Will Free Basics cost us more?

While Zuckerberg has been trying to hard sell Free Basics like an extension of the free healthcare programmes run by states, it's imperative to question the long-term changes such a programme can lead to.  Photo credit: Facebook

Much like many other things in the world, the Internet is always subject to debates about its ownership, usage and regulation. What services can be provided, what can’t? Can it be free? Should it not? Lot’s of such questions arise. Essentially, it’s got to be free. That’s all net neutrality is about – the right of anyone or everyone to access any website or mobile app from anywhere. And then again, while business solutions to public problems are welcome, other related questions arise: Does the private sector also have a role in public policy? If yes, then what kind and how do we go about it in a dynamic setting?

There are times this debate seems like the debate around the ownership and regulation of the polar regions, or the high seas or even outer space. – all public commons or goods. And so, there are treaties that enshrine the rights to access these spaces and are many of these laws are a work in progress. But the Internet, in some sense, is much more than these since it was created by man and because it is in many ways inexhaustible, and because of what it can do and because it can be accessed from almost anywhere. Thus, it must be treated like a man-made public good.

But trouble arises when it comes to its delivery – when one needs a device and a telecom connection to access the Internet. Technology is cheaper today, but not so cheap that this right to access the Internet can be uniformly enforced and the operations of Internet service providers are often subject to the invisible hand. And therefore, there are always threats to net neutrality. These issues are thus the source of many debates and that’s where the current one comes in from too – Free Basics.

One step forward, two steps back?

So Mark Zuckerberg-led Facebook has big global ambitions of connecting the world by fast-tracking the reach of the Internet, providing certain free services and by reaching out more people than ever before. Free Basics is a part of that big plan that all comes under Facebook’s Internet.org and what it essentially does is provide a set of online services free of cost to a mobile user. But Facebook gets to pick these free services that it calls ‘basics’.

Now, that’s a problem – it divides the Internet into free and not free elements, it overlooks the notion of net neutrality and it promotes a certain few online services as ‘free’ and ‘basic’. However, Facebook argues that this is like introducing the user to the online world and later they are free to do anything they want. Zuckerberg says Free Basics has to be seen like free primary education or free healthcare, as provided by the state. He argues that something is better than nothing.

Internet.org also adds that the Free Basics programme is running in many other countries, but then these are places where the net neutrality debate is still far, because the net is still not yet around in visible entirety. So the debate can only come alive once that understanding is reached, and than can only happen once a threshold of Internet connectivity and knowledge is acquired along with support from the civil society. Seeing the opposition take on Facebook head is also a good sign for the Indian civil society. But it is the final government or legal call on this debate that’ll decide if it’s a good sign for the Indian democracy.

Apart from the issue around net neutrality, the idea of Free Basics also raises fundamental questions about looking for business solutions to public problems and the evolving role of the private sector in public policy. Photo credit: Facebook

While there are lots of issues people and organisations of all kinds have here, from dividing the Internet to privacy, that are being talked about, this is yet another of those indicators that signals a big shift, towards the evolving nature of capitalism, the changing dynamics of state responsibilities and action, and world politics in general.

Here’s a barrage of questions this debate provokes and some considered thoughts on them:

Who decides what are the basics on the Internet?

This step by Facebook is a big indicator about how the demarcation between who gets to take a call on the elementary services in a respective field is changing. Sure civil societies play a role, but so far, it’s always been states that have deliberated and acted upon when it came to elementary education or health services. But can corporations be the primary partakers when it comes to this? With Free Basics, Facebook has blurred that line on who gets to decide upon what are the ‘basics’ and what goes ‘free’. And clearly then, when the private sector gets involved more questions are asked, irrespective of their validity. In this case, they most certainly are valid. So this essentially marks a shift even in that model of providing basic infrastructure and services with a corporation calling the shots.

So, would it be okay if the government launched Free Basics?

This makes for an interesting hypothesis. It would have raised questions and may not have been allowed to reach the stage of execution, but had the state been the initiator of such a move, it would have lesser resistance. But then, had such a move come, it would have likely been on the back of some version of crony capitalism.

Would it work if it was not called Free Basics?

In that case, Zuckerberg’s argument about clubbing it along with free education or health programmes may not work, but it could have mitigated the opposition perhaps. While free may pass, the use of basics is also a problem. Again, who gives the right to Internet.org to decide what the basics are? Perhaps, had the name been something else that did not make the service seem like the only pathway to the Internet, it could have taken off it India already.

Why call it net neutral?

In that case though, like in the current one, the programme wouldn’t be net neutral. Then why does Facebook insist on calling it that? While there is value in the short-term for many users in what Free Basics offers, in the long-term it means more harm for the structure and accessibility of the Internet. So shouldn’t Facebook just say it isn’t net neutral, and that for now this is a temporary solution which can be scaled back once other net neutral ones kick in?

Perhaps that’d make things easier, because social issues require business solutions, and to begin with they may incline more towards the private sector, but only with strong safeguards and timelines in place to not let capitalism run unregulated in the long=term.

What else can be done then?

Instead of just labeling some services as Free Basics, Internet.org can always work on ways to provide free Internet (something it is attempting to so) and educate new users with other stakeholders to let them choose how they want to use the Internet. Or they can help build the Internet infrastructure in the state.

Let’s also look at the issue from different standpoints, without undermining the fact that irrespective of the number of standpoints or variance in them, these all co-exist, thereby making things more complex. Nothing exists in isolation.

A legal standpoint: Since the Internet is still young and widely not governed by a common set of laws, this is a legal gray area. Then there is the matter where states claim cyber sovereignty and things get murkier further. So these are perhaps the formative years when it comes to the legal basis for the Internet, and this legal foundation must enshrine in it laws that ensure net neutrality.

A financial standpoint: Two things are visible here in terms of what business do or can do. Firstly, business will always look for innovative (ethically right or wrong is another question) ways to grow– and to do so they may want to help society in the short-term with an eye on profits in the long-term. That’s more like a given. The second thing, as pointed above, is that business solutions are needed for certain social problems, but they need to be vetted. While in the short-term they may need nudges and incentives, in the long-term, businesses must never hold the upper hand when it comes to solving social problems.

A social standpoint: Thus, while this episode also exemplifies the need for and an endeavor to provide a business solution to social issues, it is also a reminder of the enormous social challenge that lies ahead globally. Especially in terms of the physical infrastructure that needs to be developed to ensure connectivity and in terms of providing balanced education to entrust users with making the ‘right choices’, even if services like Free Basics exist.

A political standpoint: While this debate illustrates how the Internet is subject to politics when it comes to deciding who gets to write its rules, there’s clear politics at play in terms of designating owners, users and regulators of the Internet because it is today, more than just a tool that promises power and profits.

But the biggest takeaway is also the ever so over powering reach of the private sector when it comes the audacity of private players to not just participate but lead in matters that were until now unquestionably believed to be exclusively under the purview of the state. Thus then, is this another manifestation of the post-national?

While Free Basics doesn’t seem to be the right move ahead, the programme must  not be dismissed without notice and consideration, for it is only through debates and revisions that will pertinent solutions to such problems be invented or discovered. While a public private partnership solution may be best, one may have to remain very wary of that morphing into a private public partnership solution, or solely a private one.