Talk:Digital India

Internet.org

Internet.org is a partnership between social networking services company Facebook and six companies (Samsung, Ericsson,MediaTek, Opera Software, Nokia and Qualcomm) that plans to bring affordable access to selected Internet services to less developed countries by increasing efficiency, and facilitating the development of new business models around the provision of Internet access. Read report It has been criticized for violating net neutrality and favoring Facebook's own services over its rivals. An Indian journalist, in his reply to Mark Zuckerberg's article defending Internet.org in India, criticized Internet.org as "being just a Facebook proxy targeting India's poor" as it provides restricted Internet access to Reliance Telecom's subscribers in India. Until April 2015, Internet.org users could access (for free) only a few websites, and Facebook's role as gatekeeper in determining what websites were in that list was criticised for violating net neutrality. In May 2015, Facebook announced that the Internet.org Platform would be opened to websites that met its criteria. Read report

Issue in India

Internet.org in India is in collaboration with Reliance Communications, clearly implying that only Reliance users will have the so-called "free access" to Facebook and a few other associated platforms. Social media enthusiasts have also claimed that internet.org is Facebook's tactic of increasing its user base rather than providing "free Internet" as it only allows access to certain websites. Cyber activists argue that any service, which conflicts or restricts their choice as a user to visit any destination on the network, is in violation of the law of the land and, therefore, is in violation of net neutrality. India needs to be very careful that it does not adopt these kind of schemes without looking into the legal gratifications. Indian concerns reported in The Statesman Internet.org from Facebook does not appear to be neutral for the very simple reason that it only wants to lead the users or traffic to certain websites. It does not allow you the flexibility of choice to go to any platform or website on the Internet that one wants to go. So in that sense it tends to make you a prisoner of these limited websites and, therefore, violates the principle of net neutrality. Another serious concern that social media enthusiasts raise is the fact that the general public is yet to find out the "exact modalities" of what is going to be offered. Facebook is yet to make it clear what websites they are going to host under their 'free access' scheme. This principle simply implies that start-ups stand no chance because the already existing heavyweights can pay more to Reliance and hence be featured under internet.org.

@Johny Rhoods:, This information [1] is good, but it is not quite understandable. There is no explanation of what Internet.org is, and what are the issues with it. Can you expand please? - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC) --Johny Rhoods (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Advert

@Rajeshbhagwat06 Please avoid the unsourced advert edits as you recently did in this article. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 09:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge

I propose to merge National Optical Fibre Network into this article since there's not enough content available. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - These are clearly two different things so need not be merged. It is very clear that both things are absolutely different. I am surprised why we are even considering this. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. National Optical Fibre Network and Digital India are different things. And each one is long enough to be an independent article. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Digital India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150515073907/http://india.gov.in:80/spotlight/digilocker-online-document-storage-facility to http://india.gov.in/spotlight/digilocker-online-document-storage-facility

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Merge NEGP

I propose to merge National e-Governance Plan to the history section of this article since it will improve both the articles. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 06:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. National e-Governance Plan and Digital India are two different projects and should not be merged. --Neo-Jay (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Neo-Jay. Also see UMANG, an article created be me. All 3 are related but different. UMANG comes under National e-Governance Plan, which in turn comes under Digital India. Just add National e-Governance Plan and UMANG to each other's article with appropriate cross-article phrasing. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup done

Article had outdated information, duplicate text, lots of blurb due to organic addition by several editors overtime. I had condensed the article by removing the outdated and redundant text, categorised and layered the easy-to-grasp headings neatly. Made few pipelinks. I did not introduce any new text (only minor addition). Please feel free to review, edit, and rephrase. Thanks. 202.156.182.84 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)