But this falls flat once you remove the assumption that a user only accesses the internet from a single ISP. So what happens when I decide to make that purchase on my lunch break at work? Or from the free wifi at the coffee shop?
There was a time that this would have worked, but I think there are too many people that aren't tied to a single physical location for their internet services. And we haven't all switched to something provided by a cell company.
I disagree- I can trivially move between social networks and in fact have done so recently. As a renter I have exactly one hardwired ISP available to me; AT&T cellular based service is not comparable where I live. It’s the same way we have different rules for your electric bill and Amazon.
> who exactly is going to be paying for internet if it doesn't deliver what they want?
So if your choices are: (a) no internet at all or (b) internet but without access (at least at any reasonable speed) to any sites except for Facebook, Google, Reddit, Amazon, eBay, Netflix, which will you choose?
The problem is that not everyone can afford that. In fact, almost no one can afford that. The internet as a whole is only viable because of vastly pooled resources - it could never have happened on a "my slice, get off my lawn" basis. Even if you can afford it, you're being vastly overcharged compared to a decentralized network. One that already exists in many areas, most of it is already fully painted with WiFi supposing people could actually all use it.
I don't think that would be a big change for the vast majority of people. Very few would even subscribe to an internet service that they will only make use of while hiking or doing other activities that take them to remote places. Maybe if they sell access for a few days and you no longer need any dedicated hardware to connect?
This is a weak argument. Internet connectivity simply is not measured as a 1-dimensional value. It is effectively infinite dimensionsal.
The marketing papers over this in misleading ways, and that is bad, but if you wanted to pay for your own dedicated bundle of wires, like a businesses office building does, you could get it.
So in a truly free market how would people get to stores to buy products without roads or other means of transportation? Surely businesses, collectively, would pay for them.
Also, the internet is a conglomeration of things, so it's not really a product or a utility. I think comparing it to something like water or electricity is apples and oranges. What you want is easy, cheap access to the internet. I agree with you, but I'd like to see a voluntary solution.
It is possible, however it is inconvenient and sometimes impossible for the majority to gain access this way. Also a large portion of the population uses internet cafes to access the internet, and they'd have to switch over the the national interanet.
The problem with that logic is that just the plain internet access is becoming less and less useful everyday as the internet moves more towards walled gardens. It's like if the basic phone service only allowed you to communicate with other land lines, but you had to have an account with Google / Apple to make and receive calls with Iphones / Androids.
I don't think this is the case here. This is a freemium model, hoping the people CAN afford internet but do not know they NEED it will pay for the normal services with the operator.
Assuming they are honest, I don't get their argument. If most people are paying for the internet, they why do they need Free Basics in the first place? An internet connection costs a fraction of the hardware cost, or is embedded in the hardware subscription.
So you can either afford hardware and internet, or you can't afford internet in which case you also can't afford the hardware, so the free internet is useless.
Assuming their motives are truly altruistic, making internet free doesn't make any sense!
How is forcing companies to give services away for free a good idea? What if most people decide that 1Mb is good enough and don't pay for anything? It seems like this is bad for the people who are willing to pay.
Where people live has a huge impact on the cost of providing internet service to them, so why shouldn't it matter where they live?
There was a time that this would have worked, but I think there are too many people that aren't tied to a single physical location for their internet services. And we haven't all switched to something provided by a cell company.
reply