First of all, I would like to state outright that I don’t see much wrong with “Free Basics”. Here is why.
What is Free Basics?
To put it in simple terms, Free Basics is a service that Facebook will provide to the poor people of India who cannot afford an internet data pack. This service will give selective access to websites that choose to be a part of Free Basics. Websites that don’t want to be a part of it won’t be accessible. The service is provided exclusively on the Reliance network.
Everybody around seems to be vehemently against this scheme, but do note that not a single person among this group of opponents is even going to be a beneficiary of Free Basics. What do the real beneficiaries even feel about this? We don’t know, and if I may hazard a guess, they might actually welcome it. Prominent personality Mr. Mahesh Murthy seems to have taken the internet by storm with his vociferous comments against Free Basics, which has been responded to by Facebook as well. I will focus this post on some of the points raised by Mr. Murthy.
1: Most of the commonly used websites will not be accessible on free basics. This includes sites like Google, Youtube, Amazon, Flipkart, HDFC, ICICI, IRCTC, Rediff, BSE, NSE and so on.
So what is wrong in this? Nobody stopped any of these websites from joining free basics. But they probably won’t. As Mr. Murthy pointed out, they won’t because they do not want their data to go via Facebook’s servers, which is perfectly fine. Whoever is willing to share their customer data with Facebook can offer themselves on Free Basics for the end-user. At-least, the end user gets something doesn’t he? Isn’t this better than remaining in the dark and being unaware of something called an Internet?
2: There is no need to ‘sell our people’ to Facebook. Data is cheap enough in India and eventually everybody will be on the full and open internet, given time. Or our government could offer a neutral and free internet service to its citizens.
Agreed, but is the government doing anything like this at the moment? Are there any near-term plans to provide free internet to the poor? We have many subsidies on food, agriculture, LPG etc, but not yet on internet. Till such a time comes, what is wrong in providing even limited access to the internet? Something is better than nothing. I think it is simply atrocious to say: It is better for the poor to be denied complete access to internet than be given partial access.
3: All of the traffic on free basics go via Facebook’s servers. This means Facebook could potentially get access to all of the customer data that passes through.
This perhaps has been one of the key ‘concerns’ of Free Basics opponents. I have a question to these people: You access google services – be it Gmail, Maps, Youtube etc. on a daily basis, perhaps multiple times a day. You also access Facebook for that matter every day, not just that you upload your personal pictures, you check-in to various location, you browse and search for various things, you shop for products online. Are you so ignorant that you think all of this data is being kept ‘safe’ and ‘private’? If so, then I have news for you my friend. In the digital age, there is no such thing as ‘privacy of data’. The minute you shop for something on Amazon, you have given a tacit approval to everyone in the value chain, right from your ISP, to your ecommerce site, to Google and so on to access every single digital data of yours. The only difference comes in whether Google has your data or Facebook or someone else, in today’s world it is currently Google which is the data giant. On the one hand you are more than happy and willing to share all of your data with Google, but on the other hand you don’t want the poor people to share their data with Facebook. Huh!
4: Facebook has spent significant money on advertising and lobbying for Free Basics. This money could have been spent on sponsoring, say the first 100MB a month at 2G speeds for the poor……
Really? Why should they sponsor data for free? Facebook was not built for charity. The government is there for that and there are NGOs. Facebook is a private for-profit enterprise that is answerable to its shareholders.
Though there are no ads currently, Facebook will start promoting ads on Free Basics to make money in future….
So? Why should they not do that? We all have hundreds of apps installed on our smartphones, most of them presumably free. All of these free versions come with ads, else how will they make money? It is the same logic that applies here. Facebook is providing something for free, they certainly can recover the money through harmless advertisements.
5: The real reason behind all this is for Facebook to get more customers who use Facebook but not Google, in order to make more revenues and justify their stock price to investors.
Perfectly justified for a for-profit enterprise as long as it is legitimate.
Data is the ‘oil’ of the 21st century. Facebook and Google’s revenue model is based on monetising our personal data and selling it to advertisers. The competition between internet companies today is to get more and more customer data and Free Basics is one of the ways by which Facebook is trying to score over Google.
Free Basics is not the first model to dabble with providing ‘connectivity to the poor’. Firefox, Aircel, Gigato are some of the others. All are ad-based and Gigato apparently charges the application developers to put up their data for consumers, which in my view violates net-neutrality even more. But nobody raised a word against Gigato, of course because it is an insignificant player to make a dent on the way we consume data, unlike Facebook.
6: Lastly, nobody is forcing anyone to join Free Basics. Everyone has the option of exercising their choice in an intelligent manner. In this context, the more important task at hand should be to educate the country’s poor – on the merits/de-merits of Internet in general and how it can make an impact their lives. I’m sure once they are adequately informed, these users themselves will move away from “Free Basics” to a fully paid internet platform, just like you or me.
Moreover, providing free full access to internet to the poor is the job of the government, not Facebook.
Instead of debating on Free Basics, I think there are much larger issues that need to be addressed regarding privacy of data. The monopoly of consumer data by American companies essentially. Be it Google, Facebook, or Amazon, all of the world’s data is on their servers located in the US which is free to use (misuse) them in any manner they chose to do. That is for a different post altogether.
Juggling my thoughts... 
It’s like choosing what channels I choose to view at what subscription pack..similar to cable tv operators.BTW fb would now mean Facebook ya freebasics:)
free basic is facebook
In fact, my cable operator decides which package he wants to show and which not. If he has a tiff with Sony guys, then no channel of Sony is shown to me 😦 I still have the alternate option is to move to a DTH. Just like an alternate to free basics is to go to full paid internet.
The problem with Free Basics is that it is monitoring the content which is available for free. In this manner, everybody does not get an equal chance or equal visibility. This is problematic for website owners (who will have less incentive to innovate and improve) and for internet users (who will not have all the options).
Internet is a very good thing. It has ensured that proper content gets recognition and can be used by several people for many genuine advantages. However, initiatives like Free Basics are giving a lot of control to private entities such as Facebook, and that is not a good thing.
Free Basics is not internet. And therefore it should be opposed.
Thanks for your view, Presit.
Yes, Free Basics is monitoring the content. But nobody is preventing any website from registering on Free Basics. Everyone has an equal chance to be equally visible.
Internet users will have all the options if they pay for it, nobody stops them from paying and if they pay, nobody stops any website from being accessed. Anything that is given for free tends to be limited.
The year is 1618. Sir Thomas Roe arrives at India and says, “You people are fighting amongst yourself. You need to learn to live a less barbaric life. I will bring all your lands together and create Basic needs like access roads and railways. In return you can pay me a majority of your hard earned money as tax. If you do not oblige, I will buy the support of local kings and soldiers and make sure you do. We have done this in many other countries and I know what’s best for you people.”
Last year was 2015. Mark Zuckerberg arrives at India and says, “You people are living without the basic survival need of Internet. You need to live a more connected life. I will bring all of you together and give Basic needs like communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming information etc. In return you can pay me in kind with all your private data. I ll make money by selling them. If you do not oblige, I will buy the support of local telecom providers and the sympathy of naive Facebook users who sign my letter without any analysis. We have done this in many other countries and I know what’s best for you people.”
Do you have a facebook account? Do you have a gmail account? youtube? Twitter? Instagram? Amazon? Linkedin? If you have even one of these accounts, then trust me you have already shared your private data with all and sundry. You are saying that you are more than happy sharing your private data with all of these companies, but under no circumstance must the poor get some free access to some internet sites because their private data must not be compromised??!!
“something is better than nothing”, and that the poor people, who cannot afford internet are now getting the advantage of this internet. Firstly, my answer should be enough to counter this doubt. Nevertheless, if you still think that Free Basics is giving any advantage to the “poor people”, then you should read on.
First, let us see what Free Basics is offering you: Facebook (without images), and some other news websites primarily text. How much data do you think will that consume in one month? Even if you browse Facebook throughout the month, and don’t do anything but read those websites on the Free Basics, I don’t think you would be able to consume more than 200 MB of data.
As per Reliance website, 200 MB of 3G data costs around Rs. 100. So basically, that “poor person” is getting a benefit of Rs. 100. Even to get that benefit, he should be living in a place where he has network connectivity, and he should own a phone with at least an internet browser (if not a smartphone), and he should have the SIM card for other purposes. So, basically, if you can do all this expenditure, you will get a benefit of Rs. 100.
Really? Is that such a big deal? Do you have any idea why people can’t afford internet. It is because they can’t afford a phone. It is because they live in areas where there is no electricity that can help them charge those phone batteries. It is because they don’t have money to buy food, let alone internet. However, if that person already has all those needs fulfilled and he has the money left to buy that phone, I don’t think he can’t afford an extra Rs. 100 data pack.
Trust me when I say this, Free Basics is really a scam. Don’t be distracted by because of the word “Free”. What you call “free” and useful for “poor farmers” is neither of the two. In return of this “generous benefit”, Facebook is getting three advantages – (1) It gets a lot of subscribers; it literally doubles the existing population of Facebook; (2) It helps to avoid any competition because Facebook can now control other websites from reaching the masses; (3) Facebook now has access to a lot of users, which is a very good source of potential earning in the future.
I agree that a lot of Indians who are not connected to the internet should be given access to this. However, Free Basics is not the solution. If anything, Free Basics is taking away the right to free internet.
For people to have internet access, we need to focus on the basics – we need to get them educated, provide them with basics such as water and electricity, then provide them economic opportunities so that they can earn and sustain a livelihood, after which they can start earning enough to buy a phone and will then get an internet package. Trust me, don’t get swayed away by the “free” banner.
I am surprised that people cannot see through this scam. Think before you decide.
“…… Do you have any idea why people can’t afford internet. It is because they can’t afford a phone. It is because they live in areas where there is no electricity that can help them charge those phone batteries. It is because they don’t have money to buy food, let alone internet. ……………..and he has the money left to buy that phone, I don’t think he can’t afford an extra Rs. 100 data pack.”
Agreed, if this is the case then it is pretty unlikely that Facebook’s ‘Free Basics’ will even reach the masses. After all, they don’t have access to a smartphone or an internet connectivity!
Then why the hue and cry over Free Basics? It should be a non starter in the first place!
If a person can afford the internet and a smartphone, they would not go for Free Basics, right? They will get a regular data package with full access to anything they want.
Then why make such a noise over Facebook accessing any users?
It is a different matter that the very first thing anyone who gets full access to internet will do is open an account with Facebook and willingly give their information to the company 🙂
Facebook clearly will be the ultimate loser by offering “Free Basics”, wont it? Because the target audience is not even equipped enough to access internet, leave alone have a Facebook account and cede their personal data!
Then what is the whole point of all this debate and creating such a hulla bulla over nothing?
Let Facebook go with Free Basics, very soon they will realize that there is no money to be made as there are no subscribers and they go back. Problem solved on its own, without any external interference. Peace!