I just returned from India at the end of winter break where a raging debate on net neutrality is under way. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet Service Providers should treat all data and content on the internet the same and not discriminate, charge differentiably or block any content or websites.

At the center of this debate is Facebook’s controversial Free Basics program which aims to provide free access to select websites on the internet to people in developing countries which critics argue creates a two tier system of the internet. On one side is Facebook which argues that this program has reached over 15 million unconnected people who discovered the benefits of the internet free of cost.

On the other side are activists who argue that by not allowing access to all websites, the program violates the principles of net neutrality. How high the stakes are can be judged from the fact that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg wrote an op-ed in Times of India, India’s leading English language newspaper defending Free Basics. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) decided to put a hold on the program in India until it took a final decision on whether it should be allowed or not. Recently Egypt also put a hold on the program, becoming the second country to do so.

After reading up about this debate I was a bit surprised that I was so interested in a subject so full of technical jargon. I have never been very tech savvy and in fact considered myself technologically challenged for the trouble I have in operating new phones, computers etc. I’ve tried but failed to feel excited about the launch of the latest iPhone model. I was also surprised because after considering the facts I seemed to be on Facebook’s side on this issue. I never knew I would be on the side of a multinational corporation against activists!

So what exactly is Free Basics? It started in 2013 as internet.org and has since been launched in 36 countries. It is Facebook’s plan to provide first time internet users in developing countries access to the internet. However, the users did not get access to the entire internet but just select websites which were a part of internet.org alliance. In response to accusations of Facebook acting as a gatekeeper to the network, Facebook revamped and relaunched internet.org as Free

Basics in 2015 and said that any website that meets some basic technical criterion could be a part of the network. But the criticism has persisted. Google, Yahoo, Twitter and most other big websites are not a part of Free Basics.Net Neutrality activists have accused Facebook of making it a ’walled garden’ where people using it think that Facebook and those websites that are a part of Free Basics are the entire internet. In addition, there are concerns of privacy. Critics claim that all the data goes via Facebook servers giving Facebook access to personal information of consumers. Facebook claims that it does not keep any personal information beyond the first 90 days.

All of these are valid concerns yet I disagree with those opposing it. Of the people who come online for the first time via Free Basics, 40% go on to access the full internet within a month. Over 55% decide to not continue with the program. This leaves a mere 5% of people in the ‘walled garden’ that critics claim of continuing on the free plan without access to the whole internet.

So among users who try out the program, for every person who continues to get ‘limited’ internet, eight people go on to access the full internet. Granted even these 5% of people should get access to the full internet as soon as possible. However, in the meantime isn’t some access to the internet better than no access? We must understand that these are poor people in less developed nations who had no previous access to the internet.

So if Free Basics is discontinued, ceteris paribus, these people will have no access to the internet. Critics cite programs like Grameenphone’s giving free data in Bangladesh in exchange of watching an advertisement, Orange in Africa providing 500MB of free access for buying a handset and Aircel’s free data program in parts of India as examples of providing internet to the poor without violating Net Neutrality. No doubt these programs are great and should be replicated worldwide. But why must it be an either or situation? Why can’t we have these programs in addition to Free Basics to get more and more people connected. I fear that in the name of defending net neutrality we are propagating digital inequality.

None of this is to suggest that the fears of net neutrality activists are unfounded. There remains a very real risk of Facebook using Free Basics to monopolize the internet despite their claims of it being a noble venture to connect the world. No efforts should be spared to give those people who continue to be on Free Basics access to the full internet as soon as possible. In the meantime, they must know that Free Basics is NOT the entire internet and Facebook must be held accountable if they try to convince them otherwise.

They must also be informed about the full internet and the benefits of being fully connected. This is to ensure that if these people choose to continue not having access to the full internet it should at least be due to some other reason like lack of affordability rather than lack of knowledge of the benefits of being connected.

However, as essential as it is to have these safeguards, it is important not to throw the baby with the bathwater. The UN has stated bringing internet access to everyone as one of its goals in order to end poverty. Anything that slows the process, no matter how well intentioned the motive should be avoided.

Sources:

http://thewire.in/2015/12/30/facebooks-rebuttal-to-mahesh-murthy-on-free-basics-with-replies-18235/

http://www.firstpost.com/india/free-basics-india-needs-it-dont-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater-2560540.html