I support Free Basics. Maybe you should too

Would you give up the internet, for the rest of your life, for 1 million dollars?

That is the question raised by a video by TFAS. When people are asked that, nearly everyone says they wouldn’t give up the internet for any amount of money –not for a million, not even tens of millions of dollars. We didn’t have the internet till a couple generations back, and now it is so inextricably tied to our lives that we wouldn’t give it up for any amount of money.

Let’s rephrase the question given the Net Neutrality debate:

“Would you allow others to have a slice of a service you wouldn’t give up for a million dollars?” If the internet, in most people’s reckoning, is worth a million dollars, surely a small slice of it is not completely worthless?

The answer for most people, it seems, is a resounding no. Such is the seriousness of the matter that every other person is sending emails to Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Think about it — when was the last time a few lakh people were sending mass e-mails and suggestions to the education or the health ministry? But the real testimony to the gravity of the situation is that All India Bakchod (AIB) made three videos about it. Not one, not two — three entire videos. When AIB takes things seriously, it clearly is no laughing matter.

The internet, apparently, needs to be saved — a cause worthy of the catchiest hashtags and all our angst — all 140 characters of it. The other side — the one that is supportive of Free Basics and is not too keen to quickly jump on the Net Neutrality bandwagon is derided as being ignorant. Who wouldn’t be against Zuckerberg’s/Facebook’s plans of taking over the internet/world?

The question of Net Neutrality aside, what is Free Basics?

It is an application that allows users to access some very basic websites, a mere fraction of the internet. The critics say that if Facebook is actually intent on connecting people to the internet, they should give them the whole deal, and not an impoverished internet.

What the critics miss is this — an impoverished choice is better than no choice at all. Limited connectivity is better than no connectivity at all. Extending choice leaves a person free to discard it. If people use Free Basics and see no value in it, they would not use it. If they do, good for them. Simply because the choices on board do not meet our expectations is not reasonable ground to deny some from extending choices, and preventing others from making choices.

It would be great for Facebook and ISPs to offer access to the internet for free, as some critics urge. But scarcity urges us to make choices — extending the full internet to everyone for free is simply not feasible — you need to choose between competing services to get the best bang for your buck. To be sure, Facebook reserves that right, but from all that is evident, Facebook seems keen to engage with businesses and service providers to develop Free Basics further.

Critics say too, that Free Basics is likely to give people a mistaken view of the internet — they’re likely to conflate what Free Basics provide with what the internet is. Except that that makes no sense, and over 40% of the people who use the service convert to access the full internet services within the first 30 days. When service providers are trying to get people on board as consumers, it is blatantly ridiculous to suppose that people would assume that there is nothing out there to explore beyond the free services provided by Free Basics. Even in the unlikely scenario that Facebook or an ISP tries to trick people in being content with an impoverished internet, there is no dearth of information out there for people to access, and other ISP providers would have a very strong incentive to make sure people stay informed and aware of the possibility of being connected to the full internet.

And finally, critics say that Free Basics violates Net Neutrality — the principle that ISPs should treat all data equally and not engage in price discrimination. Free Basics, ostensibly, violates Net Neutrality because it doesn’t charge for its service; and prioritises the content it does provide. The critics worry that this could set a precedent that could allow for greater violations of Net Neutrality.

The entire matter of Net Neutrality is complex, but for this post, it would suffice to say that much of the support for it may be misplaced. As Manu Joseph noted in his column, unless we apply a ‘theologically rigid definition’ of Net Neutrality; Free Basics is not in violation of it. And even if it is, it is a legitimate exception to the principle (never mind that the principle itself is suspect). Principles are not rigid rules that always need to be adhered to, and at times it may be prudent to allow for exceptions.

Here is another thing that critics miss. While they worry that Free Basics can set a precedent for further violations of Net Neutrality, they forget that their clamour for restricting Free Basics sets as dangerous (if not more) a precedent — of allowing the government to interfere with and regulate the internet. The internet is awesome, and it is largely because businesses have been reasonably unfettered in creating the infrastructure that has come to connect over 2 billion people. The spread of the internet is an achievement of enterprise, and we shouldn’t hamper the enterprise that promises to do so much good.

Does Facebook stand to gain through the initiative? It quite certainly does and it probably makes great business sense in the long term. But I think it is too harsh and uncharitable an assessment to say that Facebook is merely motivated by its own gain and nothing else. As Manu Joseph noted — ‘If Internet.org is a corporate plot of Facebook, then it is a good one.’

Here is a way to think about Free Basics — it is a first step in connecting people who have been deprived of access to the internet. And as a first step, it needs to be lauded. Presently it may not be viable for the poor to get access to the internet, and it is not viable for corporations to build the infrastructure to support it. Till that is the case, you need enterprising initiatives like this to make a start. I support Free Basics, maybe you should too.