For the past few days, I have found myself in the midst of a raging argument between Facebook's 'Free Basics' solution in India and violation of 'Net Neutraility' principles by 'Free Basics'. But do we really understand what does net neutrality mean? A simple definition of net neutrality is that each and every resource on the internet should be treated equally and should be accessible to everyone irrespective of it's origin. Agreed.
The next big question is does 'Free Basics' really violate the definition of net neutrality? If we look at the face value of what 'Free Basics' actually is, then yes, it is actually violating the principles of net neutrality. For those who are unaware of what 'Free Basics' actually is, it provides internet access free of cost to the people who don't have access to the internet by partnering with a telecommunication provider at a cost that only some of the websites which are registered with 'Free Basics' are accessible. Some of the websites range from the health, entertainment category to news and public information category. Currently not all the websites are on 'Free Basics'. If you need a list of the websites that are currently included in 'Free Basics' for India, you can find the list in this link. I do agree that considering the above definition, 'Free Basics' does violate the principles of net neutrality. It might turn out to be an unfair competition for the internet businesses which are not registered on 'Free Basics' with the one that are. I agree to this point whole heartedly, that's why I see people on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites opposing the implementation of 'Free Basics' in India. I respect their point of view.
But my question is, are we asking the right questions? Is it only about net neutrality? Isn't it about making internet accessible to the rural villages in India? It's very unfortunate to see that people are openly opposing 'Free Basics' and blasting them on the internet, but has anyone of us thought about bringing internet access to the villages, which actually was the primary problem in the first place? We are currently in the 21st century, and around 4.4 billion people in the world don't have access to internet. India contributes around quarter of that offline population. Has anyone thought about how to get them connected? Sadly, no. The sad fact is everyone is up taking sides either with 'Save the Internet' or 'Free Basics'. But has anyone thought of taking sides with the people who are actually living in the dark ages of information? It's time we should think.
'Save the Internet' is putting in a huge effort in order to stop 'Free Basics' from being implemented in India. Their motto is that the whole internet should be accessible to everyone. Again, agreed. I appreciate their effort. But let's say, the solution is not implemented in India, do they have a solution up their sleeve where they will make the internet accessible to the villages? I haven't seen any effort from them in this direction. Just because of the fact that we don't have a solution, we won't let anyone else solve the problem because we find that the competition would be unfair among the businesses. According to me, this perspective is totally uncalled for.
So does it mean, that we should blindly accept the solution provided by Facebook? The answer is no. I agree to 'SaveTheInternet' 's point that regulations should be in place to check net neutrality. It's time we have laws which protects the interests of the consumers. But also, we need to understand the bigger picture. 'Free Basics' is actually for the greater good of the people. But yes, this solution also needs to be kept under check and should be regulated. For that, laws have to be in place.
If you still don't agree with 'Free Basics' then it's time we come up with a solution which trumps 'Free Basics'. We can't keep other people in the dark just because we don't have a solution at hand.
I do support 'Free Basics' because it's for the greater good but having said that, I support it conditionally. If not, we need to come up with a solution in which we provide internet access to the people but also protect the neutrailty of the internet. If such a solution comes along, I will be more than happy to support it.
It's time we also think of our people instead of blindly supporting 'Free Basics' or 'Net Neutrality'.
The next big question is does 'Free Basics' really violate the definition of net neutrality? If we look at the face value of what 'Free Basics' actually is, then yes, it is actually violating the principles of net neutrality. For those who are unaware of what 'Free Basics' actually is, it provides internet access free of cost to the people who don't have access to the internet by partnering with a telecommunication provider at a cost that only some of the websites which are registered with 'Free Basics' are accessible. Some of the websites range from the health, entertainment category to news and public information category. Currently not all the websites are on 'Free Basics'. If you need a list of the websites that are currently included in 'Free Basics' for India, you can find the list in this link. I do agree that considering the above definition, 'Free Basics' does violate the principles of net neutrality. It might turn out to be an unfair competition for the internet businesses which are not registered on 'Free Basics' with the one that are. I agree to this point whole heartedly, that's why I see people on Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites opposing the implementation of 'Free Basics' in India. I respect their point of view.
But my question is, are we asking the right questions? Is it only about net neutrality? Isn't it about making internet accessible to the rural villages in India? It's very unfortunate to see that people are openly opposing 'Free Basics' and blasting them on the internet, but has anyone of us thought about bringing internet access to the villages, which actually was the primary problem in the first place? We are currently in the 21st century, and around 4.4 billion people in the world don't have access to internet. India contributes around quarter of that offline population. Has anyone thought about how to get them connected? Sadly, no. The sad fact is everyone is up taking sides either with 'Save the Internet' or 'Free Basics'. But has anyone thought of taking sides with the people who are actually living in the dark ages of information? It's time we should think.
'Save the Internet' is putting in a huge effort in order to stop 'Free Basics' from being implemented in India. Their motto is that the whole internet should be accessible to everyone. Again, agreed. I appreciate their effort. But let's say, the solution is not implemented in India, do they have a solution up their sleeve where they will make the internet accessible to the villages? I haven't seen any effort from them in this direction. Just because of the fact that we don't have a solution, we won't let anyone else solve the problem because we find that the competition would be unfair among the businesses. According to me, this perspective is totally uncalled for.
So does it mean, that we should blindly accept the solution provided by Facebook? The answer is no. I agree to 'SaveTheInternet' 's point that regulations should be in place to check net neutrality. It's time we have laws which protects the interests of the consumers. But also, we need to understand the bigger picture. 'Free Basics' is actually for the greater good of the people. But yes, this solution also needs to be kept under check and should be regulated. For that, laws have to be in place.
If you still don't agree with 'Free Basics' then it's time we come up with a solution which trumps 'Free Basics'. We can't keep other people in the dark just because we don't have a solution at hand.
I do support 'Free Basics' because it's for the greater good but having said that, I support it conditionally. If not, we need to come up with a solution in which we provide internet access to the people but also protect the neutrailty of the internet. If such a solution comes along, I will be more than happy to support it.
It's time we also think of our people instead of blindly supporting 'Free Basics' or 'Net Neutrality'.
No comments:
Post a Comment