Skip to main content

Why opposition to Free Basics is flawed


If purists are so offended by a limited offering, just don’t call ‘Free Basics’ the Internet
 A lot has been said about Free Basics, the free limited internet program by Facebook and its telecom partners. Mostly by people opposing it. Facebook is spending (reportedly) Rs 100 crore and using its own properties to make it a success.
It is ironical that people who claim to be avowedly pro-market are the loudest opponents of Free Basics. So much so, there is hardly a major voice that stands for it. Supporting it, is almost like supporting bigotry, and invites accusations of shilling for Facebook.  In the spirit of Laissez-faire, it is my contention that Free Basics should continue. Whether it succeeds or fails is something that the market should decide.
Let us analyse the main arguments that we have heard against Free Basics and why we should have a different view on them.
Who pays for it?
Since FB doesn’t pay Telcos for bandwidth. Telcos make too much money from us and are giving away bandwidth.
From the Telcos perspective, this is a marketing expense to acquire new customers. Unless the argument is that marketing itself are causing higher prices. In which case you should be complaining about the hundreds of crores being spent on marketing and customer service points.
The Telco has its own shareholders to answer to. If the costs of the program are not commensurate with returns (new paid signups), they will exit the program.
May have ads
FB says it will not have ads, but does not say it will never have ads.
This is irrelevant for three reasons.
First, making money is not a crime; Quoting Adam Smith:
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.”
Second, most content on the “open” Internet is subsidised by advertising. In that sense you are today a free customer, you just pay for access. Free Basics just takes that subsidy forward. Today that cost is borne by Telcos, tomorrow it could be by advertisers. It remains the end user’s choice, whether s/he wants heavily subsidised access to a few websites (aka Free Basics) or lightly subsidised (aka open Internet) or even, not subsidised (paywalled) Internet.
Third, when ads start appearing, Telcos will ask for a piece of that pie, thereby negating the first concern.
Privacy and FB access to usage data
This argument would be valid, if we ourselves stopped using Facebook and ALL sites that used Facebook integration. If we are not willing to let go of these services, who are we to set a higher standard for the target audience of this program?
FB does not have legitimate support.
FB may claim 3.2 million in support, but how many of those mails are legitimate?
The same statement could be made of the campaign against Free Basics. Have all those people who have signed up to oppose, fully understood the argument?
It’s keeping only FB and partners free
Yes it is. The market will produce its own challengers with wider offerings. Nothing stops Airtel and Google to create a similar offering of their own.
It’s not an open platform
FB sets the rules and can change those anytime.
This is correct. The answer to this is to codify the rules via regulation. Not a ban. Again competitors can come in with their own versions.
It will hamper innovation
It will become more expensive for startups to create products and services
People (including the poor) do pay for better service. Govt run schools and hospitals vs private schools and hospitals. If you have a great product, people will find their way to it. 
What are the alternatives?
Government subsidies
The government could subsidise ‘open’ Internet. And we will pay for it though taxes. Taxes that could be used in areas where private enterprise cannot function profitably, at scale.
Other models that are ad subsidised, user funded
There may be other models we like. And Free Basics is yet another such model. Two classes of market participants have come together to innovate on how to get millions of Indians online. Without the use of public funds.
The entire argument against Free Basics assumes, that the target customer and the telco are irrational actors, unintelligent to the ways of the world. 
There is a video by AIB that (correctly) mocked the fact that FB opened it’s voting on Free Basics to US audiences. Similarly it is laughable that active digital Indians get the right to decide how other Indians get on to the internet.
Tiered access as a solution
Most Net Neutrality champions are comfortable with the thought that advertising is a subsidy. Why should you have to treat Internet access differently? As long as the choice of higher priced 'open' internet remains available to customers? The idea is neither radical, nor new.
Telcos, Facebook and participating sites are businesses operating in an open market. When you choose to champion an anti-Free Basics campaign, you are essentially moving away from a pro-markets stance. 
If purists are so offended by a limited offering, just don’t call it the Internet.
Chirag is a technology executive turned entrepreneur bringing offline businesses and online user experiences closer together. He tweets as @chirag and blogs at www.marlinspike.in 
This article originally appeared on Business Standard.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Social Networking for Grown-Ups...

So much is said about social networks and how catch all social networks are all the rage right now. But look back a few years and you see all a landscape littered with yesterday's stars. Friendster Hi5 and to some extent Orkut (Some may argue that Orkut is alive and kicking in India, but I beg to differ. Orkut isn't hip any mre, which means that over time it will slide into nothingness. After all which woman, wants 100 friend requests from absolute strangers) And not to mention that the hundreds of new social networks that pop up every other day. Clearly a gold rush is on. The acquisition of Desimartini by HT 's Firefly eVenture is a symptom of this gold rush. With the reported difficulties of Google & MS to monetise their respective ad properties of MySpace and Facebook, it is clear that we have seen all the hypergrowth we had to see, It will grow, there are after all several billion people on this planet but not necessarily to the point, wher

An Aggregator for Aggregators

Earlier this week a friend of mine popped up on messenger to ask me about a rumour regarding someone at one of my previous workplaces. So we got chatting about rumours, what is news and what is worth blogging about? So he suddenly asked are you on FriendFeed? My reaction, quite frankly was of bafflement? what is this now? I usually consider myself to be on the bleeding edge of technology, but I have been out of this watch-techcrunch-and-sign-up-for-everything-new-thing-that-gets-announced loop. After some moments of befuddlement on my part, I start adding the usual aggregator stuff, del.icio.us, Amazon wishlists, Google reader et al. And then I added Jassim (the aforementioned friend) and some other friends and suddenly a thought struck me: Firehose. It was like drinking from a firehose. after the first few minutes, I was complely zapped. this is impossible, first you had del.icio.us which kinda helped you to keep track of websites as an aggregator. Google reader to keep tack of n

Hiding behind the brave soldier dying on the border...

Don't defend Free Speech Because soldiers are dying on the border Bajrang Dal is killing someone for eating meat Because soldiers are dying on the border Don't question journalists broadcasting doctored videos Because soldiers are dying on the border Shiv Sena is beating up young lovers on Valentine's Day Because soldiers are dying on the border Don't stand up for Human Rights Because soldiers are dying on the border Lawyers are beating up innocent students Because soldiers are dying on the border Don't speak up against a cruel insensitive govt Because soldiers are dying on the border RSS is running a hate campaign against Muslims & Christians Because soldiers are dying on the border Don't stand for civil liberties Because soldiers are dying on the border Let's take away civil liberties Because soldiers are dying on the border Hide your cowardice and failure Behind the brave soldier dying on the border