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
Post a Comment