FreeBas(ic)ing the Facebook way

Freebasing... OK, I know. Terrible, terrible pun.

Anyway, if you haven't already guessed, today I'll be talking about Facebook's new initiative, Free Basics. As some of you may know, Facebook launched Internet.org last year and it was renamed "Free Basics" in the final quarter of that same year. Its purpose? Broadly speaking, to provide free internet access for less fortunate folks who can't afford to pay for it.

Free Basics

How's that supposed to work?

Interested parties providing web services and applications apply to join the platform, which is carried out by Facebook and an Internet Service Provider. Anyone using the a special sim card to access these sites/services/apps does not get the charges added to the bill. So the point, ostensibly, is that people who can't afford to pay for data charges can use these services for free.

Reactions

Response from India has been mixed despite Free Basics' potential for reducing the massive wealth gap. The majority of the online chatter seems to be denouncing it. Comedy group All India Bahchod (AIB) released a few skits which will effectively sum up their concerns. I particularly like this one by Schitz en Giggles. It's pretty funny and explains the reactions far better than I ever could.

But what the hell, I'm gonna try anyway.

See, the ruckus is about Net Neutrality.

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. - wikipedia.org

Activists are concerned that this compromises the principles of Net Neutrality if only certain services approved by Facebook and the ISP are allowed to take part in Free Basics. This excludes entities who are competitors of the ISP, or who do not conform to technical specifications set by Facebook. Which effectively means that those using the Free Basics platform will get free access only to a certain segment of the internet.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has voiced his opinion to the contrary. I'm not sure I entirely buy his message that Free Basics fully respects Net Neutrality. Because, if we go by the definition above; the way Free Basics is being implemented, the very fact that interested parties need to be approved by Facebook and the ISP, contradicts that principle.

Due to the outcry, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has temporarily ceased the implementation of Free Basics, at least till January 7th, 2016.

So in a nutshell, this is about the principle of Net Neutrality. The principle is admirable. But as a developer, my faith in principles do not supercede my faith in results. Punctuality is an admirable principle too. If you had to choose, would you rather have a developer who comes in late every damn day but meets all his delivery deadlines, or a habitually punctual developer who doesn't deliver? Again - results. If you had a fire to put out and someone handed you bottled water, would you refuse to use it because of ethical issues?

I'm not saying that the naysayers don't have a point. In fact, they have an excellent point. But let's look at this again. The problem is that a sizable percentage of India's population do not have the means to pay for long-term internet access, and lack of access to information and services will further disadvantage the poor. Free Basics will alleviate that problem swiftly. Does Net Neutrality matter to the ones that Free Basics is supposed to benefit? I think fucks given: zero isn't too far off the mark here. (Far off the mark, geddit? Heh heh)

Facebook is not being altruistic

Facebook stands to gain from this. It stands to gain big. Increased exposure to the masses, increased growth... the opportunities are huge. So yes, all that slick marketing Facebook is doing to promote Free Basics as an noble endeavor, is just so much doggy-doo.

Free Basics poster

So what?

Last time I checked, Facebook isn't a non-profit organization. So Facebook found a way to benefit itself and the poor, without robbing anyone (jury's out on that one, though). Why is that a problem, again?

Tim Berners-Lee has argued that customers should "just say no" to offers of a cut-down Internet.  Now, I respect TimBL as much as the next web geek, but wouldn't "customers" in this context be the target demographic that Free Basics is aiming for? I can't see them complaining about getting free stuff. And those not wanting to participate are certainly not being held at gunpoint to do so.

Facebook's tyranny

Which brings me to another point - the activists who cry "Who is Facebook to decide what services poor people should and should not get?"

Hmm, you guys got me there. Not so long ago, I was looking over hosting plans from Hostinger. Now apparently there's a free plan where you don't have to pay a cent. What Hostinger gives you is 2000 mb of storage, 2 MYSQL databases and 100 gb of data transfer, among other things. But guess what - if you want more stuff, you have to pay, like, 2 gbp per month.

God damn it! Who is Hostinger to dictate what services that I, an impoverished web developer, can access on their free hosting?!

Alternative solutions

Recognizing the fact that giving unfettered free internet access is economically unfeasible, some activists and concerned citizens have raised alternative ideas in place of Free Basics.

One such idea involves providing free internet, with no restrictions, for a period of, say, 3 months. I don't think that's such a hot idea. If the goal is to provide access to people who have never had internet access, the learning curve here may turn out to be costly. Surfing the web is a no-brainer. But surfing the web productively, to gain access to useful information and services, is something that can only be learned over time. And almost certainly not in the space of 3 months, unless one dedicates an entire 3 months to learning productive web navigation. Just a wild guess - the target demographic is a little too preoccupied trying to make ends meet.

Another idea: Provide internet access, with no restrictions, with the first 300mb of data free. You're kidding, right? All these guys need to do is watch a few YouTube videos and the 300mb will be gone faster than you can say "Save The Internet". Unfettered access, remember? Plenty of options. Too many choices. An overwhelming number of options.

Possible consequences

This could lead to Facebook getting a stranglehold on the Internet. By limiting free access only to certain sites, Facebook can control what poor people see and think. How deliciously insidious.

Here's an idea - get off the Internet. Or, if you want to access anything outside of the free stuff Free Basics is giving you - pay for it like everyone else.

If Free Basics does not go through, Facebook loses nothing. India will still have the problem of a struggling, under-developed segment of its population with no internet access. If Free Basics does go through, all that happens is that these people get stuff they didn't have before - at no cost. I fail to see a downside to that, at least. As an interim solution, Free Basics is ugly but effective.

What is TeochewThunder's position?

Hey wait. This is India we're talking about. I don't live there. No skin off my back. I'm just a web geek writing about interesting occurrences in my industry.

But, if you insist on supporting one side or the other, the link to Save The Internet's petition is here. And the link to support Free Basics is here.

Stay tuned. This appears to be TRAIing times for Facebook!
T___T