Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg is experiencing backlash over his Free Basics platform from some organizations citing concerns about discrimination and limited access, in spite of his claim that what Internet.org is doing does not go against net neutrality.
We all know that net neutrality is a thing right now and that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking into the activities of telecommunications companies to determine whether the companies are not breaching net neutrality regulations. If Zuckerberg's "noble plan" to help citizens of struggling economies such as India is supposed to be in line with the net neutrality rules, then why is it mired in controversy?
The best way to determine if the issue is really all that controversial is to go over the basics, so to speak.
What Is Net Neutrality All About?
Net Neutrality falls under the FCC's efforts to maintain what they call an "Open Internet." To put it simply, FCC wants Internet subscribers to be able to open any site they want anytime and without experiencing hassle from Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The way FCC plans to enforce this is to make sure that ISPs are not being unfair with their services by favoring one site over the other in the form of fast lanes or by blocking the content of competitor sites.
"The FCC's Open Internet rules protect and maintain open, uninhibited access to legal online content without broadband Internet access providers being allowed to block, impair, or establish fast/slow lanes to lawful content," the FCC explains. "[T]he Open Internet rules also establish a legal standard for other broadband provider practices to ensure that they do not unreasonably interfere with or disadvantage consumers' access to the Internet."
That also means that ISPs are required to treat all content and sites equally. However, this also brings into question the existing partnerships and programs between ISPs and companies wherein ISPs offer services for certain sites and applications which do not add to a subscriber's data cap. This is why the FCC has invited T-Mobile, AT&T and Comcast to discuss their services and determine if the offerings are in line with the Commission's goals.
Internet.org: The Brainchild Of Zuckerberg
Internet.org is the brainchild of Zuckerberg and a collaborative endeavor between his company, Facebook, and six other companies: Ericsson, MediaTek, Nokia, Opera Software, Qualcomm and Samsung. Its aim is to bring Internet service to less developed countries through non-exclusive partnerships with local ISPs to offer free internet access through Internet.org's platform Free Basics.
Back in April, Zuckerberg shared his position on the controversy surrounding Internet.org, saying he believes everyone in the world deserves access to the Internet as it is one of the most powerful instruments for social and economic growth.
"This is why we created Internet.org, our effort to connect the whole world. By partnering with mobile operators and governments in different countries, Internet.org offers free access in local languages to basic Internet services in areas like jobs, health, education and messaging. Internet.org lowers the cost of accessing the Internet and raises the awareness of the internet's value. It helps include everyone in the world's opportunities," he explained.
Zuckerberg's intentions seem noble but there will always be people who see things differently. In this case, many organizations are crying foul because of the limited sites that Free Basics gives access to. Now it's time to bring in the arguments.
The Opposition: Internet.org Violates Net Neutrality
In India where criticism of the platform is hot at present, Internet.org's only ISP partnership is with Reliance Communications. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) just dealt a major blow to Facebook on Dec. 23 when it ordered Reliance to halt the Free Basics service. This is because TRAI has also been debating on whether Free Basics violates net neutrality since the service is only offered by Reliance.
On May 18, AccessNow.org posted an open letter addressed to Zuckerberg and signed by several organizations sharing the same concerns on Facebook, where the letter challenged Internet.org's goals vis-à-vis its approches.
"It is our belief that Facebook is improperly defining net neutrality in public statements and building a walled garden in which the world's poorest people will only be able to access a limited set of insecure websites and services. Further, we are deeply concerned that Internet.org has been misleadingly marketed as providing access to the full Internet, when in fact it only provides access to a limited number of Internet-connected services that are approved by Facebook and local ISPs. In its present conception, Internet.org thereby violates the principles of net neutrality, threatening freedom of expression, equality of opportunity, security, privacy and innovation," AccessNow.org wrote.
The organization's main concern was that Facebook's approach on offering Free Basics is in line with the zero rating service which was banned or restricted in some countries due to the unfair practice.
Zuckerberg's Defense
"Arguments about net neutrality shouldn't be used to prevent the most disadvantaged people in society from gaining access or to deprive people of opportunity. Eliminating programs that bring more people online won't increase social inclusion or close the digital divide. It will only deprive all of us of the ideas and contributions of the two thirds of the world who are not connected," Zuckerberg argued.
The Facebook CEO insisted that Free Basics does not violate net neutrality and that it is a free, open service. He also said that Internet.org welcomes developers and new partners as long as they meet certain basic technical requirements, so that they too may be connected to Free Basics. The only reason why Free Basics has a limited selection of websites it can access when it was launched was because Internet.org only had a few partners during that time and not because it favored one company or developer over another.
Where Should You Stand?
From the point of view of an American citizen living in the United States where Internet connection is readily available from a number of ISPs and choices are numerous, Internet.org really does seem to be violating net neutrality because of the limited service it currently provides. Then again, Facebook did openly invite companies and developers to partner with it so other services can also be added to Free Basics.
Let's take India's case as the central issue. Internet.org wants to give free Internet access to 1 billion Indian citizens in rural areas who have otherwise no way of connecting to the Internet. Should net neutrality really be a big issue in a place where the Internet is not even accessible if the only way to achieve free connectivity at present is also being put on hold? For those 1 billion citizens who are not connected to the Internet, neutrality has no value because there isn't even a "currency" to consider. To put it simply, why would anyone who doesn't even have access to bread care about what kind of sandwich he or she can make with one?
"[Facebook] cannot assure us that their 'free' services won't turn into monopolies and bite us back in near future," Arnab Mukherjee of Digit wrote, and that is a completely sound argument. Facebook may have noble intentions but its partners, especially the ISPs, may begin to pull away from the original goal to serve their own purpose, and that is what Zuckerberg must answer to and stand firm against.
Where you should stand is whichever side you think makes the most sense after considering all the arguments of both sides. We must stand on the side of educated response instead of just following the herd of whoever can call out the loudest.
