"Maguire told Quartz that the company intends to provide “the full internet,” but also noted that it will work with network operators’ bandwidth needs and business models."
Yeah, the telcos that build pretty much the full entirety of the "last-mile" internet as we know it today can not but trusted in the least to be at all involved in any new last mile provisions what so ever.
We (fairly rich, definitely reasonably connected, people) cannot allow the third world to enjoy something as humiliating as imperfect internet (to a standard we barely enjoy ourselves, however immensely beneficial our connections are in spite of this) and we certainly can't allow some of the richest corporations in the world investing in it - after all, the result might not end up perfect.
It's much better potential beneficiaries (you know, some of the worlds poorest and most disadvantaged people) for us to complain, dismiss and and wait until someone will roll out a 100% neutral network, unencumbered by any commercial interests.
I'm pretty sure you haven't heard me complaining about the imperfect/perfect Internet this would offer, or whether we should wait or not for something more/less neutral, so your reply is totally misguided.
I have 7 years of experience working in telco business. I don't mind "rich" companies investing in this solution (something else you got wrong), what I mind is telcos in the loop.
Oh, BTW, besides the experience with the soul-crushing telco business, I also have experience at that third world thingy... You see, I've grown in a third world country. Born '85, had no idea that compact discs (CD) existed until '94.
Sorry, bad habit. Take away is that it's a bad idea (in this case arguably even immoral) to let the good solution today get in the way of the perfect solution in the future.
That isn't true. One of the reasons why France tends to be a bit behind in all things internet even today is that they had 'minitel', a system that wasn't quite the whole internet (it was information services reachable by phone using a custom terminal with the prestel protocol). It worked so well that they didn't replace their system with the internet when it became available and as a result have been playing catch-up since then.
Just having some applications is not the same as being online, it's just a way for those companies to short-circuit the wait before they can add those users to their 'inventory'.
As a result the incentive to roll out the remainder is for a large part removed. This is the corporate wet-dream for the net: just a couple of big data silos. And where better to trial this idea and lock in the users as much as possible.
I disagree that minitel itself played any significant role in France's current situation. It was the French governments inability to get out of the way. Minitel was also in the U.S. in the early 90s, but didn't last because competition wasn't outlawed.
This is a substantial step up to the current alternative. No one is being 'locked' in, this will increase education and communication, and therefore the welfare of the users. Than, ISPs will come in and wipe them out. You have to start somewhere.
> It was the French governments inability to get out of the way.
That's because FT had the government as their shareholder and they were trying to protect their investment. That's definitely another important factor but the fact that minitel actually worked was definitely a detriment.
I remember visiting France during the Internet boom in the rest of Europe and people there were proudly showing off their minitel terminals (tiny little screens with a slide-out keyboard) and what they could do with it and how they didn't need this newfangled American nonsense in their houses.
Of course that didn't hold in the longer term but it certainly did not help early adoption.
> That's because FT had the government as their shareholder and they were trying to protect their investment.
I remember in 2002, when my family, and all my friends' families had an unlimited internet connection, having to use the minitel to register to some exams for some Universities. It felt like an anachronism. So unconvenient. I wouldn't be surprised if the government played its part in leaving it that way.
The next year though, they changed it and we could register through internet.
The thing is, Minitel, the system not 'quite the whole internet', provided tons of awesome features (unavailable in other places) more than a decade before the 'quite the whole internet' (as available to consumers) even existed.
Now, today the internet obviously exists, but there's a eye-watering amount of capital investment to be made in third world countries not generally well suited for capital investment, and largely populated by people with very little money, before "the whole internet" is broadly available.
So the situation is more akin to standing around in France in say, 1992 and arguing for shutting down Minitel because in 1997, there will be awesome, real internet, and having Minitel around will be an impediment to quick adoption.
I am in France at the moment, and I have never (exaduration) seen so many feature phones... Getting a French SIM for data was an exercise in frustration even with a local helping me. I got a SIM from Bourgues Telecom by registering it to a friend's name and address. Mostly works but it is really really difficult to give them money (wtf) and they modify unencrypted HTML page image links: http://serverfault.com/questions/339780/who-what-is-http-1-1...
Sellers on second hand trading site leboncoin.com keep saying to use the phone and not email (I.e. I presume they don't have a smart phone and data connection).
One place I stayed at had been trying to get ADSL for two years, even though it was reasonably built up.
As a NZer that travels a lot, the internet infrastructure appears less than 1st world to me.
I've got unlimited call + sms + 4G data (limited bandwidth after 20Gb) for 20€/month, and 300Mb/s fibre connection for 35€/month. I have not seen similar rates in the UK/US.
We can substitute (no internet + desire for internet) in for the right side, and I think that's better than (some internet + lessened desire for full internet)
Disclaimer: I am only a young person in Germany, but used the 0.facebook.com service (facebook for free) here for almost 10 years.
Result: Yes, some internet is better than no internet.
Nowadays, where I stopped using facebook mostly, I just buy like the tiniest data package my provider supports, wait for it to throttle to 64kbps, and just use IRC, the web without JS, etc.
Ya, there's nothing wrong with them providing this service. They just shouldn't be heralded as providing some great charity, I think that's all people are saying.
If they were providing full internet, that would be an incredibly charitable, generous, and positive thing. As it stands, it's just another business venture - which is fine, but not great.
Facebook is a business, yes. Does that mean they do not positively impact the world? Absolutely not. IIRC they are providing FB and Wikipedia (among other resources), those two resources alone will allow people the access to the entirety of human knowledge, and the ability to connect to anyone in the world. Via there phone. That is _huge_. Yes, it isn't perfect, and yes FB is investing for advertising in ~5-10+ years to come. But, that doesn't mean that hundreds of millions of people's lives will be dramatically better as a result. I apologise of this was slightly incoherent, I'm on mobile and do not have time to re-read.
> ... will allow people to access the entirety of human knowledge ...
This is so far removed from the truth. What about blogs? Academic papers? Journalistic articles? Mailing list threads? Even paper books!
The name "Internet.org" is grossly misleading. "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past." Willingly giving a service effective control of the present yields dastardly results.
My claim was not correct. However, a lot of blogs, journals, books etc. are used as references for Wikipedia.
Regardless, this is a huge step up. We must not let perfection get in the way of progress.
FB will not have any control, people can choose to use it, or not. They are also free to pay for an ISP when an affordable and reliable one arrives. Which at this point is not possible.
