Internet.org – Facebook denies harming net neutrality – ZDNet France

Wind distrust around Internet.org? Small reminder of the facts: in 2013, Mark Zuckerberg, founder and owner of Facebook , which unveils the Internet.org program
 the goal is to provide affordable Internet access to two thirds of the
 global population does not have. An ambitious project that builds on
 a coalition of many partners such as Ericsson, MediaTek,
 Nokia, Opera, Qualcomm and Samsung.

“Currently only 2.7 billion
 people, a little over a third of the world population, have access to
 Internet. The adoption rate of Internet is growing less than 9% per year, which is
 Slow considered that we are only at the beginning of its development, “explained then billionaire.

Since Internet.org seriously working on new technologies to
 bring Internet to countries not covered. In 2014, the first concrete projects take shape as the launch of a mobile application for Internet.org Airtel customers in Zambia. Today, nine countries are concerned by this application including India.

But now some Facebook partners leaving the ship given the turn of events, including many media and Web services Indians. The reason? Applying Internet.org propose a too restricted web access

This is precisely a portal offering a set of Web services
 free. “This application offers many services including
  in the areas of health (Facts for Life UNICEF, etc.),
 Information (Google Search, AccuWeather, etc.), employment, or of associative (Alliance for Mobile
 Maternal Action, Women’s Rights App), “says Facebook. Not to mention of course social networking …

Facebook partners thus accuse him this restrictive choice and method for selecting these services. In short, Internet.org only provides access to a part of the Web, with services selected by Facebook and Indian governments alone, it therefore violated net neutrality.

The controversy was reacted Mark Zuckerberg. In a post on Facebook, p-dg highlights the contribution of Internet.org that can allow “a schoolboy with a great idea that could change the world (to) do it through the Internet.” and to emphasize that “if someone can not afford a connection, it is always better to have limited access rather than no access at all.”

And to challenge arguments slingers “The net neutrality argument should not be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society access to opportunities.” The debate is open.