Controlled v/s No Internet Access

Facebook had teamed up with Reliance Communications to provide Free Basics, a Facebook initiative to provide free Internet access to certain web sites. That sounds like a good thing, right? Poor people, who might otherwise be unable to afford access Internet access would get, well, free access.

So what did the Indian government find wrong that? The key part of contention is that Free Basics only applies to certain web sites, not the entire Internet. So what, you wonder. Isn’t some access for the poor better than no access? And that’s the argument that Facebook takes on the topic, not just in India but worldwide where they have similar initiatives.

Ah, but that’s where things get tricky. There is an Internet principle called Net Neutrality: simply put, just like we don’t provide better roads for BMW owners as opposed to 2-wheelers, the Internet providers are supposed to provide the same connectivity speeds regardless of which web site is being connected to. The idea here is that since the Internet is the biggest source of information in history, we don’t want well established (richer) sites to drown lesser known sites just because they could pay more to the Internet provider to load their sites faster.

And this is the root of the clash on Free Basics:
-          On the one hand, Net Neutrality is critical to ensure all information is made available equally fast so that the richer sites can’t kill the rest just based on speed of loading rather than quality and accuracy of content.
-          A free service like Free Basics violates the above by hand picking certain sites to be available for free (no Internet charges). But, on the other hand, it gives poor people at least some Internet access instead of the no access scenario because of affordability reasons.

What muddies the waters in this debate is that Facebook tries to project Free Basics as an altruistic measure. That’s not true at all, argued Karl Bode:
“Of course that's a false choice: Facebook could offer subsidized access to the real Internet, it just wouldn't get pole position in delivering ads to billions of new users in dozens of developing nations. It's a mammoth advertising play dressed up as utterly-selfless altruism.”

So yes, Facebook is not being entirely honest about its intentions. Then again, should we sacrifice an opportunity for some Internet access to the poor at the altar of the perfectionist ideal of Net Neutrality? As always, there is no simple or right answer to the question…

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Student of the Year

Animal Senses #7: Touch and Remote Touch

The Retort of the "Luxury Person"