Mark, so you want to gift us back the British Raj?

There has been a lot of discussion around free basics by facebook; triggered by the onslaught of multiple full page advertisements in the newspaper, for every day, day after day. Today’s Times of India edition had three full pages in a row, and that does command the attention and notice! Of course this is one of the exceptions when an internet giant like facebook banked heavily on the newspaper advertisements!! That is, over and above the leverage of providing an option to say “yes to free basics” to all facebook subscribers, (mind you, with no option to say no!). So, stakes are high indeed.

Question to Mark Zuckerberg is, Why do you so desperately want to gift us back the British raj, even as our Prime Minister (whom you respect, going by media) is making rapid strides towards 100% Swaraj, shedding the last bits of license and permissions driven traces of British raj?

When Mark’s Times of India Article on 28/Dec/2015, with the title, Free Basics Protects Net Neutrality”, Mark used the term “…. , they claim – falsely - ….” in three successive paragraphs. He went on to state that the critics of free basics are spreading false claims. Of course we all absolutely agree that making or spreading false claims is not the right thing to do. And that applies to Mark as well.

Here are the paragraphs, with “facts as the Mark is seeing” and what it is in actual reality:

·         Mark: “Instead of recognizing the fact that free basics is opening up the whole internet, they continue to claim – falsely – that this will make the internet more like a walled garden”.

o   Fact: The right sentence in Mark’s article should have been, “Instead of recognizing the fact that free basics is opening up the whole part of the internet…..”. Of course, the question on which part of the internet is the center of the whole debate. And it is being opposed exactly for the fact that it is building walls to the internet that is open and neutral by default.

 

·         Mark: “Instead of welcoming free basics as an open platform that will partner with any telco, and allows any developer to offer services to people for free, they claim – falsely - that this will give people less choice”

o   Fact: When you take an internet with billions of sites, and restrict access to a small subset with no rational process, that does make people’s choice limited! And it is not open!

 

·         Mark: “Instead of recognizing that free basics fully respects net neutrality, they claim – falsely – the exact opposite”

o   Fact: “Respects” and “Follows” are two different things. Having a private and restricted platform is not net Neutrality. Free basics does not follow neutral, open internet and introduces filters and controls that are undesirable.

 

“Who could possibly be against this?” asks a surprised Mark in the article. Let us pause here before helping us all get to the answer Mark is so deeply searching for. We can also draw our interpretations on where the false claim is.

 

Times of India did provide a counter argument, authored by Nikhil Pahwa, volunteer member of the savetheinternet.in; titled “It's A Battle For Internet Freedom: One critical question Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t answered about free basics”. The critical points he makes, opposing free basics, are summarized here:

·         Free basics and its peer telecom operator models are not open, plural or diverse, and can be harmful for India's democracy.

·         Telecom operators would have a perverse financial incentive to get users to consume more of their partner services over the less lucrative open web.

·         Free basics rejects the option of giving the poor free access to the open, plural and diverse web.

·         The trade off, between the net neutrality and free basics is between:

o   How much they use the internet (want, affordability, need) (Net Neutrality and Digital equality) vs

o   How much of the internet they get to use (free basics with built-in model of restricted access)

·         Why is Mark and facebook supporting Permission less innovation in US vs permission based internet in India?

And here are some of the significant quotes Nikhil references, that bring in significant level of clarity, spanning the viewpoints from technology, academia & research and politics.

·         “Giving people data connectivity to part of the network deliberately is a step backwards”, Tim Berners Lee, founding father of the internet.

·         “If you dictate what the poor should get, you take away their right to choose what they think is best for them”  Naveen Patnaik, Chief Minister, Orissa

·         “Net neutrality is about the ISPs and Telecom operators not giving the competitive advantage to any particular website or application” (Professor Vishal Misra, Columbia University, Researcher on Net Neutrality)

 

There is another independent but related article in the Times of India dated 30/Dec/2015, from Ebin Moglen and Mishi Choudhary, of Software Freedom Law Center. Here are the key call outs in their article:

·         “If the parties who move those packets over network connections, are allowed to discriminate among the parties engaged in communicating with one another; distortion of the free market inevitably results”

o   That is, free basics is a discriminating gateway that stands between net neutrality. This discrimination gateway has nothing to do with, and is independent of how the net access to those who cannot afford it can be provided. Free basics, for whatever reason, is mixing up the two to harness the support for its cause. And that is not the right thing to do.

·         “The moment a provider of ‘public’ network services, for example, gives a ‘basket’ of websites ‘for free’ to consumers, all other businesses are at a disadvantage”

o   That is, free basics suddenly puts the rest of the 99% of the net at a disadvantage, creating barriers for other existing businesses and new entrants. This free basics, if let to happen, will be the beginning of the end of the “internet is a great equalizer” concept.

·         “An Internet made of ‘channels’ in this way, structured by the telecommunications network operators in collusion with ‘content’ providers - who are actually advertising sales platforms surveilling billions of people - will be very profitable to a very few”

o   That is, the free basics kind of mechanisms are not “equality platforms”, but rather, will lead to significantly divided platforms and stratas in society.

·         “Parties such as Facebook or telecommunication service providers who have the most to gain from the right to be anti-competitive have rushed to reinstate a "dialog" over "differential pricing" with the government of India”

o   That is, the whole exercise of free basics is about masked intent of differential pricing, veiled beneath the misleading objective of providing net neutrality. This masked misleading is unfair, and unacceptable.

I strongly encourage everyone to read each of these articles (links below) and get to the viewpoints completely. Let us go through the analysis first to see whether this is a boon or bane for us Indians.

Before that, let us take time to understand what free basics is. For every website that needs to be available under the Facebook’s free basics, it needs to be submitted, evaluated, compliant to some guidelines, and then approved. And it is available only for people with the SIMCARD provided by only those telecoms with whom facebook and free basics have agreements. Others cannot access it in any way. If this is not restriction and intervention, like the barricades to the otherwise openly available playground, what else exactly would that be please?

When we explored the free basics model, here is what we found as part of their process: (https://partners.facebook.com/fbs/onboarding/ 

https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/faq)

·         Observation: There is an application process to submit the sites to be available for access, through free basics

o   Message: There is an added process and latency, exclusion by default, inclusion by exception!

·         Free basics says “We will review your submission and contact you once your site has been added”

o   Message: There is review and filtering by free basics on what can and cannot be accessed

·         Free basics says “Due to the large volume of requests we are currently receiving, it may take 8 to 10 weeks to receive a response from a member of the Internet.org team”

o   That is, if there is a better site providing better information to the likes of “Ganesh’s”, they will have a significant wait, subject to approval, to get the access.

o   That is, Digital Equality offset by 8 to 10 weeks, and with an approval process.

o   Approval process and partner process by themselves are black boxes.

·         Free basics says “To use Free Basics, you must have a SIM card from one of the mobile operator partners in participating countries”

o   That is, free and selective internet subject to buying a service from a pre-selected partner. From when did such “selective filtering” become part of the pre-requisite for the “Digital Equality” and “net Neutrality?”

Now, you can explore this further and draw your conclusions on how free and unrestricted this process is going to be, say in few years.

 

Analogies to help us understand:

Continuing the reflection on the topic, it is important to being in some simplicity and clarity to this discussion. I am a fan of Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger. One of the things they call out is to explain things in a way our grandmother or child can understand. Without that, it is very easy to make things complex and un-understandable. Let us try with some analogies here.

·         It is like this. You go to an open play-ground, open to all. Somebody with no rights over it starts putting walls and barricades everywhere leading to the play-ground, put a gate with a security guard, and say that everybody is free to enter inside as long as the security guard agrees. Ground is open for all but the entry is restricted. Unfortunately Mark is seeing the ground that is open but is completely ignorant and refusing to see the barricaded approaches that his plan of free basics is creating!

·         Why mix up a means and an end together? Voting for freedom is not the same as voting for Democratic or Republican (or for that matter for BJP or Congress). Strong, persistent advertisements and “on your face” digital adverts; that ask for supporting Digital Equality; but are actually seeking disguised support for the free basics to be supported; is, in fact, a false claim and not the standard that one would expect from an industry leader like facebook or its CEO.

·         Would a model of 'Selectively Free Roads' work; or would it be a world of 'Selective Toll'? Free Basics is trying to implement the first model; Any real estate Baron would have liked that, but the greater good of world stood ground and the second model follows. Even there, there is uniformity of toll, with no pre-selections. What is so different about the Information highways…

·         You wouldn't have a road that is free for Ford Cars and tolled for Toyota Cars. Why would you do that. In that case, for the information highway? Of course, All Car companies have the right to apply and get accepted for their cars to have free rides as well -- But, but, isn't that the same bureaucracy we have been trying to systematically weed out over the years?? Facebook needs to stop fooling around with the free basics presented with twisted meaning of net neutrality with self-serving logic.

·         It is likely that Mark and Facebook leadership may not be aware of the 'Ration Shops' in India. India is rapidly and firmly moving away from rations and subsidies to empowering people with 'Direct cash into account' model with Aadhar. We don't need the regressive rationing and controlling on the progressive internet. India can and will figure out a way without the generosity of free basics

o   Wish Mr. Modi had educated Mr. Mark on the need for moving society and countries away from subsidies and rations to empowered citizens We do not know whether Modi missed educating Mark, or Mark missed the lesson. Either way, it wouldn't hurt for Mark to get another rendezvous and a lesson from our Prime Minister on the matter.

o   If Mark is still unsure, Let us host him perhaps for a month so he can live the life of rations and subsidies 100%; and then refine his thoughts post that. For, it is hard to argue against the logic of “would you rather not have rationing compared to people going Hungry”. The logic holds good until the fiefdom of ration-lords manifests sooner than later. And holds true as long as we wishfully ignore other empowering solutions (like, in India, Government  puts cash in hand, with Aadhar Cards and NREGA projects, the first of which eliminates the need for ration; the later eliminates the very need for free and subsidy by providing gainful employment).

·         Has Mark ever used Sabse Bolo service in India? If they were to follow free basics model, every person with a phone has to first apply to be member. And only then they could call in. Fortunately, Sabse Bolo just made a simple trade-off asking callers to listen to an advertisement for few seconds and move on to join the call. No applying, No approvals, No un-needed control mechanisms, No censorship, No Telco operator dependency. That is a model that does straight forward batting on front foot. We like that. Understandable by all, acceptance or otherwise is completely in the hands of the users.

Mind you, Nobody is debating the need for, or saying no to ‘Digital Equality’ or ‘Net Neutrality’. Including Mark. We are debating on the definition of the free basics vs the “ ‘Digital Equality’ and ‘Net Neutrality’  “.

When the “restricted truths” and “misleading advertisements” are being used to term others’ statements as false, as Mark has done in his Times of India article, it is not fair. The onus of proving what is false or otherwise is actually on those who are mixing up the intents and agenda in a way that is not fair to the common citizen.

Now that there is an understanding of what the free basics is, its limitations and shortfalls compared to the open internet, hope that helps clarify the “…. , they claim – falsely - …..” comment from Mark in his Times of India article, in its true note and colour. And that naturally leads to many observations, captured below:

·         Doing good is not wrong. But it is wrong to start doing good in a way that will have commercial interests inbuilt; while calling it as a good Samaritan move. You can always follow the footsteps of the legend Warren Buffet, who handed over his kitty to Bill Gates, trusting him to do the right thing.

·         Anything that has controlling mechanisms or approval mechanisms are not free, irrespective of where in the cycle those mechanisms are. That is why free basics is neither about free, nor about equality. It is a proven bureaucratic inequality model that free basics is applying in a new technology platform. Countries like India are getting out of such inequality model, with decades of gradual social progress. We don't need another 'We know your needs better than you' invasion. India is capable of addressing its digital equality on its own.

·         By the way, it is hard to recall another scenario with such a huge advertising onslaught in the recent past. When your kids ask "why are they saying that same thing so many times on so many pages everyday", perhaps there is a message! Picking on one of them, we would love to know more about the persona of Ganesh, the third full page Advertisement subject-person in the Times of India today (30/Dec/2015).

o   Could he not have access to the same info and made the same benefit, with an unrestricted free net (vs rationed content from free basics)

o   Should the Ganesh’s that do not have Reliance, be deprived of the ability to access what they need to, just because they have a cell phone from a better service provider?

o   How about many other real cases of information equaliser, including SMS based crop info etc., which find limited press space and get taken for granted; because they are not backed by big, fat, biased advertisement budgets like facebook has been spending.

o   If there is good information on sites where there is no free basics, would that not deprive Ganesh’s of the world on their freedom of choice (How much of net vs what part of net decision)?

o   Let us park away the question of how this service is being used for over one year by Ganesh, when it got launched on 24 Nov 2015; that is immaterial, even if it does raise curiosity factor in you. Let us focus on the rest of the core questions.

 

In a nutshell,

Straight Truth and foundational logics survive better than the onslaught of misleading full page advertisements in the press with half facts and other half not said. That is neither about Free nor about Equality.

Free basics is neither the first in chronology of offering free services, nor the first in preference of Indian people. At the most, it is the twisted last best option. India of tomorrow deserves better. Let us make us all heard loud and clear.

You can't start the Digital equality philanthropy with the restricted net. Half-truths go a long way, but they always fall short of the destination. And we are well past the days of (un)popular phrase from Ford “You can have the car of any colour of your choice as long as it is black”.

"Restriction by exception" vs "Access by Approval of Restricted content" is a difference between Swaraj vs British raj. Indians don’t need lessons on what is right for us. Why don't we recommend Mr Zuckerberg to propose and try out the same in US first, there are plenty of have nots with no access to net there as well.

And if Mark is truly about supporting Digital Equality and Net neutrality, He should stop mixing up them with his business intent of free basics. If he needs ideas and suggestions on how to make the Digital Equality and Net neutrality happen and wants to support it, the open internet can help him with straight intent options.

As an Indian having grown up in rural India and experienced true means of uplifting rural population with self-empowering methodologies, my take is simple:

It is OK to delay the net access by few months or an year or two, if that be the need and limitation at all (In fact, it need not and will not be, there are plenty of options available for a determined Indian). Rather than sowing the seeds of wrong cactus shrubs of controlled and limited internet access; the dissemination and weeding of which will take years of wasted work and effort. Let us plant the right eco-friendly, sustainable, neutral models right now. Let the seeds of equality be sown right at the beginning. Any other time is little too late.

 

India as a country survived without much of phones for most of the century, phone connections started becoming available only in late 1990s. The cell phones then changed the world. Actually, what changed the world for common Indian Citizens and Telcos is that “Absolutely Brilliant” policy innovation and decision by our very own Indian officers, making that critical and important decision “incoming call is free”. That shut down the avenue for any possible proposals like free basics in the cell-phone-voice-calls era. That brilliant innovation made India one of the largest Telco adoption country, putting a cell phone in the hands of every Indian street vendor and everybody else. Achieved with no rationing or approval or restrictions or control mechanisms of any kind.

 

Likewise, India will address the digital equality and access in a far more impactful way for sure. India knows its way.

It would be best for Mr. Mark Zuckerberg to stop worrying about us Indians, and instead start his new year vacation. And yes, please instruct your team to stop that advertising onslaught. For it is not needed, and it is not going to serve the purpose.

Should there be a need to do good, there is an urgent and immediate cause of unaffordable housing for common Americans brewing up in the Bay area. It is a good cause, there is more direct visibility to the problem on hand to Facebook and its team.

And repeating our question to Mark, Why do you so desperately want to gift us back the British raj? Obviously India can’t be grateful about it for sure!

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

And the poor don’t like being discriminated yet again, in one opportunity in the history where there is no need for discrimination (peripheral costs are very marginal with information delivery, compared to physical goods).

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --