *3G because the equipment is quite cheap compared to 4G while providing enough speed for compressed internet traffic. Plus cell providers are flush with 3G cell phones that customers have traded in. Or maybe just create a purpose-built phone for such a market: replace the back-plate with a solar panel, make the OS very simple and easy to use, use a custom-built SoC with built-in hardware compression, a mechanical keyboard, and a modest resources.

    1. Michael Habel

      Re: He has the money to build a proper network

      Is any of that Capital even real? Who the hell would invest in Facebook expecting it to be the next Google? Mark might have sadly as many eyeballs, but I do my damendest to avoid the click-bait ad's.

  27. Old Handle
    Thumb Down

    HTTPS for Facebook only

    This little detail, which I hadn't heard before, is the most damning in my opinion. No Flash, JS or larges images, etc... Those aren't unreasonable limitations for a free low-bandwidth service. But encryption... That is the basics. Nobody in their right mind would consider doing online shopping without it, for instance. Or banking, or any kind of government site that handles private info.

    It also makes you wonder about Facebook's motives for wanting to keep everything cleartext, and none that come to mind are good.

  28. bruceld

    He's not being charitable. He just wants a billion more people to monitor with his data mining/selling algorithms and anthropological research that he can profit from and exploit in tomorrow's technology.

    Apple and Google have done this and its no coincidence that they are all the biggest corporations on Earth. It's all about exploitation and profit.

    If he really wants to help them he should open schools and universities, offer research for farming, access to clean water, pollution control, human rights, birth control, etc. But he won't because there's no profit in that.

    Charity indeed. His kid is going to inherit a fucked up world that he Suckerusallberg contributed to. Doesn't matter his kid will grow up sheltered and rich beyond imagination and will never get a chance to see a starving baby with flies stuck to their eyelids.

  29. nilfs2
    Devil

    All insanely rich people are crazy

    Nobody gets that rich by being a good person.

  30. James Wilson

    Half right

    Yep, Zuck's being completely disingenuous claiming this is altruism, FB ain't a charity and this is a business strategy. That said, the author isn't exactly against a bit of spin either: "limited only to Facebook, Facebook-owned WhatsApp, and a few other carefully selected sites and services" - commentards should check out what those "few" are before making up their minds whether or not it's a bad thing to offer free access to these sites to them. And follow the link to see how high Indian internet penetration levels and growth rates are.

    1. laughingmyheartout

      Re: Half right

      I am an Indian.

      This is the list of websites that was available on Free Basics the day it was suspended by TRAI -

      Faceboo

      Facebook Messenge

      Jagran Josh

      Astrology

      Hungama

      AP Speaks

      Malaria No More

      Facts for Life (Unicef)

      Social Blood

      BabyCenter & MAMA

      Reuters Market Lite

      Aaj Tak

      AccuWeather

      Amar Ujala

      BBC News

      IBN Live

      Daily Bhaskar

      Dictionary.com

      Jagran

      Maalai Malar

      Maharastra Times

      Translator

      wikiHow

      Wikipedia

      Basics of Internet

      BabaJob

      Bing Search

      OLX

      ESPN Cricinfo

      Nike Foundation (Girl Effect)

      UN Women (iLearn)

      Any one that says the poor in India will benefit from these sites doesn't have rudimentary knowledge about India or is simply joking.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like