Mozilla slams Facebook's Internet.org plan!

[The_Abee]

Joining in the ongoing debate over Net Neutrality, Mozilla on Thursday slammed Facebook's Internet.org plan saying that its aim to offer 'some' connectivity rather than nothing at all leads to mere short-term benefits. In the longer run, Facebook's Internet.org plan poses risk to the emergence of an open and competitive platform, it said.

Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg had recently defended Internet.org saying that having some connectivity was always much better than having no ability to connect at all.

Reacting to this, Mozilla said, "We understand the temptation to say some content is better than no content, choosing a lesser degree of inclusion over openness and equality of opportunity. But it shouldn't be a binary choice; technology and innovation can create a better way, even though these new models may take some time to develop." "Choosing limited inclusion today, even though it offers short-term benefits, poses significant risk to the emergence of an open, competitive platform that will ultimately stifle inclusion and economic development ," Mozilla added.

The free-software community known for its Firefox web browser had earlier sent a letter to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi supporting Net Neutrality. The letter came in response to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India's open consultation on the issue of free and fair Internet.

According to Mozilla, "zero-rating may actually NOT connect the world's unconnected billions to the Internet, in India or elsewhere." 

Zero-rating is basically a mobile network provider offering its users certain Internet content and services for 'free'. Essentially, users won't be charged for data while using this content.

"The impact of zero-rating may result in the same harms as throttling, blocking, or paid prioritisation. By giving one company (or a handful) the ability to reach users at no cost to them, zero-rating could limit rather than expand a user's access to the Internet and ultimately chill competition and innovation," Mozilla said.

In a nutshell, zero-rating would destroy a level playing field in context to Internet. The very foundation on which the World Wide Web was built would be left hampered.  

Mozilla also suggested that Facebook's Internet.org in a way was confusing people: "A significant percentage of people confuse the Internet and Facebook, - in part because of Facebook's Internet.org initiative - notably including a global survey by Quartz where over half of respondents agreed with a statement equating Facebook with the entire Internet."

Is prohibition through legislation or regulation the right way to decide which content/service should be zero-rated? The answer is a no according to Mozilla. "Regulation could allow governments to determine which content could/should be zero-rated - and the benefit of net neutrality is that no entity should get to decide which content a user has access to," it said.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/technology/...36110.html

[Carjacker]

The answer is a no according to Mozilla. "Regulation could allow governments to determine which content could/should be zero-rated - and the benefit of net neutrality is that no entity should get to decide which content a user has access to," it said.*

Tell that to the MPAA/RIAA , it's lobbyists, in-the-pocket politicians and other entities - Government and Corporate - who decide on a regular basis what sites are 'pirate' sites - or what's in the public interest -and go about making choices and passing ridiculous laws on the public. Of course, it's all to 'protect the children',right?

*the in-bold type setting in the above quote is added by me.

[The_Abee]

Tell that to the MPAA/RIAA , it's lobbyists, in-the-pocket politicians and other entities - Government and Corporate - who decide on a regular basis what sites are 'pirate' sites - or what's in the public interest -and go about making choices and passing ridiculous laws on the public. Of course, it's all to 'protect the children',right?

Thanx Carjacker for comment but please don't take Mozilla's comment out-of-context as Mozilla said that in regard of Indian government, who practically has nothing to do with MPAA/RIAA. They don't have any influence on Indian Govt. and people in India rather prefer watching Bollywood movies comparing Hollywood stuff so MPAA/RIAA won't struggle a lot in lobbying the govt. where the market share is comparatively small. Otherwise what you say is relative. 

[Carjacker]

Tell that to the MPAA/RIAA , it's lobbyists, in-the-pocket politicians and other entities - Government and Corporate - who decide on a regular basis what sites are 'pirate' sites - or what's in the public interest -and go about making choices and passing ridiculous laws on the public. Of course, it's all to 'protect the children',right?

Thanx Carjacker for comment but please don't take Mozilla's comment out-of-context as Mozilla said that in regard of Indian government, who practically has nothing to do with MPAA/RIAA. They don't have any influence on Indian Govt. and people in India rather prefer watching Bollywood movies comparing Hollywood stuff so MPAA/RIAA won't struggle a lot in lobbying the govt. where the market share is comparatively small. Otherwise what you say is relative. 

Abee, I didnt take the comment out of context, I took it exactly as it was meant and worded. The comment I quoted directly implies a plurality of Global proportions - hence the 's' on the word Government in Mozilla's quoted statement I posted. They are trying to imply that this is one step towards other Governments taking the same steps towards regulation as India is considering, if other emerging or 3rd World countries become the next 'zero-rating' target scam of Facebook's push into gaining a power seat with the other tech companies (you know who) currently monopolizing services and buying politicians to accomplish their agendas of information domination.
Plus, my main point I took to was the part in boldface type - of which I based my post on which has no inference of international borders, though it can be applied towards such, but of my own country of residence (US).
Thanks for replying and commenting in a way that promotes discussion.