Internet.org’s partner in India is Reliance, not Airtel. Airtel’s founder criticised Internet.org last year, but that didn’t stop Airtel from launching its own version, Airtel Zero.
Airtel Zero came under scrutiny after news of the scheme leaked to the media in April, after which Internet.org got some attention. Few cared otherwise.
I don’t really get why internet.org is a bad idea. Internet.org expands access but of course nothing is free and Facebook obviously needs to benefit some way otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Banning companies like internet.org takes away internet access (though somewhat limited) to people who cannot afford anything else. Isn’t some access better than none?
Full access to the internet exists. You just have to pay for it as with anything else. If you can’t afford it then Facebook and Airtel offer a solution. Again, why is this a bad thing? If you don’t like the service don’t pay for it.
Because spectrum is limited and handed out by government license, so its use must be regulated to ensure benefit to the public. If Facebook and the telcos were acting on private property, they could do whatever they pleased and the government would have no business interfering.
Why is the only option having the government give out licenses for providers? Government begets more government is the argument you are making. Why can’t bandwidth be private property?
Bandwidth on a private pipe, sure. Do whatever you please. Bandwidth over the air is a public resource and changing that definition is way out of scope here.
Why is it a public resource? Be government says so? Of course they do. They want their hands in everything. I think Net Neutrality will inevitably pass because of the age we live in. They can claim they do it in the name of consumer protection and public good but at least with internet providers I can choose between them forcing them to at least some accountability. One can’t chose between governments.
Like I said, out of scope for the debate currently ongoing in India. Spectrum IS a public resource and that definition isn’t going to change in the short term no matter what you and I like. India’s parliament is debating net neutrality right now as I type this (video on YouTube later today).
I completely agree that most zero rating arguments are linked to broader philosophies, and most people don’t realize it. Some analogies I’ve been using to illustrate the moral spectrum:
- Should we cancel Karnataka’s midday meals program because it serves only curd rice? (Most would say no.)
- Should we prohibit medical quacks because they are the only medicine available in rural areas? (Vibrant debate ongoing for years.)
- Should we prohibit child labor even when it is the only income available to a family? (Many would say yes.)
Kudos for presenting a broader argument in a thought-provoking way.
Both Reliance and AirTel have exploited taking money from prepaid connection accounts of their subscribers without consent and lost trust of their subscribers.
Karntaka mid day meals program is run by government. Medical quacks is unorganized sector. Corporates cannot hire child labor.
A common man does not trust corporates to perform social good or work on broader philosophies. Let corproates find platform to develop trust.
Srinivasan: If your objection is to price discrimination by corporations, then Kentaro’s message is right on. Anyone opposing zero rating on these grounds should also oppose Wordpress.com, since it offers its free service at the expense of others. I see this is where you host your blog, however 😊
I’m trying to understand the limits of this critique of freemium as a model.
Where does helping the poor more generally fit in this argument? Is providing life-saving medicines to the poor for free bad when it’s done by Merck, and good when it’s done by the government or a nonprofit? Or just bad: should we let them die rather than practice price discrimination?
Since this line of reasoning doesn’t seem to lead into a zone of particular moral good, it seems like we’re really focusing on a pretty narrow issue in a specific field. Corporate power used to achieve more market share with an advertising model seems like it’s the problem, rather than freemium as a business model.
COMMENTS
BY Kiran Jonnalagadda
ON May 4, 2015 12:32 PM
Internet.org’s partner in India is Reliance, not Airtel. Airtel’s founder criticised Internet.org last year, but that didn’t stop Airtel from launching its own version, Airtel Zero.
Airtel Zero came under scrutiny after news of the scheme leaked to the media in April, after which Internet.org got some attention. Few cared otherwise.
BY Kentaro Toyama
ON May 4, 2015 06:15 PM
Kiran - Thanks for noting that. You are correct, of course. Internet.org partnered with Airtel in Kenya, and I mixed it up.
BY Akhtar Badshah
ON May 4, 2015 09:01 PM
Great article Kentaro
BY James
ON May 5, 2015 01:18 AM
I don’t really get why internet.org is a bad idea. Internet.org expands access but of course nothing is free and Facebook obviously needs to benefit some way otherwise they wouldn’t do it. Banning companies like internet.org takes away internet access (though somewhat limited) to people who cannot afford anything else. Isn’t some access better than none?
Full access to the internet exists. You just have to pay for it as with anything else. If you can’t afford it then Facebook and Airtel offer a solution. Again, why is this a bad thing? If you don’t like the service don’t pay for it.
BY Kiran Jonnalagadda
ON May 5, 2015 01:25 AM
Because spectrum is limited and handed out by government license, so its use must be regulated to ensure benefit to the public. If Facebook and the telcos were acting on private property, they could do whatever they pleased and the government would have no business interfering.
BY James
ON May 5, 2015 01:31 AM
Why is the only option having the government give out licenses for providers? Government begets more government is the argument you are making. Why can’t bandwidth be private property?
BY Kiran Jonnalagadda
ON May 5, 2015 01:38 AM
Bandwidth on a private pipe, sure. Do whatever you please. Bandwidth over the air is a public resource and changing that definition is way out of scope here.
BY James
ON May 5, 2015 01:53 AM
Why is it a public resource? Be government says so? Of course they do. They want their hands in everything. I think Net Neutrality will inevitably pass because of the age we live in. They can claim they do it in the name of consumer protection and public good but at least with internet providers I can choose between them forcing them to at least some accountability. One can’t chose between governments.
BY Kiran Jonnalagadda
ON May 5, 2015 02:20 AM
Like I said, out of scope for the debate currently ongoing in India. Spectrum IS a public resource and that definition isn’t going to change in the short term no matter what you and I like. India’s parliament is debating net neutrality right now as I type this (video on YouTube later today).
BY Bill T
ON May 5, 2015 10:20 AM
Nice article, Kentaro!
I completely agree that most zero rating arguments are linked to broader philosophies, and most people don’t realize it. Some analogies I’ve been using to illustrate the moral spectrum:
- Should we cancel Karnataka’s midday meals program because it serves only curd rice? (Most would say no.)
- Should we prohibit medical quacks because they are the only medicine available in rural areas? (Vibrant debate ongoing for years.)
- Should we prohibit child labor even when it is the only income available to a family? (Many would say yes.)
Kudos for presenting a broader argument in a thought-provoking way.
BY Srinivasan G
ON May 5, 2015 11:23 AM
Both Reliance and AirTel have exploited taking money from prepaid connection accounts of their subscribers without consent and lost trust of their subscribers.
Karntaka mid day meals program is run by government. Medical quacks is unorganized sector. Corporates cannot hire child labor.
A common man does not trust corporates to perform social good or work on broader philosophies. Let corproates find platform to develop trust.
BY Bill T
ON May 5, 2015 11:38 AM
Srinivasan: If your objection is to price discrimination by corporations, then Kentaro’s message is right on. Anyone opposing zero rating on these grounds should also oppose Wordpress.com, since it offers its free service at the expense of others. I see this is where you host your blog, however 😊
BY Kentaro Toyama
ON May 5, 2015 01:34 PM
Coincidentally, this debate just popped up on the Boston Review, on related topics and also worth a read: http://bostonreview.net/forum/k-sabeel-rahman-curbing-new-corporate-power
BY Jim Fruchterman, Benetech
ON May 11, 2015 06:20 AM
I’m trying to understand the limits of this critique of freemium as a model.
Where does helping the poor more generally fit in this argument? Is providing life-saving medicines to the poor for free bad when it’s done by Merck, and good when it’s done by the government or a nonprofit? Or just bad: should we let them die rather than practice price discrimination?
Since this line of reasoning doesn’t seem to lead into a zone of particular moral good, it seems like we’re really focusing on a pretty narrow issue in a specific field. Corporate power used to achieve more market share with an advertising model seems like it’s the problem, rather than freemium as a business model.
BY Syed Ibrahim Ghaznavi
ON May 29, 2015 02:30 AM
Thought provoking!