Facebook Opens Internet.Org To All Developers In Response To Net Neutrality Concerns

[Recursion]

Source: Tech Crunch

Facebook is turning Internet.org, its project to provide free internet to new users, into a platform. The move comes amid criticism of the program’s ‘walled garden’ approach to hand-picking services, and claims that it violates the principles of net neutrality.

Criticism of net neutrality has been particularly strong in India, where a zero rating program from operator Airtel ignited raised the issue. Facebook lost a number of partners in India, who withdrew from Internet.org in response to the debate, and that gives today’s announcement some added spice.

“Our goal with Internet.org is to work with as many developers and entrepreneurs as possible to extend the benefits of connectivity to diverse, local communities. To do this, we’re going to offer services through Internet.org in a way that’s more transparent and inclusive,” Facebook said in a blog post.

In addition, on the user side of things, Facebook said that Internet.org users will soon be able to beyond the initial limits of the portal and search for and use new third-party services. In other words, the service will go from being a static portal to a basic (and free) layer of internet.

Read more: http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/04/facebooks-internet-org-project-is-now-a-platform/

---

Not sure if this got much play in the US, but it was huge news in India. Facebook wanted to partner with local cell providers to provide free Internet service to a select group of sites (including things like Wikipedia, the Indian government, WHO, MSF, and the Times of India, but also including things like Facebook and Whatsapp, and not their competitors). There was a backlash because this is about as network un-neutral as you can get. The local partners jumped ship a few weeks ago, and it looks like Facebook has reversed course.

There's still a lot of issues with this announcement. Forbidding SSL is problematic (though WhatsApp doesn't have it, and that's the most common rural use in the global South). Also problematic is that the burden goes on the content providers to make an internet.org-compatible low-bandwidth version.

[ananda]

1. Sorry if I'm wrong on this ...

... but FB doesn't sound very net-neutral to me.

[Recursion]

2. In the US they are huge supporters of it

Like most content owners they want the lanes open. Internet.org is their move into Africa (and Asia) but that brings with it the same imperatives that hit providers here.