[slaxman]

Few points here:

1. It's not really internet. It's a set of 100 sites that includes a real estate portal and a personal blog. If you are talking about connecting the unconnected with essential services, why have these on your list? On the other hand, chennairains.org, a website that helped people during extreme floods in chennai was not on that list.

2. There is no proof that "free basics" actually improves internet connectivity. In fact, Facebook's telecom partner (Reliance Comm) advertises it as a way to save money for surfing on facebook and whatsapp.

3. None of the traffic must be encrypted

4. All traffic flows through facebook's servers

5. It's not an open platform. Facebook and Telcos reserve the right to accept or deny websites on "Free Basics"

The above points make it clear that "free internet" is a facade and it's more of a walled garden that makes facebook the gatekeeper. Another Telco launched something similar a few months ago and was scrapped because it violated net neutrality.

Arguments that "free basics" is required for internet to grow in India are ridiculous. India added _52 Million_ internet users in the first six months of 2015 (http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-09-03/news...)

[dingo_bat]

Even though it seems a big number, 52 million is nothing compared to the people who still do not have access. I think the growth rate is not fast enough. We should be doubling the installed base every year. 52 million is just about 1/6 of the total number of users. And I'm inclined to believe that this sluggishness is due in part to the cost of access.

[slaxman]

Once you reach a certain scale of users, percentage growth don't matter because it's hard to hit big absolute numbers. In whichever way you look at it, 52Mn is a freakishly huge number. And this timeline is 6 months, not a year.

Further "Free basics" has been launched in other countries. But there is not proof that it results in more internet connectivity. (http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/ther...)

[dingo_bat]

I do not see any proof that such a correlation does not exist. Your link contains an offhand remark that does not cite any study or data. I think it's common sense that if you offer something for free, more people will use it.

[slaxman]

It's not common sense. A good example is the vast number of open source projects that are never used. Or free books that are never read. Also, I would like to remind you that, it's not the internet that facebook is giving access to. It's sites that have paid facebook to be on it.

[ocean3]

Cost of access would come into picture when they have a medium to access it. Even with low cost Android been available most might not be be to afford it. I see still a good number of middle class people using mobiles which don't access to Internet.

[piyushpr134]

At that rate, India would have ubiquitous internet penetration in next 10 years. I think it would happen much sooner. It would definitely not happen due to Free basics. It would happen as people would see value in it. India has 1 bn mobile phone connections BTW.

[seshagiric]

Agree with most but to be fair, although currently the program is limited to few 100 sites, the way the program works is if you own a website, you can register it with Freebasics and they will provide free access. And to this the sites cannot be encrypted. For information like e.g. what helps Farmers, encryption need not be a blocker.

[slaxman]

Two points to this argument:

1. what about farmer details. If you want to personalise info for farmers, you will need to register them and capture info. W/o encryption, fb has access to it and is likely to sell it to advertisers.

2. The argument that "Free basics" is essential for farmer is wrong. Reuters has a paid product for farmers (http://www.rmlglobal.com/) and is used by over 1.4 Million farmers in India.

[rodgerd]

So I can beg Facebook for permission to be on the Internet. Wow, wonderful!