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

Arjuna Sathiaseelan <arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mon, 28 December 2015 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B6D1AC3BA for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aZ91KxZDObf0 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x22a.google.com (mail-lf0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A6E21AC3C3 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id z124so197826613lfa.3 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zStSbJlyAgmleA8iXbY9WBLTYHJEo3mWPvJTI1WVrAw=; b=ktz2QVfD2+UwCMNZ5tmiOCpRlXHB5FyMHgjc8Dg/DA+/WMnuJ9QAENo5SYSMe/S3Wr wpO8nGI15qIuTMCV6E5mE8HTPrszAsa9va2dUpcLqTLyR3nKzLVpMh/hpNlrPk3mTAOC xH/PzIAMZrDanmYXB6fC6uENY8Yu0V2W+brBE7QYZBE4q+CZdnp8J3SvgO0qmAFOv/zq fFgbbWA8ajCPzoGmiFvSpyFn9bcM45T5h6QBuo43t5oZzGExXD4mVMSM0j7TXgoiE2S8 16hy17IzlrvL/6IS1Q1vbnLP3Y2vZdtTlIIHX5tAk0rPQetZPs+6gBdrCnrA/l8HnfcM /MtA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.25.152.148 with SMTP id a142mr2026337lfe.139.1451330788102; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Sender: arjuna.sathiaseelan@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.136.136 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.136.136 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:26:28 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <03895728-11D4-435F-9871-F0158800B9F2@cs.princeton.edu>
References: <D2A08FB4.F350%y.elkhatib@lancaster.ac.uk> <56811386.4060408@cam.ac.uk> <CAEeTejKzaKAj38=4dbzoqQJy+KJmC7tX3PJPqfdccZvY+apakQ@mail.gmail.com> <03895728-11D4-435F-9871-F0158800B9F2@cs.princeton.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:26:28 +0000
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 5R7lYx-2BDj3O8EbcA-0N_IpeDc
Message-ID: <CAPaG1AmWC-aGF-KFyRy7_T0ZXJpF6PzEnsi=nThrkYvN_oDBTA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Arjuna Sathiaseelan <arjuna.sathiaseelan@cl.cam.ac.uk>
To: Nick Feamster <feamster@cs.princeton.edu>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140144613a4510527fa489d
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/4oJZ-fy6JZSdA8-oq_fEyIe_iBk>
Cc: "gaia@irtf.org" <gaia@irtf.org>, Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Richard Dent <rd459@cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [gaia] fb's Free Basics in India
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:26:33 -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" <feamster@cs.princeton.edu> 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
>
> > On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:53 PM, Jon Crowcroft <jon.crowcroft@cl.cam.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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 <rd459@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > 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:
> >> Tension between Indian telecom regulators and Facebook over its Free
> Basics program
> >> http://tcrn.ch/1On2V1P
> >>
> >>
> >> /Yehia
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> gaia mailing list
> >>
> >> gaia@irtf.org
> >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> > --
> > PhD Candidate
> > Department of Sociology
> > University of Cambridge
> >
> >
> > www.openaccessphd.com
> >
> > @richarddent
> > Tel: 07827 537537
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gaia mailing list
> > gaia@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gaia mailing list
> > gaia@irtf.org
> > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>
> _______________________________________________
> gaia mailing list
> gaia@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
>