Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Internet

Re:Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Inte... by basch on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @11:00AM (#9570527)

>It wouldn't cost them anything to extend it to the whole internet.

Yes it would, the entire point of the project is to make a subset low-bandwidth standard. Highly optimized from server all the way to device. By not encrypting it they can even use multicast and caching.

When you visit an internet.org site, your phone wont load 30 tracking js files from 30 different companies. It will load the text of the page.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Inte... by springgreen on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @11:40AM (#9570922)

You are mistaken about the cost structure of the internet.

For all practical purposes, all of the cost for providing internet services at scale is in the last mile. In other words, it would not cost internet.org anything significant to extend the service to cover the whole internet. It makes very little difference in cost whether they backhaul the traffic to their datacenter or their closest peering point.

If the requirement is to only provide a low bandidth service then it is trivial to restrict the bandwidth usage per end-user, even if it provides access to the whole internet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Internet.org Is Not Neutral, Not Secure, and Not the Inte... by thewarrior on Tuesday May 19, 2015 @11:32AM (#9570861)

I'm replying to you from UC Browser . It strips all JS and converts everything to plain HTML thats only a few KB. This is nothing new and has been done by many other players.

[ Parent | on HN ]