 "Sunil Abraham")
Facebook has recently stepped up promotion of its controversial Free Basics service through billboards, newspaper advertisements and messages on its website, leading to protests from those who say that it violates the principles of net neutrality. Following such concerns, Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) has stopped Reliance Communications from offering the service.
Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, talks to Ranjita Ganesan about the service, its implications and how it can be regulated
What is Free Basics by Facebook?
Also Read
Free Basics is a zero-rated walled garden by Facebook that offers a tiny sliver of the World Wide Web, which is in turn just a sub-set of the internet. It is offered in collaboration with one or more telecom operators in 36 markets across the whole world. These markets are those that cannot afford the internet and those that are not interested in the internet.
Does it violate the idea of net neutrality?
Free Basics violates the principles of net neutrality because it allows Facebook to play the role of a gatekeeper. It is not as if the whole internet is and was completely neutral. There has been and should be discrimination for various legitimate goals, but as internet monopolies get larger, their gate-keeping powers need to be tempered in order to protect the security and suitability of the internet. This can be done without introducing onerous regulations for ISPs and telecom operators.
What are the perceived merits and demerits of Free Basics?
There has been very little independent research published in the Indian context, with perhaps the exception of Amba Kak's qualitative work in New Delhi. All we know is there are both theoretical harms and benefits. Net neutrality violations can potentially have multiple categories of harms, including competition harms, free speech harms, privacy harms, and harms to consumer choice and user freedoms. Net neutrality violations can also have different kinds of benefits such as enabling the right to freedom of expression and the freedom of association, especially when access to communication and publishing technologies is increased.
How will Facebook benefit from offering this service?
"If you're not paying for it; you're the product." I'm not sure who said that, but Facebook is using Free Basics to acquire their product, which means that Indian eyeballs can be sold to advertisers. This maximises shareholder value. Violations of net neutrality also have some societal benefits. With a positive, forward-looking net neutrality regime, as advocated by Chris Marsden, it would be possible to increase societal benefits and at the same time retain incentives for Facebook and others to innovate using their technology and business models.
TRAI has put the Free Basics service on ice. How should it be dealt with going forward? Can it be regulated?
There are several serious proposals on the table. Save the internet has proposed a permanent ban on zero-rating with forbearance on equal rating. Advertisement-supported equal rating is another option. V Sridhar and Rohit Prasad have proposed the ceiling and floor for price and quality of the service, with the additional requirement of Classic internet on best-effort basis.
Questions were raised about Facebook's practices to garner support for the concept - some users allege their signatures were added illegitimately.
Unfortunately, there are no research organisations in India that can determine whether Facebook is manipulating public discourse or fraudulently garnering support. This is a very important question since most online public discourse is mediated through privatised infrastructure. Some people have proposed regulation of algorithms and treating social media companies as essential facilities. In my opinion, that would be going too far. What is required for now is more and more observatories like the one established at IIIT-Bangalore that can tell us independently if Facebook has acted illegally or unethically.
What steps are needed to spread the internet in India?
Digital India and Make in India are critical to bridging the digital divide. We have been working on many of those questions since we started in 2008. We need the establishment of a patent pool for low-cost access devices and the grant of affordable compulsory licences to prevent patent wars from coming to India.
As Shyam Ponappa has advocated, we need to leverage shared spectrum taking advantage of the cognitive radios on our devices. We need more and more unlicenced spectrum for both last mile and middle mile. We need Indic language technologies and content. We need laws that uphold human rights, so that the benefits of these technologies can be unlocked whilst mitigating harms.
