[cmadan]

> "some access is better than none at all"

Not really.

Mark said that governments and telcos decide which services go on internet.org

Do you really want the government (or even your telco) deciding which news source that the poor (who are easily influenced) read?

Leaving aside the preservation of competition, government deciding what news services to provide to the poor has huge political ramifications, especially when every media outlet has a bias towards one end of the political spectrum or other.

In this case, no access is far better than some access. Just because it didn't play out as bad as it could have in China, doesn't mean that the same will happen in India. See North Korea for example.

[icebraining]

the poor (who are easily influenced)

Thanks for making plain what others are implicitly saying. The arguments against zero-rating in general always seem to be based on the argument that the poor are stupid and as their superior, we know better. Paternalism at its finest.

In the case of Internet.org, I agree that the name is misleading bordering on fraud, and shouldn't be allowed. But besides that, how about letting people choose if they prefer to pay for full Internet access?

[nileshtrivedi]

No, it's the opposite. They are saying let the poor decide what services are essential for them, and not facebook/telcos/government.

[icebraining]

The poor already decide by choosing between Internet.org and other plans, like the Vodafone one someone posted in another comment.