A likely recommendation of Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India [TRAI] rejecting differential pricing for data services and zero rating – a practice where internet service providers [ISPs] do not charge customers on data for select applications that they use [this was implemented by Airtel last year but forced to abandon following public outcry] – or ‘free basics’ another nomenclature for zero rating [started by Facebook about an year ago under its earlier incarnation Internet.org] has caused much consternation amongst telecom service providers [TSPs] and social networking platforms.
In what could ruffle many feathers, Facebook chose the medium of a ‘discussion paper’ floated by TRAI inviting comments from public to launch a high voltage publicity campaign in support of its ‘free basics’ plan. An exercise intended to elicit public comments specifically on the subject of differential pricing for data services – leading to ‘informed’ and ‘transparent’ decisions was turned in to what TRAI very aptly described as a ‘majoritarian’ and ‘orchestrated’ opinion poll on its ‘free basics’ plan [majority of a total of 1800,000 comments received by the regulator were merely one liners expressing support for ‘free basics’].
If, despite having invested heavily in propaganda on a gigantic scale, the regulator is unfazed and inclined to express itself against the plan [and even the government is expected to go by its recommendations], a sense of disgruntlement amongst Facebook/TSPs is obvious. But, the Facebook its partner in India, Reliance Communications [RCOM] and many other stakeholders who have openly supported and campaigned for it are to blame themselves for the fiasco.
So, where did things go wrong? All along, Mark Zuckerberg [flamboyant CEO of Facebook who was also lucky to have the privilege of hosting prime minister, Modi in September, 2015] has declared his commitment to ‘Net Neutrality” – a philosophy to which Modi – government is wedded and won’t compromise under any circumstances – and at the same time, claimed that its ‘free basics’ plan is fully consistent with it. But, the reality is far removed from his claim as the plan violates the neutrality principle.
A fundamental requirement of “Net Neutrality” is that while on one hand, any user in any part of the world should have unfettered and un-interrupted access to all ‘content’ from all available ‘sources’ on the other, all sources [read content providers/website owners/service providers etc] should also have unfettered and un-interrupted access to all available platforms for offering their content/services. If, there is any void or disconnect in any of these, the net neutrality would be compromised.
Zuckerberg promises to provide hundreds of million users especially those in rural areas [including areas where internet connectivity has not even reached] access to services such as education, health, drinking water, sanitation etc free of cost. He claims that any service provider/website owner /app developer can register on the platform for free. Already, 80 websites across Gujarat, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Goa have registered with under the plan.
Do these ingredients add up to net neutrality? The answer is a categorical no. This is because the rigorous requirement of registration [for instance, they need to have resilience to adjust to slow speed or sporadic internet connectivity and comply with local laws and regulations] will ensure that only a select few service providers/website owners/app developers will get a chance to offer their services/content/innovations etc. They are the ones who will get ‘preferential’ and ‘selective’ access to showcase and reach out their stuff to users via the platform.
The proof of pudding is in eating. The very fact that Facebook has arrangements/tie-ups with select ISPs [only 80 of these have signed up in a span of an year] provides ample testimony to its subtle [a more apt phrase is ‘surreptitious’] attempts to dominate the internet space. One cannot also rule out the possibility of Facebook collecting a fee from these select ISPs or leveraging data/information on users to generate commercial value.
The arrangement is clearly discriminatory and unfair as millions of content providers/website owners who cannot afford to pay or meet the rigorous requirements of registration will be blocked. This will also severely restrict users choice and hamper their ability to have access to such content providers. A dispensation that projects only a select few on its platform is completely out of sync with the principles of net neutrality.
The scenario would be similar to a newspaper publishing articles of a select number of authors [commonly known as ‘columnists’] thereby denying opportunity to a host of others who may have a lot of good ideas useful to readers but are blocked due to a biased and restrictive policy of the establishment. In case of internet whose reach is unlimited [unlike the print media], the implications of following such a policy would be far reaching.
The monopolization of market for goods and services, innovations/creative ideas [inevitable when only a few service/content providers are permitted on the platform] will have grave implications more so, when these are in essential services such as education, health etc. Imagine, once the “free basics” plan takes deep root on India’s landscape, the risk of exploitation would have increased manifold. Tomorrow, when other options are not available, then those very select service providers on Facebook platform will merrily charge users making a mockery of the so called “free” access.
Pertinently, even differential tariff for data services [different pricing for accessing different websites, applications and platforms] is inconsistent with net neutrality as that will put users to a serious disadvantage while availing of certain services. Still, this would be less of a problem in comparison to “free basics” plan which apart from severely restricting choices for users would also subject them to exploitation in the future.
In sum, it is good that TRAI has not allowed itself to be bullied by those who believe that except for zero-rating and differential pricing, there is no other way to bring internet access to millions of Indians who hitherto could not access internet. The cost of data services tend to be high primarily due to high capital spend on buying spectrum and laying infrastructure for connectivity. This can be addressed upfront by leveraging National Optic Fibre Network [NOFN] and deployment of USO [Universal Service Obligation] Fund.
The government must not allow “net neutrality” to be compromised under any circumstances much less in the garb of certain interested groups [read Facebook/RCOM/Airtel etc] promising internet services for free as ‘there are no free lunches’.