> In my opinion, no internet is better than a limited internet.

All of the proposed charitable objectives(as opposed to Facebook's own interests) would be served by just providing free internet with a limited data cap.

Customers would want more data badly, local entrepreneurs would be free to make any kind of app to serve the poor, rather than being restricted by Facebook's guidelines, and can even be not disallowed to compete with Facebook.

The problem with internet connectivity in India is that rural areas do not have good coverage or fiber or even copper. Internet.org doesn't address any of this, so this is NOT aimed at the poor.

It is instead aimed at teenagers, who can't pay for their own data packs yet, but still have access to smartphones. Facebook is trying to ensure that no startup ever takes mindshare away from Facebook.

This is a good point that both supporters and opponents of this initiative should gather more information about: who actually accesses services using this Facebook program? Is it in fact the previously unconnected?

And vice-​versa: when you talk to the unconnected, what is preventing them from getting online? Are data costs the main barrier? Anecdotally (and admittedly my personal conversations aren’t an exhaustive survey) in India even from lower-​income people I hear people talk a lot more about needing money to buy/​repair a phone compared to anyone saying they can’t afford a data plan.

Most of the "previously unconnected" are people who know the value of the Internet (It's used pervasively enough that people who don't use it still have an idea of what it is), have the capability of using it, but don't want to. Very few of them are ones who can't afford it. I mean, they exist, sure, but for them the cost of a phone that can handle the internet well is probably the deciding factor, not the data plan prices. These phones cost Rs. 5k+ (cheapest I can think of) and last maybe two years without repair. Basic data plans can come at Rs 100 a month, prepaid data is generally even cheaper. No, the data plan is not the deciding factor here.

Internet.org is probably more likely to move existing Internet users onto the walled garden, because everyone loves free things.

I don't know if this is practically true for a lot of these countries. In a lot of these countries, a vast majority of the population doesn't have easy education, and are often poor. Countries like India have a much better percentage (but still small) of the population that can afford the internet, that ISPs are incentivized to grow and expand. Countries like Zambia -- not so much (I don't actually know if internet.org is in Zambia). I don't know that a small business in Zambia has the capital to expand considering how many people can afford it.

Interesting question.

Should foreign companies be allowed to create monopolies, because potential local competitors do not have enough capital currently?

I guess the obvious answer is no, but its still an interesting line of discussion.

  >I don't know that a small business in Zambia has the capital to expand considering how many people can afford it.

The answer is yes. There is a Liquid Telecom[1] is laid lots of fibre in Zambia, with the intention of having fibre coverage from 'Cape to Cairo'

1.http://liquidtelecom.com/news-events/news/263-liquid-telecom...

> All of the proposed charitable objectives(as opposed to Facebook's own interests) would be served by just providing free internet with a limited data cap. Customers would want more data badly, local entrepreneurs would be free to make any kind of app to serve the poor...

Great point. "Small data payloads" would become a factor in competition, too.

> In my opinion, no internet is better than a limited internet.

It's so easy to make choices for others when you already have what they don't.

I don't see how the people who don't have internet, are making choices in any way at all?

They have no way to make an informed choice, or even to make a choice, and there is no media who speaks out for them. There is no wallet for them to vote from, and no competition to choose from.

Instead the whole move is designed to prevent them from making choices, in the future, choices that are contrary to Facebook's market domination.

Actually it's called an informed choice.

> It's so easy to make choices for others when you already have what they don't.

I see your point, but most safety regulation could be criticized the same way. We as a society won't allow you to buy or sell a house that doesn't meet building codes, meat that doesn't pass inspection, etc.

This is a restriction on your freedom and could be viewed as paternalistic, but it also prevents poor, desperate people from getting sick living in asbestos houses.

Is Facebook-controlled internet like an asbestos house? Arguably.

> With no internet, people WANT the internet very badly.

Actually, the opposite is true. When people have no internet, they don't know about the internet, and therefore don't want it. When people have a little internet, they realize how great the internet it is, and want more of it. It's like offering a free sample; no different than any other marketing tactic. If the thing being marketed is a good thing, then surely the marketing tactic is good? ( as long as it isn't exploitative or anti-competitive or anything)

> With no internet, ambitious entrepreneurs see a market willing to pay for their services.

It appears Facebook is one of those entrepreneurs. There was no internet; now there is internet.org and whatever those other ambitious entrepreneurs have offered.

Did you read the article? It claims internet.org is not limited internet:

> Mark Zuckerberg had come out in defence of the programme, saying it did not block or throttle services and is not in conflict with net neutrality.

Just because it doesn't throttle services doesn't change the fact that internet.org gets to decide what services get on the platform in the first place.

"Developer participation on the Internet.org Platform, including the information submitted with your application, is otherwise governed by our standard legal terms . Collectively, our standard legal terms and these supplemental terms are the entire agreement between you and Facebook relating to Internet.org, and any terms of use for your service will not apply to Facebook. Submission does not guarantee that your site(s) will be made available through Internet.org."

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org

If you can't open any other website other than the 50 or so provided by Facebook, then it is in effect a limited internet.

Arguments that "saying it did not block or throttle services", tries to imply that "This is not the Internet, so we are not blocking anything on the Internet". That's just hogwash.

It is. Free lane is fundamentally similar to fast lane.

Also, if you use Internet.org, you cannot use other websites unless you stop using Internet.org, you get a "fuck off" message for any other website you want to visit, even if you want to pay for it with usual pay as you go data charges.