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

Draft Response to TRAI in support of differential pricing for Data services

This is a draft response to TRAI on their consultation paper on Differential Pricing for Data Services. Please feel free to comment, suggest improvements and most importantly use in part or in whole to send in your comments in support of Differential Pricing for Data Services. (Structure borrowed from the STI campaign)
Emails should be sent to advisorfea1@trai.gov.in
Dear Sir,

Thank you for this Consultation Paper on Differential Pricing for Data Services; The TRAI should bring in rules that foster innovation not just in the Internet services Domain, but also in the domain of Internet access. This will invariably mean to allow a free hand to TSPs to innovate in distribution and pricing. This would include differential pricing - especially the practice of “Zero Rating” and other such innovations.
I hope the TRAI considers my answers.
Thanking you
My answers: Question 1: Should the TSPs be allowed to have differential pricing for data usage for accessing different websites, applications or pla…

The Return of the Mobile browser

We all love to make predictions and I made one to @shachinb and Steffen Harting when I met them in early 2014. 
Which was: Apps are  temporary phase (of indeterminate length), eventually most apps will switch back into the web browser. Only games and apps that require continuous access to phone sensors such as accelerometer,  GPS etc will remain as apps. For most other purposes a well designed mobile website is going to do a world of good.
So, when Forbes declared that  the mobile browser is dead and the mobile app is the new new thing, I retested my earlier hypothesis and came to the same conclusion. I.e. We are hung up on apps way more than required
Due to this hang up, we are sacrificing the mobile web experience. It pleased me no end to see an old friend @jassim make this comment Super impressed with the Twitter mobile web experience, replaces the app for me This just goes to show it is possible to achieve what I stated as a hypothesis above. One look at the NDTV mobile websit…

Packaging as a service

Last Wednesday I was at the ASSOCHAM Packaging Summit 2012 giving a talk on the new opportunities for the packaging industry.

Very wisely (as I would discover at the event), at the outset, I decided to eschew the usual Packaging related topics. i.e. innovation, new trends, numbers, stats etc.

Instead, I talked about how the Packaging Industry could look beyond the traditional confines of rigid, flexible packaging etc. and look at their business as a service.

If you rewind a little over a hundred years or so, you will see the example of Levi's. Levi's made his fortune during the original California gold rush supplying riveted jeans.

And then fast-forward a hundred years from there, you have Bill Gates, who made his fortune by providing tools for the information age. As you would have guessed from the title, the analogy I drew was that in any gold rush, people who provide infrastructure (Amazon/Microsoft Cloud anyone?) are the ones most likely to walk away with the prize,

Whi…