Net Neutrality And Internet.org: Is Mark Zuckerberg Really Evil?

The net-neutrality debate cannot be allowed to scuttle cheap access to the internet for the masses. 

Imagine this scenario.

A billionaire businessman, in a bid to provide basic healthcare services to all, invests in developing a chain of hospitals in the remotest areas of a country. In the process, he signs up a number of junior doctors, and to make the services affordable, he forges strategic alliances with pharmaceutical companies to provide low-cost medicine. Also, he sets up a research wing to study the ways in which one can bring the medical costs further down.

Then we have a group of ‘activists’ coming along to oppose this enterprising activity. They contend that these hospitals treat only a few common ailments and not the whole gamut of maladies known to mankind. Since these health care centers are not treating all the diseases equally, they profess that it amounts to violating some mythical “healthcare neutrality” principle. The Government, thus, needs to interfere and stop the project. They accuse the initiative of creating two-tiered healthcare system (one for the urban rich and another for the rural poor) and promoting healthcare divide in the country.

Back to reality.

The resistance in this supposed scenario should outrage any sane person. In fact, one would even question: in which world would such an absurd opposition arise? But it is happening right in front of us! In fact, some of us are even part of it. The whole opposition to Internet.org is a replica of the above supposed scenario.

Mark Zuckerberg, the young billionaire CEO of Facebook, started the internet.org with a goal to take the internet to all parts of the world. Initially offering access to the limited sites that partnered with him, he wants to offer a basic version of the Internet free of cost to everyone on the planet. But this move is seen to be evil by the proponents of “Net-Neutrality” principle.

Since this creates two versions of the Internet — the normal and the basic/lite. They argue that it will bring about a digital divide. They attribute a lot of other things as well. But before we get to arguing what good or bad does the internet.org bring about, let’s have a closer look at the venture itself.

What is internet.org?

Back in August 2013, Facebook announced the launch of internet.org in partnership with companies like Samsung, Ericsson, Nokia etc. Subsequently, in 2014, they started rolling out Internet.org services in developing African countries like Zambia, Kenya, Tanzania etc. Internet.org is a ‘free to use’ mobile app acting as a gateway for basic Internet services like Google Search, Facebook, Wikipedia and according to Zuckerberg “anyone who wants to join us”.

The project was aimed at connecting the two third of the world that has no Internet access. Facebook has identified that most of these people live in 20 countries and, therefore, the mission is targeted at them. Of the 2/3rds of the world without Internet connectivity, 80% of them live in areas with an infrastructure capable of giving Internet access.

To these people, the constraints are mainly economic. To the remaining 20%, the constraint is infrastructure as well as economic. To address the ‘Challenge of the 20%’ Facebook is investing heavily in futuristic technologies such as Solar-powered drones, Geosynchronous satellites equipped with FSO (Free Space Optics) technology and many more. It probably will use a combination of these technologies to reach the remotest parts of our world.

For the 80%, the major barrier they saw was that of data cost. In their research, they found out that many with smartphones are not getting connected because of huge data costs involved. They estimated that the data should roughly cost 100X cheaper for people to be able to afford basic Internet services. To enable cost reduction in data transmission, they are proposing the use of data compression tools, improved data caching technologies and solutions to increase network efficiency. Facebook, through its innovation lab, is trying to build a model for data optimization under different network scenarios which other services can replicate and thus increase the choices for internet.org consumers. As a first step, Facebook successfully reduced average data usage on it’s android app from 12mb a day to 1 Mb.

What is the criticism then?

That it creates a ‘Digital Divide’! Yes, you heard it right. If a country with just 20% Internet penetration gets a new service that tries to offer a stripped-down version of the Internet for the 80% who never had any access, the high priests of Internet tell us that it creates a digital divide. They argue that if Indians buy into this deal, they will get locked down and always remain in the lower tier.

What they indirectly imply is that Indians at the lower end of the financial spectrum are gullible and are incapable of choosing what is good for them, and so the high priests of Internet will decide it for them. Ironically, they accuse Facebook of playing the Messiah, while their own actions smacks of elitism. While the figures, as per internet.org, shows that 50% of their users are paying for the data outside free basic services (moving up the tier) within 30 days of coming online for the first time.

Another criticism is that internet.org threatens the ‘security’ of users as it prohibits/limits the use of encryption by participating services. What these people forget is, security is a premium feature, not a birthright. Back in the Postal days, if you wanted your message to be secure (encrypted), instead of a postcard, you would use an envelope cover (costlier option). But have we ever heard of anyone seeking a ban on postcards for threatening security?

And then there is this weird criticism that the Internet is the whole thing and if you break it down you can’t call it the Internet. Fine. Let’s call it gobbledygook net. Can they sell it now? Some criticize that this is not a philanthropic act and there are ulterior motives attached to this venture. So what? The only question to ask is do they have the right to offer their service? Yes, as long they are not threatening the life, liberty and property of others, they have every right. If you don’t want, don’t subscribe to it. You may even run a campaign, make people aware of it, but who are you to stop them from functioning altogether?

Ironically, when our political parties promise free Internet, with our own tax money, we elect them with an overwhelming majority and don’t see any ulterior motives. But we become skeptical when it comes to a private company investing its money in better infrastructure and plans to reach out to those markets, which never had the Internet access.

Net-Neutrality & Internet.org

The one problem with Internet.org though is that they beat around the bush when it comes to Net neutrality. Instead of stating the fact that Internet.org and Net-Neutrality can’t co-exist, they claim that they respect and adhere to it. As I’ve already written, Net-neutrality is an untenable concept. If one really goes by the real definition of it, the Internet simply cannot work. That is why the net neutrality activists change the definition as and when they like into whatever they want to call it. DoT, in its recent report, said, “There is no standard definition of Net Neutrality”, but still went on to judge that internet.org violates it. Yes, unfortunately, that is the level of preposterity we are dealing with.

Power Game

With the whole Net-Neutrality hysteria that manifested itself into lakhs of emails being sent to TRAI in support of Net-Neutrality, Internet.org decided to use its muscle. They ran a campaign on Facebook to garner support for them. But neither the majority of those who pledged support to internet.org nor those who sent emails to TRAI, have any idea of what they are endorsing. It has turned into an ugly mob fight. Now the question is not who is right, but who has got bigger mob behind them.

Now that the debate has reached a critical stage, Internet.org is resorting to crony tactics. By inviting PM Modi to its headquarters, Facebook is trying to influence the political class and the media. Now this is turning out into a fight between the socialist mob and the crony corporate.

Though the Internet.org is on the right side of the debate here, it is sad to see issues being settled on who has more political power on their side than who is logically right.

The whole debate around this issue, and also in debates in general in India can be summed up by quoting Ayn Rand.

This is what makes today’s public issues and discussions so sickeningly false and futile. Most issues rest on so many wrong premises and carry so many contradictions that instead of the question: “Who is right?” one is constantly and tacitly confronted with the question: “Which gang do you want to support?”

The author tweets at @ravithinkz. With inputs from Shreyas Bharadwaj.