[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.