Before I begin this, let me confess I am a bit of a Mark Zuckerberg fan. Who wouldn’t be? Harvard dropout creates internet startup, makes it one of the most valuable companies in the world. Facebook has a billion-and-a-half-plus active subscribers. People are addicted to FB. where they spend hours daily tracking their friends’ lives. Mark changed the world in the coolest way ever. He never forced anyone. Yet, he attracted everyone to his creation. He became a billionaire. Then, he did something even cooler. He pledged 99% of his $45-billion wealth to charity. It’s a staggering amount (around Rs 300,000 crore) to give away. All this, and Mark is only 31. I think, for all practical purposes, he is the coolest person alive.
Why is this important? It is because Mark is backing an initiative called Free Basics (earlier known as internet.org), supposedly to connect more people in the world to the net. Free Basics involves collaboration with existing telecom companies in developing countries, where internet penetration is still low. Telecom companies already connect people with voice services on the phone. Many such people cannot afford data services, so they are cut off from the world of the internet. A quick way to connect them is to offer them free internet, customized to a few chosen sites, which will be designed for lower bandwidth. The telecom companies and site owners will work out between them how the subsidy is absorbed.
So far so good. Who can argue with poor people being given free internet access? Even if it is slower, at least it’s better than nothing, right? Even if Free Basics just allows you to visit only a few sites, isn’t it better than visiting no sites? And this is where it gets tricky. This limited range of sites is at the core of the opposition to Free Basics. Which are those sites (FB is the main one, of course)? Who will be the gatekeeper for selecting those sites (FB seems to be the one)? If only a few sites are allowed, won’t owners of excluded sites suffer as they would have a smaller user base? Won’t the new netizens be denied competitive choices too — online retail options and media content, for instance?
These are real issues. Thankfully, the internet so far has not been regulated in terms of which site will be allowed which customers. Imagine Google being asked by regulators to pay up for every net user they reach in India. Just like spectrum, what if internet user access begins to get sold? It is possible. But it will kill the internet as we know it. Right now, any small startup can hope to create a killer website and reach the entire world (Facebook did exactly that). If governments or corporations regulate user access, only the big players will dominate the internet. They still do, but it isn’t forced. You choose Facebook, and that’s what makes it cool. Free Basics, even though cool in its intentions of connecting the world, lacks coolness when it restricts the sites available to users. It also sets a dangerous precedent, for soon it will be okay to have only a certain part of the Internet available to a certain set of users (based on pricing, country location etc).
Free Basics proponents counter this with: how does limited access matter when we are providing the internet for free? Those who want the full range of sites (essentially, the entire internet) can always take a paid plan. Access to a few sites will only whet the appetite for more internet, and a user is likely to buy a data plan sooner rather than later. Also, in a free market, if Facebook or any other company tries a monopolistic stunt, it will be exposed. These are valid arguments too.
Overall, Free Basics has issues. However, to throw it away altogether also doesn’t seem to make sense. A lack of understanding of what is a complex issue has led to Free Basics opponents painting Mark as a control freak and Facebook as the evil MNC empire. Its PR blitz (somewhat over the top with expensive ads featuring poor farmers) alone has created detractors. “Such expensive ads show there must be an ulterior motive” is not really a logical statement. There are win-win situations in life, and one can trust Mark more than many other businessmen out there.
We do need to welcome Free Basics as a concept, but bring out the concerns as well. Given the huge societal welfare along with business opportunity, a great solution can be hammered out. Facebook should feel secure that even with universal access, people will spend most of their time on it. We citizens need to accept that if Facebook is leading the initiative, they deserve to get some reasonable benefits out of it.
Our government is not able to provide services to the extent desired. Involving the private sector is thus necessary and inevitable. From public transport apps to free internet providers, we should welcome such initiatives and not paint them as villains. We must also, however, iron out any concerns. Free Basics is welcome, Mark, but only with a bit of free, basic common sense.
January 10, 2016 ()