An Objective View On The Issue Of Free Basics — Let’s Break It Down

Almost a month ago, Mark Zuckerberg wrote an op-ed for the popular English daily Time Of India. In it, he claimed that the mostly tech savvy urban youth of India who make up the net neutrality activists group in the country, people who believe in an equal and open internet and who seem to strongly oppose the Free Basics initiative by Facebook, are spreading false information about the program and in the process are cutting off the poor from getting at least some access to the internet. The argument seems to be “something is better than nothing” and he just cannot comprehend why anyone in their right mind would want to oppose a philanthropic move like this.

So why are so many Indians opposing it? Why is there an uproar on the internet against an altruistic initiative like this? Are the protesters really so absorbed in this idea of Net Neutrality that they just cannot see the actual good such a program could achieve? Are all of their arguments against it false, irrational and thus should be just discarded?

I’m not here to determine who is right and who is wrong. The purpose of this post is to lay down the issue at hand, break it down for the comprehension of those unaware, undecided or even misled by biased opinions on the internet, and construct the most objective perspective to look at the situation. Unlike many other blog posts, articles and videos made in the past few weeks/months regarding the issue, I’m not only going to state the obvious problems with the program, or in the understanding of it by those protesting, but also provide an improved version (two in fact) that resolves them.

So What Exactly Is Free Basics?

Free Basics is an initiative by Facebook to provide free access to certain websites on the internet to the largely unconnected masses of the developing world, and the way they are doing that is by partnering with local telecom operators. The telcos zero-rate the partner websites, with the expectation that it will bring more people online and expand the customer base for their data packages. Originally, the partner websites were pre-selected by Facebook, but after much uproar against it, they made it so that anyone can submit their site. The back-end also includes what they call “Internet.org Proxy” which “creates a standard traffic flow so that operators can properly identify and zero rate the service”

The idea seems to be built on two main concepts :

1. Access to the Internet should be considered a basic human right.
2. To overcome the social barrier of unawareness, a bridge should be created from the unconnected to the online world.

Zuckerberg indeed believes that the Internet should be considered as a basic human right, and what they are trying to do with Free Basics is create an “International Basic Internet Standard” that is always on and provides access to a minimum number of websites for free, so as to overcome the barrier of unawareness and affordability to some extent. Think of it like the 911 for the Internet. That might already sound a little controversial.

“The goal is to provide a free constant reliable access to a limited number of websites to fulfill the information needs of those unconnected.”

But it is the second concept that is even more controversial, as a lot of protesters, whom I will talk about shortly, just don’t see the need for a bridge in the first place.

Here is my breakdown : The theory here is that a significant percentage of mobile users in the developing countries own devices that can connect to the internet, but they are not. Probably because said people are not properly aware of it and do not want to add any unnecessary expenditure to their account. These are the people the program hopes to target.

“The program hopes to target people who can connect to the internet, but are not due to unawareness and/or affordability issues”

The expectation of the program is to convince the first time users of the Internet that the expenses certainly outweigh the costs and thus bring more people online. Facebook claims that 50% of new users move to the full internet by paying for data packages within the first 30 days.

“The expectation is for the users to move to the paid internet after experiencing a glimpse of it through Free Basics”

Is There A Need For Such A Program?

Before we can debate on whether or not Free Basics should be allowed to run, why not answer if there is a need for such a program in India in the first place.

It was recently reported that India reached its billionth mobile subscriber just last month, while the number of unique mobile connections seems to be almost 600 M. According to The Connected Consumer Survey 2014 / 2015, 84% of their sample size in India owned a mobile device, with 77% of them being feature phone users. This might be a little surprising and even irrelevant, since smartphone sales in India seem to be soaring high, with a competition between the vendors like never before. But it should be noted that feature phones are not gone yet. In fact, in the 3rd quarter of 2015, it was observed that feature phone sales outstripped that of smartphones.

When it comes to overall Internet users in India, the number peaked at 402 M just a few weeks ago, which is 33.22% of the entire population. The growth rate of Internet users in India is skyrocketing, adding almost a 100 M users per year since the last two years.

Further Reference : YourStory — India To Reach 314 M mobile internet users by 2017, Digital StatShot India, TechCrunch — India Will Have 500 Million Internet Users By 2017, Google Survey Graph, Google Survey Trended Data.

This data suggests that India is in a pretty good shape and might not even need a program like Free Basics to bring more people online. But the same data also shows that there are still around 850 M people in India without Internet. Of course, there are other things more important — like food, water, electricity, education etc but the Internet might very well be the most easiest to provide, hence the interest in it.

But if looked closely, even Free Basics cannot provide (sub)-internet access to all of those 850 M people, since it is designed only for those who own a mobile device.

Yes, that is correct. Free Basics cannot and does not solve the entire problem of connectivity. In an interview with Bloomberg, Mark mentioned that the last few years for them have been about learning. They learned that when it comes to connectivity, there are three main barriers — Accessibility, Affordability and Awareness, and they are trying to work on all three of those barriers. Free Basics is an attempt to overcome the issue of awareness, and also affordability to some extent. But there are other approaches that Facebook is trying, under the Internet.org banner, to resolve the issue of Accessibility and Affordability to a greater extent as well. For example, Connectivity Lab and Express Wi-Fi, among its other initiatives.

But that still leaves out all those people who do not own a device in the first place. In the same Bloomberg interview Mark said, “ Connecting everyone is going to be something that no single company can do by themselves.” and that is true. If Facebook is targeting one set of people, then some other company could enter the market focusing on the rest. Google is already trying to solve the problem of affordable smartphones through their Android One project in India, where they partner with local mobile phone manufactures to produce cheap Google certified smartphones. They are also working on a project very similar to Facebook’s Aquila Aircraft, called Project Loon and have also partnered with the Indian Railways to provide high speed WiFi at various train stations.

From all of that, the conclusion that I draw is — there is no “need” for Free Basics in India, or Internet.org for that matter. But it can also not be denied that the program can serve as a catalyst in the nation’s goal to bring more people online. I’m not claiming that Free Basics can do it alone, but that it can play the role of a strong catalyst.

So Why Are People Protesting It?

To understand why someone would want to protest against an apparently altruistic initiative like this, one needs to first realize who really owns the web.

The answer is all of us. Every single individual who owns a device that connects to the internet and participates in content creation and/or consumption is an owner of the web, albeit a small one. If you think about it, the web is the only medium of communication where the consumers and creators both sit at the endpoints of the system — because there is no central governance or authority.

It is by the nature of this very design of the internet that the principle of Net Neutrality naturally arises. It is an equal marketplace that provides equal opportunity for all creators to develop and grow and all users to consume and share.

Net Neutrality is the power law of the web that lets a 19 year old kid, sitting in his dorm room, create a site on his laptop that can today be used by 1.5 Billion people worldwide.

The principle is vital for the internet, and according to the protesters, Free Basics violates it. That is why they are protesting it, to Save The Internet from being broken into multiple “closed networks” because of the capitalistic motives of few people.

What Are The Arguments Against It?

The Net Neutrality Activists of India have been fighting Free Basics for the past one year now, and have even been partially successful in their mission after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) demanded Reliance, the sole partner of Free Basics in India at the moment, to put the operation on hold until they can reach a conclusion on the matter of Differential Pricing.

UPDATE : On 8th February, 2016 - In a Press Release, TRAI has decided to not allow Differential Pricing for any internet product/service. This means that Free Basics cannot be allowed to run in India.

There are many arguments against this program. The following, in no particular order, are some of the major ones :

• It violates the principle of Net Neutrality, which says — all data on the Internet should be treated the same. There should be no discrimination between two or more services, content, users, applications etc.
• It is a closed-platform, a walled garden, with Facebook as its gatekeeper.
• Facebook holds the power to reject any website submission.
• It is not secure — Facebook holds the power to monitor and censor user data.
• It is not free/charity, because of the potential to advertise.
• The program is Facebook’s method of customer acquisition — to reach the next billion internet users before Google can.

There have been many viral articles written and videos made in the last few months to protest the program, like this one by Mr. Mahesh Murthy, an active member of the Save The Internet campaign, which even received a rebuttal from Facebook. There was even a video made by the popular YouTube channel AIB regarding the issue.

Facebook has tried to be really active in the discussion of Free Basics. The VP of Internet.org has even done a public AMA on Reddit. But from what I’ve observed, it still doesn’t feel like they did justice to the queries of the protesters.

So let me make an attempt to address the arguments and concerns against Free Basics and then try countering those arguments. My goal here is to reach the most objective conclusion on the matter.

Facebook is doing this for Customer Acquisition :

The beauty of the open web is that every single individual has the power to choose which website to visit and which to not. But by making its own product available on the platform by default, Facebook clearly hurts this equation of the web, as they hold the power to influence the freedom of choice of their users even when they move to the full internet.

But is that really true? Because no one is really forcing anyone to use Free Basics and neither are they forcing anyone to use any particular service on it. Even so, Facebook still holds a greater power to “acquire these users” than everyone that has been left out of the program.

We also need to remember that Facebook has opened up the platform for anyone to join. In fact, in the same Bloomberg interview, Mark mentioned that when they launched in Zambia, Google was actually one of the services that was in the Internet.org suite and that they are open to working with Google on connectivity projects, like Free Basics.

It is not free/charity, because of the potential to advertise :

When it comes to the potential to advertise on the platform, Facebook has made it very clear that they do not plan to display any ads on Free Basics. In the same Bloomberg interview, Mark has stated that it doesn’t really make sense to try monetizing the platform in its current form, since its target users are either digitally illiterate or cannot afford data, which makes it a bad market for digital ads. Notice that he is not saying India is a poor ad market, as they already make money from the paid users of the internet on Facebook.

Free Basics is not secure :

This was completely true in the first version of Free Basics, as was reported by EFF. But Facebook has been really cooperative and has since made many improvements to make the platform more secure, as was noted by EFF’s updated article.

Facebook holds the power to reject submissions and can play favorites :

This is also true. However, Facebook has again tried to be as cooperative as possible by making the necessary alterations in its submission process to solely depend on two straight forward participation guidelines. The guidelines are required to ensure that your site uses data efficiently and is optimized for feature phones. The same updated article by EFF also noted, “At this point Facebook hasn’t rejected any websites from participating for non-technical reasons.”

In fact, in his Reddit AMA, Chris has also shown interest in third parties like NASSCOM and IAMAI audit what apps they accept and reject and on what basis.

It is a Walled Garden with Facebook as its gatekeeper :

There is no denying that Free Basics acts as the text-book definition of a Walled Garden, as developers need Facebook’s permission to include their service on its platform. The question is just how penetrable the walls of this garden are and how much does it really hurt the open web.

Chris has also assured us that they would make the submission process more automated, meaning zero human intervention. This would mean that even though Free Basics might still act like a walled garden, Facebook’s power to play favorites would become superficial. That is good news.

It violates the principle of Net Neutrality :

Alright, let’s talk about the elephant in the room. Free Basics violates the principle of Net Neutrality, although Facebook might say that the accusation really depends on the definition of Net Neutrality. While it is true that the current version is much closer to being a neutral model than it originally was, the program is still limited. So why is Facebook trying to create a bridge, when they can directly provide access to the entire internet with Data Caps?

From what I’ve understood, there are mainly three reasons :

1. Economics And Data Efficiency : While working on the model for Free Basics, the question was, “ How do you build a model that is sustainable for everyone and delivers free Internet to people?” and the answer they came up with is, by using data more efficiently. If you can just supply text, text based services and low quality images, the infrastructure costs would be far less than supplying the entire web full of rich media, like Videos. This way, the partnering operators would be more willing to handle the burden of the data for free.
2. Feature Phone Users : Feature phones have a lot of technical disadvantages compared to smartphones. Most websites are not optimized for feature phones, and seeing how the emerging markets are still dominated by them, it is important to ensure that the services available on the platform are optimized even for the most basic devices.
3. The Mission : Free Basics not only aims to bring more people online, but also to provide a constant access to some “basic websites” that meet with the information and connectivity needs of those unconnected. So that, even when someone might run out of data and money to recharge, they would still have a reliable access to at least some basic services.

Here are a list of Free Basics : Facts And Myths that give a little more insight on the matter from the perspective of Facebook.

What Are The Alternatives Of Free Basics?

There are quite a few alternatives of Free Basics that have the support of the protesters. Here are some of them :

1. Mozilla Equal Rating Program : Mozilla has shown its support for Net Neutrality by suggesting two strong alternatives to Free Basics. One of them offers users purchasing a Mozilla smartphone with unlimited talk, text, and 500 MB of data per month for 6 months. But it is the 2nd version that is more appealing, as it offers users 20 MB of unrestricted data per day after watching a short ad in the phone’s marketplace. This is an ad supported model to provide access to the entire internet. The only strong criticism against this program is, as Mark mentioned, if someone doesn’t have money to pay for data packages, they probably aren’t the right target audience for your advertisements. This is why Mozilla is still exploring the idea, which is important.
2. Jana’s Sponsored Data Program : Jana is a start-up by Nathan Eagle, author of the article, “How To Make The Internet Truly Free In The Developing Countries.” It’s mCent Android App lets users browse through apps on its platform and download them. Users can then explore the products, for example Amazon, and receive some amount of free data into their account from the parent company, which can then be used to browse the entire web. Jana is able to do this through its partnership with 300+ operators worldwide. It’s built on Nathan’s idea that personal data should be treated as an asset of the individual, and instead of giving it away for free to MNC’s, the money should be directed towards the consumers themselves.
3. Gigato Sponsored Data Program : Gigato, an Indian startup, is based on pretty much the same idea behind Jana’s mCent. Companies can offer free data to the users of the app for using its services. This data can then be used to browse the entire Internet.

Both ideas are really good, and more pro net neutral than Free Basics, even though they require organizations to pay for their product to be made available on the platform. The major difference between them and Free Basics is that they target smartphone (Android) users who are already aware of the Internet and mobile apps, whereas Free Basics tries to overcome the barriers of unawareness and affordability for all mobile phone users, including feature phones that still play a dominant role in developing markets.

Mistakes Made By Facebook :

Even though the core idea of Free Basics might actually be good, the way Facebook is executing it has lead to a lot of problems. Some of the mistakes made by them that I’ve observed are :

1. Facebook spent Rs 300 Crore ($44 M) on an over the top promotion campaign for Free Basics. This was completely unnecessary and a very aggressive move.
2. Facebook used various tools of propaganda in their aggressive ad campaign, like Glittering Generalities, to emotionally appeal to the crowd by trying to associate their program with highly valued concepts of Digital India, Connected India, Supporting Ganesh — An Indian Farmer.
3. Doing #SupportDigitalIndia campaign and naming one of the class names as “Internetorg.”
4. When asked why they have let RCom advertise only Free Facebook, and not any other services on the platform, the VP of Internet.org replied that,
   “ Our partners can choose to market whatever aspects of Free Basics that they want to.” This is really really bad and shouldn’t be allowed. This has lead to Reliance producing “New Way To Facebook” ads to target current Facebook users, read addicts, who are already connected to the internet. They are using it as a way to attract the customers of competing operators. This goes completely against the entire mission of Free Basics.
5. Mark Zuckerberg’s TOI op-ed claiming Free Basics protects the principle of Net Neutrality. The article is full of propaganda tools and makes it seem like protesting Free Basics is equal to hindering the development of India, which is not true.

The Flaws Of Free Basics :

1. The fourth mistake by Facebook is also a design flaw of Free Basics. They cannot on any condition allow their partner telecom operators to choose to market whatever aspects of Free Basics that they want to, as doing that would put the entire program and its mission in jeopardy.
2. Even though Free Basics targets the unconnected, unaware and poor who cannot afford data plans, the program inevitably would attract those who are already connected through paid internet. This is a major flaw in the program which could lead to a lot of problems.
3. Free Basics goal and expectation oppose each other. The goal is to provide constant reliable connectivity to some limited websites for fulfilling the information needs of those unconnected but the expectation is for those people to leave the program in 30 days and move to paid internet. This is the reason why I find the 50% factor, claimed by Facebook, from the one year run of Free Basics unreliable and a variable that can change in the future.

Improved Models

Keeping the arguments mentioned above in mind, let me try modifying the design of Free Basics to meet with the concerns while also serving its purpose.

Version One :

• Free Basics should work with their partner telecom operators to identify customers that have not purchased any data packs in the past/present. Once verified as a potential unconnected individual, the program should be made available to only them.
• The operators could then offer free limited data to those users, which can be used to browse the entire web. This data should be equal to the typical amount of data that was consumed by an average Free Basics user while it was still running.
• (Debatable) The program should run in temporary phases, preferably 30 days. This is to add some level of certainty that the new users will move to paid internet.
• Free Basics should provide a “Free Basics Dictionary” that includes all its partner websites. The program should then recommend its users to only use websites available in its dictionary, as they are known to use data more efficiently and be compatible with their phones.

Alternatively, as suggested in the conclusion of the updated article on Free Basics by EFF, “the partner carriers could zero-rate all mobile-accessible websites with a data cap, as an incentive for users to upgrade to a paid service.” This could also be done, but the operators would still need to recognize potential unconnected individuals so as to avoid infrastructure cost hike and be in line with the purpose of the program.

The only real problem with this modification, and the one suggested by EFF, is that it does not follow with Facebook’s goal to provide constant reliable access to some basic websites. But that’s the thing, the idea of bringing more people to the open and neutral web does not go along with the idea of constant access to a limited one.

Version Two :

The second version would require a complete overhaul of the architecture of Free Basics. Instead of directly partnering with operators and acting as a gatekeeper in the process, Free Basics should start from scratch and work directly with the governments instead.

Free Basics should provide constant reliable free access to all government sites and encourage or work with the government to create even more sites that can serve the basic needs of those unconnected. It should avoid becoming a monopolistic marketplace for internet products to compete and acquire new users. Thus, only non-profit services, like Wikipedia, should be included in the program.

This way, Free Basics would be able to make unconnected individuals more aware and bring them online, as well as serve as a constant reliable access for their basic needs.

The program could also offer “Internet Tours” where they explain in detail about various services on the Internet that are not available on the platform.

Something similar to this is already available on the current Free Basics app on Android, as can be seen from these screenshots :

The “Basics Of Internet” service on the app educates the users about Search, Mail, Video and even Education resources available on the Internet.

#Opinion

1. Internet.org should detach from Facebook and become a separate independent non-profit organization, focused on the connectivity issues in developing countries. This would also diminish the public scrutiny that its projects might receive in future and also open up support for the program from multiple organizations, instead of it just being Facebook.
2. Free Basics should provide training programs through out the nation for the new users of the internet, to properly educate them about the Internet and speed up the process of bringing them to the open web. This could be done in partnership with the Government as well.
3. Facebook should look into SMS as the medium to provide constant reliable access to information, instead of limited web. Something similar to what an Indian Startup — Innoz, who’s product SMSGyan has been described the offline Google, has already done. This might really work well for them, and will act more like the 911 for the Internet that they want to create.

#Conclusion

It is true that Free Basics violates the principle of Net Neutrality and it does create a two-tier internet, but does it really restrict or harm anyone? I don’t think so. In fact, one could even argue that paid internet is restrictive and harmful as it denies Internet to those that cannot pay.

There are only three things that block the unconnected from accessing the internet — Lack Of Infrastructure, Affordability and Digital Illiteracy, and Free Basics tries to overcome at least two of those barriers to some extent.

If you think about it, even though everyone on the internet has their freedom of choice, in life in general — a beginner never truly has a freewill. Since everything they do, every website they visit is because of external influence. Case in point, when I first joined the open web, I would only use that old abandoned site by Google called Orkut, because all of my friends at school were using it. I would use it so much that to me Orkut was the entire Internet. But I grew out of that naive understanding of mine, since I had constant access to the internet and I could educate myself. And I’m certain that all the new users of the internet, be it on their own or from Free Basics, would go through this same experience, unless they have someone to guide them.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this issue, and I’ve switched sides many times. I’m indeed pro net neutrality, but I’m willing to make an exception when I see no harm being done. Also, I feel like the human right to internet access holds more importance over the principle of access to a neutral network. Only when you are connected to a network in the first place can you be subjected to the access of a neutral one.

When I look at Free Basics, I don’t see a new market place for internet products to compete and acquire new users or even as a long team solution for connecting the masses, after all there are only so many people owning internet accessible devices that are unaware or cannot afford data. What I see is a temporary solution to a real problem that we as humanity face and if they can make the necessary amends in its design, I’m willing to completely support it.