Centre for Internet and Society

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

praskrishna — 2016-02-11T01:53:19Z

In India, advocates of net neutrality have welcomed new rules by the telecom regulator that have blocked efforts by Facebook to offer free but limited access to the web in the country’s fast growing Internet market.

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in Voice of America on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In a widely awaited ruling, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) said on Monday that “no service provider shall charge differential pricing on the basis of application, platforms or websites or sources." It will impose penalties of $735 a day if the regulations are broken.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called Save the Internet, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.

“We were up against the most powerful companies in the world, we had no chance of fighting Airtel last year, we had no chance of fighting Facebook. I think the only reason it worked is that we were on the side of facts, the opposition was not,” says Jonnalagadda.

Debate on Airtel

The campaign on net neutrality snowballed into a nationwide public debate after an Indian telecom company, Airtel, launched a marketing platform last April on which it planned to offer customers access with no data charges to certain Internet services and sites.

In recent weeks, the focus turned to “Free Basics”, a service being offered by Facebook on mobile phones to a handful of sites in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education.

Saying it wanted to vastly expand Internet access in poor, rural areas, Facebook had launched a massive advertising campaign in support of the platform. Only about 300 million in the country of 1.2 billion people have access to the net, many just through mobile devices.

But campaigners slammed Free Basics as “poor Internet for poor people” and said it would create a “walled garden” in which Facebook would control the content it offered users. Leading Indian technology entrepreneurs and university professors also called on the government to guard against attempts by Internet giants to turn the country into a “digital colony.”

Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.

Ban on differential pricing

However, some are raising questions about the the complete ban on differential pricing announced by the regulator. That includes the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society research group, which says India has put in place the most stringent net neutrality regulations across the world. Its executive director, Sunil Abraham, says TRAI cited the examples of the Netherlands and Chile, but the ban on differential pricing in those countries is not as absolute as the one notified in India.

“We think that if proper technological safeguards and other market safeguards are put in place, it would be possible to have both — to have rapid growth in Internet access and reduced harm that emerge[s] from network neutrality violations,” says Abraham.

Indeed, the last word may not have been said on net neutrality in India as big telecom operators are expected to mount legal challenges to the regulator’s ruling in the coming months.

Expressing disappointment with India’s ruling, the Cellular Operators Association of India has called the ban on differential pricing a “welfare reducing measure” that could block an avenue for “less advantaged citizens to move to increased economic growth and prosperity by harnessing the power of the Internet.”

In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

But after having tasted victory, the volunteers at Save the Internet, who have grown from about 10 to 100 in the last year, have already set their sights on another aspect of net neutrality besides differential pricing.

“The campaign is not going to retire because this is not the end of it. There is also discrimination on the basis of speed, which the regulator has not taken up yet,” says Jonnalagadda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules

Facebook's Fall from Grace: Arab Spring to Indian Winter

sunil — 2016-02-11T15:51:34Z

Facebook’s Free Basics has been permanently banned in India! The Indian telecom regulator, TRAI has issued the world’s most stringent net neutrality regulation! To be more accurate, there is more to come from TRAI in terms of net neutrality regulations especially for throttling and blocking but if the discriminatory tariff regulation is anything to go by we can expect quite a tough regulatory stance against other net neutrality violations as well.

The article was published in First Post on February 9, 2016. It can be read here.

Even the regulations it cites in the Explanatory Memorandum don’t go as far as it does. The Dutch regulation will have to be reformulated in light of the new EU regulations and the Chilean regulator has opened the discussion on an additional non-profit exception by allowing Wikipedia to zero-rate its content in partnership with telecom operators.

Bravo to Nikhil Pahwa, Apar Gupta, Raman Chima, Kiran Jonnalagadda and the thousands of volunteers at Save The Internet and associated NGOs, movements, entrepreneurs and activists who mobilized millions of Indians to stand up and petition TRAI to preserve some of the foundational underpinnings of the Internet. And finally bravo to Facebook for having completely undermined any claim to responsible stewardship of our information society through their relentless, shrill and manipulative campaign filled with the staggeringly preposterous lies. Having completely lost the trust of the Indian public and policy-makers, Facebook only has itself to blame for polarizing what was quite a nuanced debate in India through its hyperbole and setting the stage for this firm action by TRAI.

And most importantly bravo to RS Sharma and his team at TRAI for several reasons for the notification of “Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016” aka differential pricing regulations. The regulation exemplifies six regulatory best practices that I briefly explore below.

Transparency and Agility: Two months from start to finish, what an amazing turn around! TRAI was faced with unprecedented public outcry and also comments and counter-comments. Despite visible and invisible pressures, from the initial temporary ban on Free Basics to RS Sharma’s calm, collected and clear interactions with different stakeholders resulted in him regaining the credibility which was lost during the publication of the earlier consultation paper on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top (OTTs) services. Despite being completely snowed over electronically by what Rohin Dharmakumar dubbed as Facebook’s DDOS attack, he gave Facebook one last opportunity to do the right thing which they of course spectacularly blew.

Brevity and Clarity: The regulation fits onto three A4-sized pages and is a joy to read. Clarity is often a result of brevity but is not necessarily always the case. At the core of this regulation is a single sentence which prohibits discriminatory tariffs on the basis of content unless it is a “data service over closed electronic communications network”. And unlike many other laws and regulations, this regulation has only one exemption for offering or charging of discriminatory tariffs and that is for “emergency services” or during “grave public emergency”. Even the best lawyers will find it difficult to drive trucks through that one. Even if imaginative engineers architect a technical circumvention, TRAI says “if such a closed network is used for the purpose of evading these regulations, the prohibition will nonetheless apply”. Again clear signal that the spirit is more important than the letter of the regulation when it comes to enforcement.

Certainty and Equity: Referencing the noted scholar Barbara Van Schewick, TRAI explains that a case-by-case approach based on principles [standards] or rules would “fail to provide much needed certainty to industry participants…..service providers may refrain from deploying network technology” and perversely “lead to further uncertainty as service providers undergoing [the] investigation would logically try to differentiate their case from earlier precedents”. Our submission from the Centre for Internet and Society had called for more exemptions but TRAI went with a much cleaner solution as it did not want to provide “a relative advantage to well-financed actors and will tilt the playing field against those who do not have the resources to pursue regulatory or legal actions”.

What next? Hopefully the telecom operators and Facebook will have the grace to abide with the regulation without launching a legal challenge. And hopefully TRAI will issue equally clear regulations on throttling and blocking to conclude the “Regulatory Framework for Over-the-top Services” consultation process. Critically, TRAI must forbear from introducing any additional regulatory burdens on OTTs, a.k.a Internet companies based on unfounded allegations of regulatory arbitrage. There are some legitimate concerns around issues like taxation and liability but that has to be addressed by other arms of the government. To address the digital divide, there are other issues outside net neutrality such as shared spectrum, unlicensed spectrum and shared backhaul infrastructure that TRAI must also prioritize for regulation and deregulation.

Without doubt other regulators from the global south will be inspired by India’s example and will hopefully take firm steps to prevent the rise of additional and unnecessary gatekeepers and gatekeeping practices on the Internet. The democratic potential of the Internet must be preserved through enlightened and appropriate regulation informed by principles and evidence.

The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He says CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/first-post-february-9-2016-sunil-abraham-facebook-fall-from-grace-arab-spring-to-indian-winter

India bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor

praskrishna — 2016-02-10T02:53:49Z

India’s telecom regulator said Monday that service providers cannot charge discriminatory prices for Internet services, a blow to Facebook’s global effort to provide low-cost Internet to developing countries.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by NDTV.

Facebook’s “Free Basics” program provides a pared-down version of Facebook and weather and job listings to some 15 million mobile-phone users in 37 countries around the world.

When it debuted in India in April, however, Free Basics immediately ran afoul of Internet activists who said it violated the principle of “net neutrality,” which holds that consumers should be able to access the entire Internet unfettered by price or speed.

On Monday, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India agreed, prohibiting data service providers from offering or charging different prices for data — even if it’s free. The Free Basics program has run into trouble elsewhere in the world recently — with Egypt banning it and Google clarifying that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.

In a statement, Facebook said that while the company was “disappointed with the outcome, we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

In an interview before the ruling, Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org — the umbrella organization of the global effort — said India’s negative reaction has been “unique versus other markets we’ve seen. We’ve been welcomed with open arms in many countries.”

Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg launched the program to great fanfare in 2013, partnering with other international tech firms on a mission to connect the 4 billion people in the world without Internet access — which he says is a basic human right.

India has 300 million mobile Internet users but still has close to 1 billion people without proper Internet access. But it is second only to the United States in number of Facebook users, with 130 million, with vast expansion potential as Facebook works to increase its user base beyond the developed world.

Yet the Free Basics program was controversial from the start in India, where critics accused Facebook of creating a “walled garden” for poor users that allowed them access to only a portion of the web that Facebook controlled.

Dozens of well-known tech entrepreneurs, university professors and tech industry groups spoke out against it, saying that the curated app, with its handpicked weather, job and other listings, put India’s scrappy start-ups and software developers at a disadvantage.

On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.

He had been among the program’s fiercest critics, dubbing Free Basics “poor Internet for poor people” and comparing Facebook’s actions to that of British colonialists and their East India Co.

“India, Do u buy into this baby internet?” Sharma tweeted in December. “The East India company came with similar ‘charity’ to Indians a few years back!”

“In a country like India that’s just taking off, it’s important that there is an equal playground for every app developer,” he said in an interview.

In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.

In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and an opinion piece by Zuckerberg in the Times of India in which he argued against criticism that the social-media giant was providing the service simply to expand its user base.

Facebook also engineered a prompt to users that sent “robo” letters of support for Free Basics to India’s telecommunications regulator. The regulator, flooded with form letters, was not amused.

Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.

“Facebook went overboard with its propaganda [and] convinced ‘the powers that be’ that it cannot be trusted with mature stewardship of our information society,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “The Facebook Effect,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.

“Facebook is relentless,” he said. “Zuckerberg has said from the beginning his goal is to make the world more open and connected. And that’s a phrase he continues to repeat 10 years later.”

The regulator had asked Facebook, and its local telecom partner, Reliance Communications, to suspend Free Basics’ operations during the public comment period. But the social-media giant and its partner appeared to flout the suspension order, with the program continuing to be operational on Reliance SIM cards.

A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.

The regulatory body said Monday that anybody violating the order in the future will be subject to a fine of about $735 a day. It will return to review the policy in two years to see if it is effective.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

praskrishna — 2016-02-04T13:53:05Z

Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.

In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.

TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.

At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.

TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”

What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”

The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”

Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”

What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.

Of course, many of the experts Outlook spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told Outlook.

Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”

The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.

In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct

India, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook

praskrishna — 2016-02-03T01:49:25Z

ALWAR, India — Connecting people to the Internet is not easy in this impoverished farming district of wheat and millet fields, where working camels can be glimpsed along roads that curve through the low-slung Aravalli Hills.

The article by Annie Gowen was published in Washington Post on January 28, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.

So when Facebook chief executive Mark Zuckerberg helicoptered in about a year ago to visit a small computer lab and tout Internet for all, Osama Manzar, director of India’s Digital Empowerment Foundation, was thrilled.

But when Manzar tried Facebook’s limited free Internet service, he was bitterly disappointed. The app, called Free Basics, is a pared-down version of Facebook with other services such as weather reports and job listings.

“I feel betrayed — not only betrayed but upset and angry,” Manzar said. “He said we’re going to solve the problem with access and bandwidth. But Facebook is not the Internet.”

Zuckerberg launched his sweeping Internet.org initiative in 2013 as a way to provide 4 billion people in the developing world with Web access, which he says he sees as a basic human right.

But the initiative has hit a major snag in India, where in recent months Free Basics has been embroiled in controversy — with critics saying that the app, which provides limited access to the Web, does a disservice to the poor and violates the principles of “net neutrality,” which holds that equal access to the Internet should be unfettered to all.

Activist groups such as Save the Internet, professors from leading universities and tech titans such as Nandan Nilekani, the co-founder of Infosys, have spoken out against it. Another well-known Indian entrepreneur dubbed it “poor Internet for poor people.”

The debate escalated in recent weeks after India’s telecommunications regulator suspended Free Basics as it weighs whether such plans are fair, with new rules expected by the end of the month.

A week later, Free Basics was banned in Egypt with little explanation, prompting concern that the backlash could spread to other markets. More recently, Google pulled out of the app in Zambia after a trial period. An estimated 15 million people are using Free Basics in 37 countries, including 1 million in India.

[India’s Modi wants to woo Silicon Valley, but privacy fears grow at home]

“It’s a very important test case for what will be India’s network neutrality regime,” said Sunil Abraham of the Center for Internet and Society in Bangalore.

India’s debate could affect the way other countries address the question of whether it is fair for Internet service providers to price websites differently. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s rules on net neutrality went into effect only in June.

Officials at Facebook launched an advertising blitz to counteract the negative publicity. “Who could possibly be against this?” Zuckerberg wondered in a Times of India editorial on Dec. 28.

“I think we’ve been a bit surprised by the strong reaction,” said Chris Daniels, Facebook’s vice president for Internet.org. “Fundamentally, the reason for the surprise is that the program is doing good. It’s bringing people online who are moving onto the broader Internet.”

India, a country of 1.2 billion, has the second-highest number of Internet users in the world, but an estimated 80 percent of the population does not have Internet access.

India’s tech-savvy prime minister, Narendra Modi, is trying to combat this with an ambitious “Digital India” plan to link 250,000 village centers with fiber-optic cable and extend mobile coverage. He has turned to the Indian tech community as well as Silicon Valley for help, securing an agreement with Google to provide free WiFi in railway stations.

India has 130 million Facebook users, second only to the United States, and is a key market as the social-media giant looks to expand beyond the developed world, where its growth has slowed.

“If Facebook manages to get another half a billion users in India, that’s a valuable set of eyeballs to sell to a political party or corporation,” Abraham said.

[Is India the next frontier for Facebook?]

Facebook has long said that its program is about altruism, not eyeballs.

But it does reap new customers. Those who buy a SIM card from Facebook’s local mobile partner, Reliance Communications, are then prompted to pay for additional data. About 40 percent who sign up for Free Basics buy a data plan to move to the wider Web after 30 days, Daniels said.

The service is still running despite the India suspension. A Reliance spokesman said it is in “testing mode” and is not being promoted.

“The thing people forget about Free Basics is that it’s intended to be a temporary transition for people to give them a taste of the Internet and sign up. It’s a marketing program for the carrier in some sense,” said David Kirkpatrick, author of “The Facebook Effect.” But he added: “The idea that it’s some kind of alternative Internet that’s a discriminatory gesture to the poor is the prevailing view among the Indian intelligentsia. It’s fundamentally misunderstood.”

Facebook has pledged to open up to new scrutiny the selection process for companies with new applications, Daniels said. That is a response to concerns by many in India’s tech community that Facebook’s process put India’s fledgling start-ups at a disadvantage.

The project’s proponents say that India’s needs are so great it cannot afford to suspend one program that could help.

Mahesh Uppal, a telecommunications consultant, notes that more than 10 percent of the country does not have mobile phone coverage and that India’s progress in extending fiber-optic cable to village centers is proceeding at a glacial pace. Modi had set a goal of linking all 250,000 by 2016, but only 27,000 have cable so far and it is ready for use in only 3,200, according to a government report.

In comparison, some 80 percent of China’s villages are linked by broadband.

[Inside the Indian temple that draws America’s tech titans]

In Alwar district in the northern state of Rajasthan, many remember when Zuckerberg came to visit but fewer know about Free Basics.

“I’ve heard it’s free and by Facebook and you don’t have to pay for it,” said Umer Farukh, 43, a folk musician. “But I don’t think Facebook should control it. The Internet should be for everybody.”

Farukh has only been computer literate for two years, but he’s already emailing and using YouTube to post videos and promote his band.

He’s become such a proponent that he has donated space for one of Manzar’s computer centers — part of a government initiative to build cyber-hubs in minority communities — and encouraged the female members of his family to take classes, which is rare in his conservative community.

Farukh says that challenges to connecting India go far beyond data plans and fiber-optic cable or the government broadband that often sputters out. Wages are low, and hours are long. Only about half of the women in his state are literate, and about a quarter of the young women in his neighborhood are kept at home and not educated.

“This place is very backward,” he said. “India as a society is lagging far behind in terms of Internet.”

In the small nearby community of Roja Ka Baas, ringed by fields of blooming mustard greens, residents are still awaiting the opening of their planned WiFi center. They are struggling along on cheap mobile phones with slow 2G spectrum until then, they said.

Sakir Khan, 14, said that once the Internet finally arrived in this village, the first thing he would do would be to sign up for Facebook.

Farheen Fatima and Subuhi Parvez contributed to this report.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook

Facebook’s Fight to Be Free

praskrishna — 2016-01-31T09:11:52Z

In India, Mark Zuckerberg can’t give Internet access away.

The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Shrivastava was published in Bloomberg Businessweek on January 15, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Thanks mostly to its mobile-ad profits, Facebook has had a great couple of years. According to its most recent earnings report, in November, the company’s quarterly ad revenue rose 45 percent, to $4.3 billion, from the same period in 2014. It has more than 1.5 billion monthly users, just over half of all the people online anywhere. Keeping up its rate of user growth—more than 100 million people each year—will only get tougher.

A big part of the problem is that a lot of potential new eyeballs are in places where Internet access is patchy at best. Some of Facebook’s grander projects anticipated that issue: It has satellites and giant solar-powered planes that beam Wi-Fi down to areas that don’t have it. And then there’s Free Basics, the two-year-old project Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg has called an online 911. In about three dozen countries so far, Free Basics—also known as Internet.org—includes a stripped-down version of Facebook and a handful of sites that provide news, weather, nearby health-care options, and other info. One or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans.

Facebook says Free Basics is meant to make the world more open and connected, not to boost the company’s growth. Either way, online access is an especially big deal in India, where there are 130 million people using Facebook, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t. (The social network remains blocked in China.) That may help explain why Zuckerberg spent part of the first few weeks of his paternity leave appealing personally to Indians to lobby for Free Basics. On Dec. 21 the Indian government suspended the program, offered in the country by carrier Reliance Communications, while it weighs public comments and arguments from Internet freedom advocates who say preferential treatment for Facebook’s services threatens to stifle competition.

“An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet.” —Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum

Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook has bought daily full-page ads in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-ed, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service. “If we accept that everyone deserves access to the Internet, then we must surely support free basic Internet services,” the CEO wrote in a column published in the Times of India, the nation’s largest daily paper, shortly before the new year. “Who could possibly be against this?”

Opponents, including some journalists and businesspeople, say Free Basics is dangerous because it fundamentally changes the online economy. If companies are allowed to buy preferential treatment from carriers, the Internet is no longer a level playing field, says Vijay Shekhar Sharma, founder of Indian mobile-payment company Paytm. A spokesman for Sharma confirmed that Zuckerberg called to discuss the matter but declined to comment further.

India’s Internet base will grow with or without Facebook’s help, says Nikhil Pahwa, a tech blogger and co-founder of the Save the Internet coalition, which opposes Free Basics. “We don’t see Free Basics as philanthropy. We see it as a land grab,” says Pahwa. When dealing with the famously protectionist Indian government, that’s a pretty good argument. An April attempt by India’s top mobile carrier to underwrite data costs for certain apps drew heavy criticism, and the carrier, Bharti Airtel, has put the program on hold.

None of that means Facebook can’t help get more Indians online, says Neha Dharia, an analyst at consulting firm Ovum. “An emerging country like India needs to provide the consumer with incentives to get onto the Internet,” she says. “What Facebook Free Basics is doing is a bit extreme, but what you do need is a bit of a middle path.”

Internet sampler packages such as Free Basics can also help carriers like Reliance, the fourth-largest in India, upgrade their often-struggling networks, Dharia says. That’s a symbiotic process, because customers may quickly grow frustrated with the bare-bones service and demand more. Free Basics doesn’t have Gmail, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter, or Bollywood music streaming. (Video will account for 64 percent of India’s data traffic by March 2017, consulting firm Deloitte estimates.) It’s meant to be a steppingstone. Facebook says about 40 percent of Free Basics users start paying for data plans within a month.

But again, if Free Basics catches on in India, people may just keep paying for data to use more Facebook and forget about some of those other services, says Dharia. “Facebook is the Internet” to a lot of people in India, she says. Google, whose services are most conspicuously absent from the Free Basics roster, declined to comment.

India’s telecommunications regulator says Facebook’s advocates and opponents have until Jan. 14 to file public comments; it’s received about 2.4 million responses so far, most of them form letters supporting Free Basics. The government’s decision could also ripple beyond India, says Pranesh Prakash, a Free Basics opponent and the policy director at the nonprofit Centre for Internet & Society in Bengaluru. In the weeks since India suspended Free Basics, Egypt, which had done the same back in October, once again shut down the Facebook plan, though the government wouldn’t say why. The India fight “will be a reputational challenge for Facebook,” says Prakash. “It will set the tone for Free Basics debate in other countries.”

The bottom line: Facebook’s free data plan in India faces strong opposition from local businesses and Internet freedom advocates.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava

Facebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price

praskrishna — 2016-01-30T11:32:47Z

Who could possibly be against free internet access? This is the question that Mark Zuckerberg asks in a piece for the Times of India in which he claims Facebook’s Free Basics service “protects net neutrality”.

Free Basics is the rebranded Internet.org, a Facebook operation where by partnering with local telecoms firms in the developing world the firm offers free internet access – limited only to Facebook, Facebook-owned WhatsApp, and a few other carefully selected sites and services.

Zuckerberg was responding to the strong backlash that Free Basics has faced in India, where the country’s Telecom Regulatory Authority recently pulled the plug on the operation while it debates whether telecoms operators should be allowed to offer different services with variable pricing, or whether a principle of network neutrality should be enforced.

Not content to await the regulator’s verdict, Facebook has come out swinging. It has paid for billboards, full-page newspaper ads and television ad campaigns to try to enforce the point that Free Basics is good for India’s poor. In his Times piece, Zuckerberg goes one step further – implying that those opposing Free Basics are actually hurting the poor.

He argued that “for every ten people connected to the internet, roughly one is lifted out of poverty”. Without reference to supporting research, he instead offers an anecdote about a farmer called Ganesh from Maharashtra state. Ganesh apparently used Free Basics to double his crop yields and get a better deal for his crops.

Zuckerberg stressed that “critics of free basic internet services should remember that everything we’re doing is about serving people like Ganesh. This isn’t about Facebook’s commercial interests”.

Zuckerberg’s indignation illustrates either how little he understands about the internet, or that he’s willing to say anything to anyone listening.

This is not a charity

First, despite his claims to the contrary Free Basics clearly runs against the idea of net neutrality by offering access to some sites and not others. While the service is claimed to be open to any app, site or service, in practice the submission guidelines forbid JavaScript, video, large images, and Flash, and effectively rule out secure connections using HTTPS. This means that Free Basics is able to read all data passing through the platform. The same rules don’t apply to Facebook itself, ensuring that it can be the only social network, and (Facebook-owned) WhatsApp the only messaging service, provided.

Yes, Free Basics is free. But how appealing is a taxi company that will only take you to certain destinations, or an electricity provider that will only power certain home electrical devices? There are alternative models: in Bangladesh, Grameenphone gives users free data after they watch an advert. In some African countries, users get free data after buying a handset.

Second, there is no convincing body of peer-reviewed evidence to suggest internet access lifts the world’s poor out of poverty. Should we really base telecommunications policy on an anecdote and a self-serving industry report sponsored by the firm that stands to benefit? India has a literacy rate of 74%, of which a much smaller proportion speak English well enough to read it. Literate English speakers and readers tend not to be India’s poorest citizens, yet it’s English that is the predominant language on the web. This suggests Free Basics isn’t suited for India’s poorest, who’d be better served by more voice and video services.

Third, the claim that Free Basics isn’t in Facebook’s commercial interest is the most outrageous. In much the same way that Nestlé offered free baby formula in the 1970s as development assistance to low-income countries – leaving nursing mothers unable to produce sufficient milk themselves – Free Basics is likely to impede commercial alternatives.

By offering free access Free Basics disrupts the market, allowing Facebook to gain a monopoly that can benefit from the network effects of a growing user base. Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, in India, has aptly noted that expanding audience and consumer bases have long been as important as revenues for internet firms. Against Facebook’s immensely deep pockets and established user-base, homegrown competitors are thwarted before they even begin.

Poverty consists of more than just no internet

India will not always have low levels of internet access, this is not the issue – in fact Indian internet penetration growth rates are relatively high. Instead the company sees Free Basics as a means to establish a bridgehead into the country, establishing a monopoly before other firms move in.

There is decades of research about how best to help farmers like Ganesh: access to good quality education, healthcare, and water all could go a long way. But even if we see internet access as one of the key needs to be met, why would we then offer a restricted version?

In presenting Free Basics as an act of altruism Zuckerberg tries to silence criticism. “Who could possibly be against this?”, he asks:

What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?

That is the right question, but Free Basics is the wrong answer. Let’s call a spade a spade and see Free Basics as an important part of the business strategy of one of the world’s largest internet corporations, rather than as a selfless act of charity.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity

ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାର କୋକୁଆ ଆଣିବ ଫେସବୁକର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ

subha — 2016-01-28T07:24:19Z

This opinion piece in Odia on Facebook's Free Basics App was published in Your Story. The post highlights several user security and privacy that Free Basics is violating apart from violating net neutrality. It also brings the parallel of Airtel Zero and Free Basics with the Grameenphone project by Mozilla in Bangladesh and the worldwide Wikipedia Zero projects.

This was published in Your Story on January 5, 2016.

ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ (Free Basics) ଭାରତରେ ଆସିବା ଆଗରୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଭିତରେ ନିଜ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାକୁ ନେଇ କୋକୁଆ ଭୟ ଖେଳିଲାଣି । ମାଗଣା ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶରେ ଫେସବୁକ, ଫେସବୁକର ସହପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଓ ବାକି କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ମାଗଣାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବାର ଆଳରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଏ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଅଭାବ ସଙ୍ଗେ ଖେଳୁନାହିଁ ତ? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ନାଆଁରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ହୋଇଯିବେ କି? ଏମିତି ଅଗଣିତ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରୁଥିବା ବେଳେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ ଏହାକୁ ଭାରତରେ ସାମୟିକ ଭାବେ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି ।

ଗତ ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ସାରା ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ । ସାରା ଦେଶରୁ ଲୋକେ ନିଆଁରେ ପତଙ୍ଗ ଝାସ ଦେଲା ଭଳି ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ “ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ’ (Free Basics) ବିରୋଧରେ ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ଧରଣର ମତ ଦେଇଚାଲିଛନ୍ତି । ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ମୋଦିଙ୍କ ଆମେରିକା ଗସ୍ତକାଳରେ ସେ ସେଠାରେ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗେ ଭେଟି ଫେସବୁକର ମିଳିତ ସହଯୋଗରେ ଭାରତରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ଓ ସୂଚନା ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ବାବଦରେ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିଥିଲେ । ଆଉ ଫେସବୁକକୁ ଏହା ଭାରତରେ ନିଜର ଚେର ମୋଟା କରିବାକୁ ଏକ ଭଲ ବାଟ ଦେଖାଇଲା । ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ମାର୍କ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ବାବଦରେ ଘୋଷଣା କରିବାର ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ନ ବିତୁଣୁ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ପାଖରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରି ଲକ୍ଷ ପାଖାପାଖି ଇମେଲ ଏହାକୁ ରୋକିବା ଲାଗି ପହଞ୍ଚି ସାରିଲାଣି । ଜନନେତା ଓ ଇନଫୋସିସର ସହ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ମିଡ଼ିଆନାମାର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା , ଭେଞ୍ଚର କ୍ୟାପିଟାଲିଷ୍ଟ , ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଆକ୍ଟିଭିଷ୍ଟ , ଙ୍କ ଯାଏ ସଭିଏଁ ଏହା ପଛରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଲାଭକରୀ ମନୋଭାବ ନିହିତ ଅଛି ବୋଲି କଡ଼ା ନିନ୍ଦା କରି ଲେଖିଲେଣି । ତେବେ କ’ଣ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ? କାହିଁକି ଏତେ ବିବାଦ ଏ ସରଳ ସୁବିଧା ବିରୋଧରେ?

ଫେସବୁକ୍‍ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ଊଣା ଅଧିକେ ସଭିଏଁ ଜାଣୁଥିବେ ସେ କେଡ଼େ ଅଠାକାଠି! ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରାୟ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ହେଲେ ଯୁବବର୍ଗ । ତେବେ କି ଯୁବା କି ବୁଢ଼ା ଫେସବୁକରେ ପ୍ରାୟ ଲୋକେ କେବଳ ମଜାମଉଜ ଲାଗି ଆସିଥାନ୍ତି । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ଖୁବ୍‍ କମ୍‍ ସମୟରେ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ମିଶିବା, ଗପିବା ଓ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ମଉଜ ପାଇ ଅନେକେ ଫେସବୁକ ପ୍ରେମରେ ପଡ଼ିଯାଆନ୍ତି । ସରଳ ଭାଷାରେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏକ ହାଟ ବଜାର । ଲୋକେ ସେଠି କିଛି ସମୟ କାଟିବା ପାଇଁ, ଚିହ୍ନା-ଅଚିହ୍ନା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସହ ମିଶିବା ପାଇଁ, ଆଳାପ-ଆଲୋଚନା ପାଇଁ ଏକାଠି ହୁଅନ୍ତି । ଅଧିକାଂଶ ଆଲୋଚନା କେବଳ ମଉଜ ପାଇଁ ହେଲାବେଳେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ଆଲୋଚନା ମଧ୍ୟ ହୋଇଥାଏ । ଫେସବୁକ ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ଲାଭକରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ଏହାର ଆଉ ଏକ ସହ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ହେଲା ହ୍ୱାଟସ୍‍ଅପ୍‍ । ଏହା ଅନଲାଇନ ଚାଟିଂ ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯାଏ । ଫଟୋ ଭିଡ଼ିଓରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ସାଧାରଣ ଚାଟିଂ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଏହା ଖୁବ୍‍ ଜଣା ।

ନିକଟରେ ଫେସବୁକ Internet.org ନାମକ ଏକ ସହ-ସଙ୍ଗଠନ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିଛି । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ହେଲା ଏ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଡଟ ଅର୍ଗ ଅଧୀନରେ ଏକ ଯୋଜନା । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ଫେସବୁକର ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ସବୁକୁ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶମାନଙ୍କରେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକପ୍ରିୟ କରିବା ଲାଗି ସେସବୁକୁ ବିନାମୂଲ୍ୟରେ ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ । ଭାରତ ସମେତ ଜଗତର ୩୦ଟି ଦେଶରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣା ସୀମିତ ଫେସବୁକ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବା ଏହାର ଉଦ୍ଦେଶ୍ୟ । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ମଧ୍ୟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହେବ । ତେବେ ଏଠାରେ ଅନେକ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରେ । ଏ ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା କି ନା ତା’ର ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ କିଏ ନେବ - ଫେସବୁକ ନା ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ? ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଅଧୁନା କିଛି ଦେଶରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହୋଇଥିବାବେଳେ ଫିଲିପାଇନ୍ସରେ ରହୁଥିବା ଜଣେ ଭାରତୀୟ ଜିତେଶ ଗୋସ୍ୱାମୀ ନିକଟରେ ନିଜେ ନିଜ ମୋବାଇଲରେ ସେଠାର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଇନଷ୍ଟଲ କରି ଯାହା ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି ତା’ ଭାରି ଚିନ୍ତାର ବିଷୟ । ସାଧାରଣ ଫେସବୁକର ଅଧାରୁ ଅଧିକ ସୁବିଧା ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ନାହିଁ । ଏଥିରେ ଫେସବୁକ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଭିଡ଼ିଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ଦେଖିହେବନି କି ଖବର ଆଦି ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପଢ଼ିହେବନି । ପୁଣି ମାଗଣାରେ ମିଳିବାକୁ ଥିବା ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବାଛିବାରେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏକଚାଟିଆ ଅଧିକାର ରହିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କ’ଣ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ନ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ତାହା ଫେସବୁକ ନିର୍ଣ୍ଣୟ କରିବ ।

ଆଉ ‘ଗରିବ ମାଇପ ସବୁରି ଶାଳୀ’ ନ୍ୟାୟରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣା ତିଅଣର ସୁଆଦ ଚଖାଇ ଫେସବୁକ ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗାଇବା ଆଳରେ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ରଖିବ । ଫେସବୁକ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ, Mozilla ଭଳି ଖୋଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ବ୍ୟବହାର କରେନାହିଁ କି ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ତିଆରି ନୁହେଁ । ଏହା ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ ଏକ ଲାଭକାରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ତେଣୁ ଫେସବୁକର ସବୁ କାମ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ପାଇଁ । ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ମନ ଜିଣିବା ପାଇଁ ଓ ନିଜର ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ସଂଖ୍ୟା ବଢ଼ାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏହା ଫେସବୁକର ଏକ ମସୁଧା ବୋଲି ଅନେକ ଚିନ୍ତାଶୀଳ ଲୋକେ ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ଏକଚାଟିଆ କାମ ନେଟ ନିଉଟ୍ରାଲିଟି ବା ନେଟ ସମାନତାର ପକ୍ଷପାତୀ । ପକ୍ଷପାତ ନ କରି ସବୁ ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସମାନ ଭାବେ ଗଣିବା ନେଟ ସମାନତା ନାମରେ ଜଣା ।

ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଥିବା ନାନାଦି ଭୁଲ ବିଷୟକୁ ଭଲ ଭାବେ ତନଖି କରିବା ପାଇଁ ନିକଟରେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ କିଛିକାଳ ପାଇଁ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି । ଚତୁର ଫେସବୁକ କେବେ ଚାଷୀମାନଙ୍କୁ ପାଣିପାଗ ଜାଣିବାରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ତ କେବେ ଅଭାବୀ ଭାରତୀୟଙ୍କୁ ପରସ୍ପର ସହ ଯୋଡ଼ିବାରେ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ବୋଲି ଦେଶସାରା ସହର ବଜାର ସବୁଠି ଜୋରଦାର ପ୍ରଚାର ଚଳାଇଥିଲା । ସବୁ ଖବରକାଗଜରେ ପୂରା ଫରଦ ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ଆଉ ସବୁ ବସ୍‍ ରହିବା ସ୍ଥାନରେ ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ ହୋର୍ଡିଂ । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ସଭିଙ୍କୁ ଅନୁରୋଧ ଥିଲା ଏକ ନମ୍ବରକୁ ମିସକଲ ଦେଇ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ସମର୍ଥନ କରିବା ପାଇଁ । ଏ ପ୍ରଚାର ପ୍ରସାରରେ ୧୦୦ କୋଟିରୁ ଅଧିକ ବୋଧେ ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚ ହୋଇଥିବ । କେଉଁଠୁ ଆଦାୟ ହେବ ଏ ପଇସା ?

ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସର ମାଗଣା ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବାର ଏ ଆଳ ବିରୋଧରେ ଝଡ଼ ଉଠିଛି । ଫେସବୁକର ମିସକଲ୍‍ ଅଭିଯାନର କଡ଼ା ଜବାବ ଦେବା ପାଇଁ http://savetheinternet.in ଓ http://fsmi.in ନାମକ ଦୁଇଟି ୱେବସାଇଟ ପକ୍ଷରୁ ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କୁ ସଚେତନ କରାଯାଇ ଟ୍ରାଇ ପାଖକୁ ଇମେଲ ପଠାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଅନୁରୋଧ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା। ଫେସବୁକର କୋଟିକୋଟି ଟଙ୍କା ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚର ମିସକଲ ଅଭିଯାନରୁ ୧୦ଲକ୍ଷ ସମର୍ଥନ ମିଳିଥିବାବେଳେ ବିନା ପଇସାରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରିଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଇମେଲ ଜରିଆରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ବିରୋଧ କରି ଟ୍ରାଇକୁ ଇମେଲ କରିଛନ୍ତି । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ସମର୍ଥନ ସଂଗ୍ରହକୁ ଟ୍ରାଇର ସଭାପତି ଆରଏସ୍‍ ଶର୍ମା ଘୋର ନିନ୍ଦା କରି କହିଛନ୍ତି, ଏଯାବତ୍‍ ଫେସବୁକ ଯେଉଁ ୧୪ ଲକ୍ଷ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ପ୍ରଭାବିତ କରି ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ମିସକଲ୍‍ ଜରିଆରେ ସମର୍ଥନ ଆଣିଛି ତା’ ମୂଲ୍ୟହୀନ । ୧୦୦ କୋଟି ଟଙ୍କାର କି ଅପଚୟ! ସେତିକି ପଇସାରେ ଶହେ ହଜାର ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିବା ସୁଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ଆହୁରି ଭଲ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା ।

ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଲୁଚି ରହିଥିବା ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ ବିପଦଟି ହେଲା ଫେସବୁକର ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହ କାରସାଦି । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କି କି ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିଲେ, କାହା ସଙ୍ଗେ ଗପିଲେ ସେସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଅଗୋଚରରେ ଟିକିନିଖି କରି ହିସାବ ରଖିଥାଏ । ସଳଖେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ବାପୁଡ଼ାର ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ବୋଲି କିଛି ରହିବ ନାହିଁ । ଫେସବୁକ ଆରମ୍ଭରୁ ଶବ୍ଦସମ୍ଭାରରେ ଭରା ଏକ ଲମ୍ବା ବିବରଣୀରେ ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ କୌଣସି ଅଭିଯୋଗ ନାହିଁ ବୋଲି ଖୁବ୍‍ ଚତୁର ଭାବେ ତାଙ୍କଠୁ ଅନୁମତି ନେଇଯାଏ । ଅନଭିଜ୍ଞ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଟିର ପାଠଘର ଯାହା ସେଥିରେ ସେ ଏ ଫିକର ବୁଝିବ ବା କିପରି? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଓକିଲ ଇବେନ ମଗଲେନ ଓ ମିସି ଚୌଧୁରୀ ଏକ ଲେଖାରେ ଦୁହେଁ ତନ୍ନ ତନ୍ନ କରି ବିଶ୍ଳେଷଣ କରିଛନ୍ତି ଏ କଥା । ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ଉଠେ ଯେ ଫେସବୁକ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ବେପରୁଆ ଅପସାହସ କରିବ କି ?

ଏହିଭଳି ଆଉ ଏକ କୁଟିଳ ବିଷୟ ଥିଲା ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ । ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ ଆଉ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଭିତରେ ବଡ଼ ସମାନତା ହେଉଛି ଉଭୟ କମ୍ପାନୀ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟଙ୍କଠାରୁ ବିପୁଳ ପରିମାଣରେ ପଇସା ନେଇ ସେ ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁକୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ମାଗଣା ଯୋଗାଇଥାନ୍ତି । ଏଥିରେ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଖେ ପହଞ୍ଚୁଥିବା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁଙ୍କ ସିଧାସଳଖ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନିହିତ ଥାଏ । ପାଠକଙ୍କୁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ କରିବାର ତୁଚ୍ଛା ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ତଳେ ଯେ ଏତେ ଫନ୍ଦି ରହିଛି ତାହା ପାଠକ ବାପୁଡ଼ା ବା ଜାଣିବ କେମନ୍ତେ ? ଆଉ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ଫିକର ସହଜେ ଧରାପଡ଼ିବ ବୋଲି ଫେସବୁକ ଭଳି କମ୍ପାନୀ ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶକୁ ଥୋପ କରିଛି ।

ତେବେ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବା କିଛି ନୂଆ ନୁହେଁ । ଅତୀତରେ ବାଂଲାଦେଶରେ Mozilla (ଫାୟାରଫକ୍ସ ଭଳି ନାନାଦି ଖୋଲା ଓଫ୍ଟଓଏର ପରିଚାଳନା କରୁଥିବା ସଙ୍ଗଠନ) ଗ୍ରାମୀଣଫୋନ ନାମକ ଯୋଜନା ଜରିଆରେ ୫ ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ଦିନକୁ ୨୦ ଏମ୍‍ବିର ଡାଟା ଦେବା ସାରା ଜଗତରେ ଆଲୋଚନା ବିଷୟ ହୋଇଥିଲା । Mozilla ଓ ମୋବାଇଲ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଟେଲିନର ଏଥିପାଇଁ ପ୍ରଶଂସାର ପାତ୍ର ହୋଇଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ଦେଶରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବିଷୟରେ ଜାଣିବାକୁ ପାଉନଥିବାରୁ ଏସ୍‍ଏମ୍‍ଏସ୍‍ ଓ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ ଅନ୍‍ଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ, ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଜିରୋ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣାରେ ଯୋଗାଇଦିଆଯାଉଛି । ଭାରତରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ପରୀକ୍ଷାମୂଳକ ଭାବେ ଏହି ସୁବିଧା କେତେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଦିଆଯାଇଛି । ତେବେ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ପାଇଁ ଏହିଭଳି ଉଦ୍ୟମ ସବୁରି ଆଦର ପାଆନ୍ତି । କିନ୍ତୁ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଜଗତର ହିତ ନାମରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କ ଗରିବୀକୁ ଥୋପ କରି ଫେସବୁକ୍‍ର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ କେବଳ ନିନ୍ଦା ପାଇଛି ।

ନିକଟରେ ଭର୍ଜରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ଏକ ଲେଖାରେ ଫେସବୁକ କାଳିମାଭରା ଆଉ ଏକ କଥା ନଜରକୁ ଆସିଛି । ଫେସବୁକ ଅତୀତରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ ଅଲଗା ଅଲଗା ଅନୁଭୂତିର ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ ଛାଡ଼ିଥାଏ । ଅର୍ଥାତ ଜଣଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ କେବଳ ତାଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗମାନଙ୍କ ଦୁଃଖଭରା ପୋଷ୍ଟସବୁ ଲଗାତର ଆସୁଥିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ମୁଡ଼ ଜାଣିବା ଗବେଷଣା ନାଁରେ ଏ କୁଟିଳ ଚିନ୍ତା ଯେ କେତେ ଘାତକ ତାହା ସହଜେ ଅନୁମେୟ । ଫେସବୁକର ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଏମିତି ନୀତି ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ଅଜଣା ଓ ଏସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଗୋପନୀୟତା, ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ତଥ୍ୟ ଓ ନିରାପତ୍ତାକୁ ପାଦରେ ଦଳି ଦେଲାଭଳି । ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସମର୍ଥନ ପାଇବାକୁ ହେଲେ କିଛି ପରିମାଣରେ ସଚ୍ଚା ହେବାକୁ ଯେ ପଡ଼ିବ ଏ କଥାଟି ଫେସବୁକ ଏବେଠୁ ହେଜିଲେ ଆଗକୁ ମଙ୍ଗଳ ହେବ ।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38

Trai promises final call on differential pricing by month-end after 'lively' open house

praskrishna — 2016-01-26T02:41:56Z

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) will take a final call on differential pricing by the end of January , its chairman said, describing the open house discussions on the regulator's contentious consultation paper as "lively".

The article by Economic Times was published on January 22, 2016. CIS gave inputs.

"It was a very lively consultation, the hall was full. We will take all these into account and hope that by the end of the month, we should be able to come out with our position," Trai chairman Ram Sewak Sharma said.

He, however, refused to link this consultation paper to the broader topic of net neutrality . "Net neutrality is a different subject. First we will decide differential pricing, then we will look at other issues. I cannot say at this time what Trai will do on the larger issue of net neutrality , but we will certainly take a call," Sharma said.

The open house saw a near packed house, with representatives from Trai, several telecom companies, civil society organisations, industry bodies, and individuals, but the debate did not turn out to be as explosive as the acrimonious lead-up to it.

Facebook India's policy head Ankhi Das, whose presence was hugely anticipated after a recent round of high octave communication between Trai and Facebook was made public, did not turn up.

A representative of Facebook, whose zero-rated programme called Free Basics has been at the cent re of the controversy surrounding the differential pricing paper, said: "As a company we have commented. With Free Basics we hope to bring people online in a non-discriminatory manner... We hope Trai will encourage Free Basics.

"Telcos including Bharti AirtelBSE -0.37 %, Idea CellularBSE 0.05 %, Reliance CommunicationsBSE -1.58 %, Sistema Shyam, Tata Communications, VideoconBSE -0.54 % Telecom, and Vodafone made a case for allowing differential pricing, and most cited extending the practice from voice to data services.

"Differential pricing should be incorporated as were done in voice telephony. Data should be encouraged while the content part can be taken up in another consultation paper," a Vodafone representative said.

The volunteer-led savetheinternet.in coalition said: "Internet is not a marketplace. Though telcos advocate differential pricing in the name of different customer classes, but when they charge for third party content, it becomes a problem."

Civil society organisations also made detailed submissions, explaining their positions. While most, including industry body Internet and Mobile Association of India, said they were against differential pricing, some took a slightly cautious view. "What hasn't been discussed is that there is already differential pricing and this is undocumented," said a representative of Centre for Internet and Society. "Free Basics isn't following certain protocol standards, and this is a concern. We don't have enough data on internet usage, costs, user experience, to take a decision now," he added.

A representative of Tata CommunicationsBSE 0.58 % said "sponsored data services" exist around the world and argued citing an example that providing free voice service does not confer competitive advantage.

"If there are two pizza vendors: one with a toll-free service for taking orders and the other where you pay money to order without a toll-free service. The uptake in the pizza depends on the quality and the price of the pizzas. It is not because it is a toll free call," he said.

This comparison drew laughter in the open house, and became the butt of jokes on Twitter from internet freedom advocates. "Btw, I think a new analogy from the telco guys today, comparing the internet with pizza. How creative," tweeted Nikhil Pahwa, who under the banner of savetheinternet.in has been campaigning for net neutrality.

IAMAI president Subho Ray's candid commentary on submissions, calling some of them "badly done homework", did not go down well with some members of the audience.

Individual entrepreneurs made a case for not having differential pricing, as that would mean the telcos would get to decide the access for their business. Some people suggested alternatives. Digital Empowerment Foundation founder Osama Manzar said unlicensed spectrum or Wi-Fi could be used to provide access in the rural areas.

Trai launched the differential pricing consultation paper on December 9, which was followed by Facebook starting a mass campaign, asking its users to support Free Basics, urging them to email Trai in support of "digital equality" and supporting Free Basics.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/news/trai-promises-final-call-on-differential-pricing-by-month-end-after-lively-open-house

Why Indians are turning down Facebook's free internet

praskrishna — 2016-01-17T16:25:10Z

Imagine a billion of the world’s poorest gaining overnight access to health information, education, and professional help — for free. Add to this one rich man who wants to make that dream a reality.

The article by Nimisha Jaiswal was published in the Global Post on January 13, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

That’s the invitation that Facebook has sent to India. Many there, however, are rejecting such benevolence.

Facebook has introduced its Free Basics project in 36 countries. The company claims that the app acts as a stepping-stone to the internet for those who are otherwise without access, by providing them with a few essential sites — or “basics” — to get started.

“We know that when people have access to the internet they also get access to jobs, education, healthcare, communication… We know that for India to make progress, more than 1 billion people need to be connected to the internet,” wrote Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in a recent op-ed for a major Indian newspaper. “Free Basics is a bridge to the full internet and digital equality.”

However, net neutrality researchers and activists in India define it quite differently.

“Free Basics is a zero-rated walled garden that gives users a tiny subset of the world wide web,” Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based Centre for Internet and Society, told GlobalPost.

The Free Basics app is part of Facebook’s Internet.org, a “zero-rating” internet service that provides limited access for no charge to the consumer. The original Internet.org was heavily criticized in India for violating net neutrality, the principle that all content on the web should be accessible to consumers at the same speed, without discrimination by providers.

Last spring, as part of a homegrown Save The Internet movement, over 1 million people wrote to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to protest services that disrupt net neutrality by providing only a small fraction of the internet to their users.

India’s Department of Telecommunications has already recommended that such platforms be disallowed. Before it makes its own recommendations this month, the TRAI asked concerned citizens for another round of input on zero-rating apps. The criticism has been so loud that, at the end of December, Free Basics’ local telecom partner was ordered to take the service down until a decision is reached.

Though Free Basics does not require payment from the websites it shares, Facebook’s competitors are unlikely to participate and provide user data to their rivals. And while there are currently no advertisements on Free Basics, Facebook reserves the right to introduce them in the future to garner revenue from their “walled-in” clients.

According to Abraham, such a platform harms free speech, privacy, innovation and diversity by adding another layer of surveillance and “censoring” the internet.

Mahesh Murthy, a venture capitalist who is part of India’s Save The Internet movement, puts it more bluntly.

“What Facebook wants is our less fortunate brothers and sisters should be able to poke each other and play Candy Crush, but not be able to look up a fact on Google, or learn something on Khan Academy, or sell their produce on a commodity market, or even search for a job on [Indian recruitment website] Naukri,” said Murthy.

Zuckerberg and Facebook’s India team have vigorously rebutted net neutrality activists in India, including Murthy, challenging their criticism of Free Basics and accusing activists of deliberately trying to prevent the masses from gaining internet access.

“Critics of the program continue to spread false claims — even if that means leaving behind a billion people,” wrote Zuckerberg in his Times of India op-ed.

According to Abraham, this is a misleading assertion. “They are falsely framing the debate, they are making it look like we have only two choices,” he told GlobalPost. “The choice is not between less people on the internet and unregulated [Free Basics].”

Several alternatives are being proposed. Abraham does not advocate a complete ban on Free Basics, instead suggesting a “leaky” walled garden where users would be given 100 MB of full internet access for every 100 MB of Free Basics consumed.

The Save the Internet campaign, however, wants Free Basics barred altogether. It proposes returning to previously implemented schemes like providing data on the purchase of a phone, or letting users access the full internet after watching an ad. The Universal Service Obligation Fund, set up by the Department of Telecommunications to provide affordable communication technology in rural areas, could also be used to finance free data packs.

While Facebook could potentially contribute to such funds to promote its connectivity goals, the millions of dollars it has spent loudly defending Free Basics in India suggest that the company is deeply attached to its own scheme.

Facebook has claimed that “more than four in five Indians support Free Basics,” according to a survey that it paid for. Indian users of the social network have received notifications encouraging them to send a template letter to the regulator in support of Free Basics. Even users in the US were “accidentally” notified to add their backing to the Indian campaign.

Some of the company's critics suggest that it is driven less by philanthropy, more by guaranteeing itself a stream of new users.

Murthy points out that a large number of the world’s population not yet on the internet are in India and China — and Facebook is banned in China. “So who becomes essential to Mark Zuckerberg’s balance sheet? Enter us Indians.”

While Indian activists agree that connectivity is an important goal, they insist that Free Basics in its current form is not the solution or even the only option right now. All it does is whets the appetite of the consumer, according to Abraham.

“You can compare Free Basics to when you go through the mall: You see the people selling cookies, and the aroma fills the whole mall,” he said. “That’s what Free Basics does — it gets you interested in the cookie. But it doesn’t solve the affordability question.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-post-nimisha-jaiswal-why-indians-are-turning-down-facebook-free-internet

Network Neutrality Regulation across South Asia: A Roundtable on Aspects of Differential Pricing

praskrishna — 2016-01-17T02:41:13Z

The Centre of Internet and Society (CIS) in association with Observer Research Foundation, and IT For Change in collaboration with the Annenberg School for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania is pleased to announce a roundtable on ‘Network Neutrality Regulation Across South Asia: Aspects of Differential Pricing” that will take place on January 22, 2016 from 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. at TERI in Bangalore.

Download the Invite

The objective of this roundtable will be to look into the issue of differential pricing in light of TRAI’s recent consultation process, with the specific intention of research building. The network neutrality debate has gained significant momentum in India during the past year, with competing interests of internet service providers, OTTs and the public giving rise to important questions of ICT regulation and policy.

With Facebook looking to expand its zero rated walled garden, Free Basics, into nascent markets, differential pricing is an important point of regulatory policy not just in India, but in jurisdictions across South Asia. These countries have limited connectivity, large consumer potential and low internet penetration which bring to the fore questions of access, diversity, competition and innovation. To this end, the roundtable will seek to address the regulatory and market aspects of differential pricing as well as the impact on rights. Broadly, the roundtable will be forward looking and seek to build future research agendas.

Draft Agenda

11:00 – 11:30	Tea and Registration
11:30 – 12:30	Roundtable 1: Framing the issue: The practice of differential pricing Examples of differential pricing Stakeholder perspectives Competition and market effect of differential pricing Larger social consequences of differential pricing
12:30 – 1:00	Lunch
1:00 – 2:30	Roundtable 2: Regulatory response: Discerning governmental actions Locating public interest Moving from research to action
2:30 – 3:00	Tea
3:00 – 4:30	Roundtable 3: Impact on rights: Access Freedom of expression Privacy Equity and Social Justice
4:30 – 5:00	Discussion and research agenda building

Roundtable Questions:

Roundtable 1: FRAMING THE ISSUE:

What is differential pricing and how does it work? What are the technical components and policy components of differential pricing? What are examples of differential pricing?
What has been the response from different stakeholders to differential pricing schemes? What are the arguments for/against differential pricing?
What could be the market effect of differential pricing?
What are possible larger social impacts of differential pricing?

Roundtable 2: REGULATORY RESPONSE:

How have governments responded to differential pricing? What can these responses tell us about the position of governments?
What are the different components for consideration with developing a regulatory response? What are different forms of regulation for differential pricing?
What type of policy research around differential pricing can drive meaningful action?

Roundtable 3: IMPACT ON RIGHTS:

How does differential pricing impact the right to access, freedom of expression, privacy, and equity and social justice?
Are there ways to mitigate this impact through regulation? Market incentives? Company policy?
What are forms of redress that individuals could seek in the context of differential pricing?

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/network-neutrality-regulation-across-south-asia-a-roundtable-on-aspects-of-differential-pricing

Facebook Free Basics: Gatekeeping Powers Extend to Manipulating Public Discourse

vidushi — 2016-01-09T13:43:56Z

15 million people have come online through Free Basics, Facebook's zero rated walled garden, in the past year. "If we accept that everyone deserves access to the internet, then we must surely support free basic internet services. Who could possibly be against this?" asks Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, in a recent op-ed defending Free Basics.

The article was published in Catchnews on January 6, 2015. For more info click here.

This rhetorical question however, has elicited a plethora of answers. The network neutrality debate has accelerated over the past few weeks with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) releasing a consultation paper on differential pricing.

While notifications to "Save Free Basics in India" prompt you on Facebook, an enormous backlash against this zero rated service has erupted in India.

The policy objectives that must guide regulating net neutrality are consumer choice, competition, access and openness. Facebook claims that Free Basics is a transition to the full internet and digital equality. However, by acting as a gatekeeper, Facebook gives itself the distinct advantage of deciding what services people can access for free by virtue of them being "basic", thereby violating net neutrality.

Amidst this debate, it's important to think of the impact Facebook can have on manipulating public discourse. In the past, Facebook has used it's powerful News Feed algorithm to significantly shape our consumption of information online.

In July 2014, Facebook researchers revealed that for a week in January 2012, it had altered the news feeds of 689,003 randomly selected Facebook users to control how many positive and negative posts they saw. This was done without their consent as part of a study to test how social media could be used to spread emotions online.

Their research showed that emotions were in fact easily manipulated. Users tended to write posts that were aligned with the mood of their timeline.

Another worrying indication of Facebook's ability to alter discourse was during the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge in July and August, 2014. Users' News Feeds were flooded with videos of individuals pouring a bucket of ice over their head to raise awareness for charitable cause, but not entirely on its merit.

The challenge was Facebook's method of boosting its native video feature which was launched at around the same time. Its News Feed was mostly devoid of any news surrounding riots in Ferguson, Missouri at the same time, which happened to be a trending topic on Twitter.

Each day, the news feed algorithm has to choose roughly 300 posts out of a possible 1500 for each user, which involves much more than just a random selection. The posts you view when you log into Facebook are carefully curated keeping thousands of factors in mind. Each like and comment is a signal to the algorithm about your preferences and interests.

The amount of time you spend on each post is logged and then used to determine which post you are most likely to stop to read. Facebook even keeps into account text that is typed but not posted and makes algorithmic decisions based on them.

It also differentiates between likes - if you like a post before reading it, the news feed automatically assumes that your interest is much fainter as compared to liking a post after spending 10 minutes reading it.

Facebook believes that this is in the best interest of the user, and these factors help users see what he/she will most likely want to engage with. However, this keeps us at the mercy of a gatekeeper who impacts the diversity of information we consume, more often than not without explicit consent. Transparency is key.

(Vidushi Marda is a programme officer at the Centre for Internet and Society)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/catchnews-january-6-2016-vidushi-marda-facebook-free-basics-gatekeeping-powers-extend-to-manipulating-public-discourse

Facebook Free Basics vs Net Neutrality: The top arguments in the debate

praskrishna — 2016-01-07T02:26:16Z

On Twitter, there's a whole conversation around Facebook Free Basics and whether zero-rating platforms should be allowed in India. Here's a look at the debate.

The article was published in the Indian Express on December 31, 2015. Sunil Abraham and Pranesh Prakash were quoted.

Facebook’s Free Basics app, which aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who can’t afford data packs, has run into trouble in India over the last two weeks. After regulator TRAI issued a paper questioning the fairness of zero-rating platforms, it also asked Reliance Communications (the official telecom partner for Free Basics) to put the service on hold.

Facebook on its part has gone for an aggressive campaign, both online and offline, to promote Free Basics and ensure that its platform is not banned permanently. For Net Neutrality activists, zero-rating platforms are in violation of the principle as it restricts access to free, full Internet for users.

On Twitter too, there’s a serious debate unfolding around Free Basics and whether zero-rating platforms should be allowed in India. Here’s a look at some of the prominent voices around this Net Neutrality vs Free Basics debate.

Watch our video

Nikhil Pahwa, founder of news website MediaNama, has been campaigning for quite some time against zero-rating platforms in general and Net Neutrality. On Twitter, Pahwa points out that the problem with the zero-rating apps is that it gives telecos right to play kingmaker, and get into a direct relationship between a website and a user.

Pahwa also wrote a counter-blog to Mark Zuckerberg’s column in The Times of India questioning why Facebook is going with this restricted version of the web on Free Basics, rather than giving access to all websites.

He posted recently on Twitter, “Why hasn’t Facebook tried any model other than on which gives it a competitive advantage?”

Pahwa adds, “With zero rating, telcos insert themselves into a previously direct relationship between a site and user. Some sites made cheaper versus others. Said it earlier, saying it again. Problem with zero rating is that it gives telcos the right to play kingmaker through pricing. So Net Neutrality battle isn’t just about Facebook. It’s about telcos lobbying for differential pricing+revenue share from Internet companies.”

Check out some of this tweets on the issue of Net Neutrality:

Pranesh Prakash, the director for policy at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) in Bangalore, has said that a total ban might not be the ideal solution and one should look at the platforms on a case by case basis.

He writes on Twitter, “My position: We should ban some zero-rating, allow some zero-rating, and deal w/ middle category either w/ +ve obligation or case-by-case. I’m all for banning Free Basics if it harms people more than it benefits them. I’ve even proposed tests for determining this. The regulator needs more data on a) conversion rates to full-Internet; b) cost of subsidy & c) QoE (speed, etc.) of Free Basics.”

Check out Pranesh's tweets below

Sunil Abraham, executive director at Centre for Internet and Society, has however questioned Free Basics on Twitter. He also posted counter-points to Pranesh’s tweets about data on conversion being used to create regulations around zero-ratings. He’s also called for a ban on Free Basics.

Check out his tweets below

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/indian-express-december-31-2015-facebook-free-basics-vs-net-neutrality-the-top-arguments-in-the-debate

Nasscom against differential pricing for data services

praskrishna — 2016-01-06T15:12:17Z

The National Association of Software and Services Companies says it should be the regulator that decides on such content, not firms.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava was published in Livemint on January 5, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

India’s top software lobby on Monday said if select web content needs to be provided cheaper for some Indians, it must be the regulator that decides on such content, not companies.

In its response to a consultation paper by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) on differential pricing for data usage, the National Association of Software and Services Companies (Nasscom) objected to plans such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero where companies choose content to be provided at different speeds and prices, but backed powers for the regulator to allow such a model if the regulator deems they are in “public interest”, while adhering to principles of net neutrality.

“We strongly oppose any model where telecom service providers (TSPs) or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed... any differential pricing by TSP either directly such as Airtel Zero or indirectly as in the case of Free Basics through a platform provider which limits access to the internet services or websites (selected by the TSP or by the partners) violate the idea of net neutrality,” said R. Chandrashekhar, president, Nasscom.

“But when we recognize the reality of India as a country which has low internet penetration and even lower broadband penetration, apart from low levels of digital literacy and limited local language content... there may be a need to provide certain services in public interest at differential or lower prices which the regulator feels are necessary,” he said.

“Therefore, it is important that the regulator should have the power to allow differential pricing for certain types or classes of services that are deemed to be in public interest and based on mandatory prior approvals,” he said. “Any such programmes should abide by the principles of net neutrality and not constrain innovation in any way and not constrain innovation in any way.”

Differential pricing for data usage means offering services at different price points to different users. However, analysts say it could lead to an anti-competitive environment, hurting small companies and start-ups, while giving the TSPs and their partner platforms near-monopolistic access to the vast amount of user data that has potential commercial value in a country such as India where privacy laws are not strong.

Differential pricing is a significant aspect of the net neutrality debate that erupted in India in 2015, when Trai released a consultation paper in April. Soon, telecom operator Bharti Airtel Ltd launched Zero, a marketing platform that allows customers to access mobile applications for free but charges the application providers.

Facebook’s Free Basics service (the new name for Internet.org) aims to offer people without the Internet free access to a handful of websites and a range of services through mobile phones, which net neutrality activists say will violate the core principle that everyone should have unrestricted access to Internet and it should not be regulated by a company.

Following the outrage, Trai put Free Basics on hold, asking Reliance Communications Ltd to furnish the detailed terms and conditions of its Free Basics service. The next step will be announced later this month.

In an op-ed in the Times of India last week, Nandan Nilekani, co-founder of Infosys Ltd. and former chairman of Unique Identification Authority of India, publicly criticized Facebook’s Free Basics, calling it a walled garden.

“The walled garden of Free Basics goes against the spirit of openness on the internet, and in the guise of being pro-poor, balkanises it. Only Free Basics-approved websites will be accessible for free,” he said in the article which he co-authored with Viral Shah who led the design of government’s subsidy platforms using Aadhaar. “In theory, anyone meeting the technical guidelines today can participate. However, services that may potentially compete with telco offerings may not join Free Basics. Since Facebook does not currently subsidise free usage, telcos will have to foot the bill by raising prices.”

He said schemes such as direct benefit transfer for Internet data packs would be better compared to programmes such as Free Basics.

Nasscom, in its response, recommended “mandatory prior approval of such services by the regulator and sharing of periodic information on tariff plans seek to lower the price as well as zero rating services,” adding that these programmes should abide by the principle of net neutrality, meaning it should not limit consumers access to pre-defined set of services or websites.

“Any such differential pricing programs should have explicit approval of the regulator—and should be deemed to be in the public interest and the onus of proving it to be in the public interest in the first instance would be on service provider and before Trai arrives at a final decision a public consultation is also advised because of the dangers involved,” Nasscom said. “Even after the approval, suitable oversight mechanism should be maintained by the regulator in all such case.”

Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), said Nasscom’s approach to make differential pricing plans and options as an exception rather than the rule was quite reasonable. “It says that if differential pricing services adhere to the guidelines of being non-discriminatory, non-anti-competitive, non-predatory, non-ambiguous and transparent, they can be allowed under the supervision of the regulator, which is similar to the position adopted by CIS,” he said.

“Though some of their positions are ambiguous—for instance what they mean by non-discriminatory, and whether they are okay with differential pricing between classes of applications, are unclear—and some of their recommendations increase regulatory complexity, such as their proposal for independent not-for-profit entities with independent boards to own and manage such differential pricing programs, by and large it is a useful submission,” Prakash added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-moulishree-srivastava-january-5-2016-nasscom-against-differential-pricing-for-data-services

Zuckerberg's India Backlash Imperils Free Global Web Vision

praskrishna — 2016-01-06T14:51:42Z

When Facebook's co-founder proposed bringing free Web services to India, his stated aim was to help connect millions of impoverished people to unlimited opportunity. Instead, critics have accused him of making a poorly disguised land grab in India's burgeoning Internet sector. The growing backlash could threaten the very premise of Internet.org, his ambitious, two-year-old effort to connect the planet.

The blog post by Bhuma Shrivastava was published by NDTV on January 4, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Indian authorities are circumspect because the Facebook initiative provides access to only a limited set of websites -- undermining the equal-access precepts of net neutrality. The telecommunications regulator is calling for initial comments by Jan 7, extending the deadline from today, on whether wireless carriers can charge differently for data usage across websites, applications and platforms.

Losing this fight could imperil Facebook's Free Basics, which allows customers to access the social network and select services such as Messenger and Microsoft's Bing without a data plan.

"The India fight is helping shape debates elsewhere," said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, a Bangalore-based non-profit advocacy group. "Activists in other countries such as Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia are watching this debate and will seize the momentum created in India."

Zuckerberg's argument for free Web access is based in part on Deloitte research showing that for every 10 people who are connected to the Web, one is lifted out of poverty and one job is created.

Facebook argues that by giving people free access to a small slice of the Internet, they will quickly see the value in paying for the whole thing. Zuckerberg has said his biggest challenge in connecting people to the Web isn't access to cellular networks, but a social hurdle: he needs to prove to people who have never been online that the Internet is useful.

"Who could possibly be against this?" Zuckerberg wrote in an impassioned op-ed in the Times of India this week. "Surprisingly, over the last year there's been a big debate about this in India."

Zuckerberg's pleas underscore what's at stake. Facebook already attracts 1.55 billion people monthly, or about half of the Internet-connected global population. To keep growing, the world's largest social network needs to get more people online. Hence the billions of dollars Facebook is spending on projects to deliver the Web to under-served areas via drones, satellites and lasers. And Internet.org, which now spans 37 nations.

India, as the world's second most populous nation, is arguably the most important piece of Zuckerberg's Free Basics strategy. But the opposition is fierce. Critics note that the Facebook service doesn't offer Web favorites such as Google's search. Facebook has said it would be open to adding more features from competitors, but critics are skeptical of giving the social-networking giant such influence on the Internet.

Critics also say that by offering a limited swath of the Internet at comparatively slow speeds, the company is creating a diluted version of the Web. That could stifle innovation by causing disadvantages for Indian startups building rival apps, or allow Facebook and its telecommunications carrier-partners to act as Internet gatekeepers.

In a sign of the importance he attaches to the issue, Zuckerberg on Tuesday called one of India's most prominent entrepreneurs to make his case.

One97 Communications, the mobile payments startup backed by Alibaba Group Holding, is one of several tech companies that have come out against Facebook's plans.

"We are totally against telcos preferring one developer over another," One97 founder Vijay Shekhar Sharma said in a phone interview before that call. "We are asking for access neutrality. We are hoping that all startups will be treated equally."

Sonia Dhawan, a spokeswoman for One97's payment website Paytm, said the call took place but didn't describe the conversation further. Sharma wasn't available for further comment.

Facebook is now scrambling to drum up support. It's started a "Save Free Basics In India" campaign, asking Indian users to support "digital equality" by filling out a form that shoots an e-mail to regulators. That also has the effect of sending notifications to user's friends unless they opt out.
Facebook has also taken out full-page advertisements, including one featuring a smiling Indian farmer and his family who the ads say used new techniques to double his crop yield.

While countries such as the Philippines have embraced Free Basics, India has been "the outlier and more challenging," Chris Daniels, vice president of Internet.org, said in a Dec. 26 chat on Reddit.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ndtv-bhuma-shrivastava-january-4-2016-zuckerberg-india-backlash-imperils-free-global-web-vision