The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 91 to 105.
Facebook’s Free Basics hits snag in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india
<b>Indian regulators have dealt a major blow to Facebook’s controversial Free Basics online access plan by forbidding so-called differential pricing by internet companies, in effect banning the programme in the country. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by James Crabtree with additional reporting by Tim Bradshaw was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/08fadf8e-ce5b-11e5-986a-62c79fcbcead.html#axzz40CQUxGze">Financial Times</a> on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ee3ec02-b840-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.html#axzz3zZqe7eDy" title="‘Free Basics’ row presents India dilemma for Facebook - FT.com">Free Basics</a>, a plan to make access to parts of the internet free, has been at the centre of <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/537834e8-e3f2-11e4-9a82-00144feab7de.html" title="Facebook’s Internet.org effort hits India hurdle">a fierce row in the country</a> between the social network and local start-ups and advocates for net neutrality — the idea that all web traffic should be treated equally and technology companies should not be allowed to price certain kinds of content differently from others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last December, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ordered Facebook to put its Free Basics programme on hold pending a review.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, Trai published the results of its deliberations, introducing a complete ban on any form of differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling is the latest in a series of regulatory battles pitting net neutrality campaigners against telecom and internet companies, and is likely to be viewed as a test case for other emerging markets in which programmes similar to Facebook’s are yet to be challenged in the courts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also marks the most significant setback yet for Free Basics, which <a href="http://www.ft.com/topics/organisations/Facebook_Inc" title="Facebook news headlines - FT.com">Facebook</a> founder Mark Zuckerberg launched in 2014 as the centrepiece of plans to help poorer people access the internet in emerging economies. It operates in more than 30 countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook had launched a high-profile public campaign to defend its programme, which offered stripped-down access to sites such as BBC News or Facebook’s own app to customers of Reliance Communications, the US company’s local telecoms partner.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But critics attacked the programme as an attempt to become a gatekeeper for tens of millions of internet users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a post to his Facebook page on Monday, Mr <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251" title="Mark Zuckerberg post - Facebook.com">Zuckerberg said</a> the company “won’t give up on” finding new ways to boost internet access in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“While we’re disappointed with today’s decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet,” he wrote.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trai’s ruling was welcomed by anti-Facebook campaigners, a group that included the founders of many Indian start-ups including online retailers such as Flipkart, Paytm and restaurant search service Zomato, which had declined to offer their services as part of the Free Basics platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Analysts also hailed the Indian regulator’s ruling as a landmark. “This is the most broad and the most stringent set of regulations on differential pricing which exists anywhere in the world,” said Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, a think-tank.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a6cc092-4faf-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.htmlaxzz3zXMPWWz9" title="Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg plays the long game in India">India</a> has become an increasingly important focus for the company’s global business, with the country becoming its second-largest market by users last year.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsNet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-15T02:33:26ZNews ItemIndia Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.voanews.com/content/india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules/3182965.html">Voice of America</a> on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in" target="_blank">Save the Internet</a>, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Debate on Airtel</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Ban on differential pricing </b><br /> <br /> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”<br /> <br /> In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsNet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookInternet Governance2016-02-11T01:53:19ZNews ItemFacebook's Fall from Grace: Arab Spring to Indian Winter
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/first-post-february-9-2016-sunil-abraham-facebook-fall-from-grace-arab-spring-to-indian-winter
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in First Post on February 9, 2016. It can be <a class="external-link" href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/facebooks-fall-from-grace-arab-spring-to-indian-winter-298412.html">read here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Transparency and Agility</b>: 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Brevity and Clarity</b>: 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Certainty and Equity</b>: 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”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>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).</b></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/first-post-february-9-2016-sunil-abraham-facebook-fall-from-grace-arab-spring-to-indian-winter'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/first-post-february-9-2016-sunil-abraham-facebook-fall-from-grace-arab-spring-to-indian-winter</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceSocial Media2016-02-11T15:51:34ZBlog EntryIndia bans Facebook’s ‘free’ Internet for the poor
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/indian-telecom-regulator-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor/2016/02/08/561fc6a7-e87d-429d-ab62-7cdec43f60ae_story.html">Washington Post</a> on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs. The article was also mirrored by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/facebooks-behaviour-may-not-have-helped-its-cause-in-india-foreign-media-1275173">NDTV</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="http://gizmodo.com/a-week-after-india-banned-it-facebooks-free-basics-s-1750299423" target="_blank">banning it</a> and Google <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Google-bids-adieu-to-Facebooks-Free-Basics-in-Zambia/articleshow/50669257.cms" target="_blank">clarifying</a> that it pulled out of the application during a testing phase in Zambia.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”<br /><br />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.”<br /><br />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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet the Free Basics program was <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook/2016/01/28/cd180bcc-b58c-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html">controversial from the start in India</a>, 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/risk-averse-india-embraces-silicon-valley-style-start-ups/2015/11/28/85376e20-8fb6-11e5-934c-a369c80822c2_story.html">scrappy start-ups</a> and software developers at a disadvantage.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, Vijay Shekhar Sharma, the founder and creator of India’s payment application PayTM, applauded the regulator’s move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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!”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In December, India’s regulator put out a position paper on differential pricing and asked for public comment on whether such programs were fair.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In response, Facebook launched a public relations blitz, with television and newspaper advertisements, billboards and <a href="http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/">an opinion piece by Zuckerberg</a> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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, <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/trai-slams-facebook-letter-on-free-basics-campaign-wholly-misplaced/">was not amused.</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook’s behavior may not have helped its cause, some analysts said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet David Kirkpatrick, the author of “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439102120?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1439102120&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20" target="_blank" title="www.amazon.com">The Facebook Effect</a>,” says that Zuckerberg is determined to see the program succeed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A spokesman for Reliance earlier said that the applications was in “testing mode” and that it was not commercially promoting the product.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-february-8-2016-india-bans-facebooks-free-internet-for-the-poor</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebook2016-02-10T02:53:49ZNews ItemA Megacorp’s Basic Instinct
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct
<b>Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Arindam Mukherjee was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/a-megacorps-basic-instinct/296510">published in Outlook</a> on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, many of the experts <i>Outlook</i> 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 <i>Outlook</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaTelecomFree BasicsTRAINet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-04T13:53:05ZNews ItemIndia, Egypt say no thanks to free Internet from Facebook
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Annie Gowen was <a class="external-link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook/2016/01/28/cd180bcc-b58c-11e5-8abc-d09392edc612_story.html">published in Washington Post</a> on January 28, 2016. Sunil Abraham gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Activist groups such as <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank">Save the Internet</a>, 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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/indias-modi-wants-to-woo-silicon-valley-but-censorship-and-privacy-fears-grow-at-home/2015/09/23/2ab28f86-6174-11e5-8475-781cc9851652_story.html" target="_blank">India’s Modi wants to woo Silicon Valley, but privacy fears grow at home</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/is-india-the-next-frontier-for-facebook/2014/10/09/8b256ea0-d5d6-4996-aafe-8e0e776c9915_story.html" target="_blank">Is India the next frontier for Facebook?</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook has long said that its program is about altruism, not eyeballs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The service is still running despite the India suspension. A Reliance spokesman said it is in “testing mode” and is not being promoted.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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 “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1439102120?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creativeASIN=1439102120&linkCode=xm2&tag=thewaspos09-20" target="_blank" title="www.amazon.com">The Facebook Effect</a>.” 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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The project’s proponents say that India’s needs are so great it cannot afford to suspend one program that could help.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In comparison, some 80 percent of China’s villages are linked by broadband.</p>
<p class="interstitial-link" style="text-align: justify; "><i>[<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/inside-the-indian-temple-that-draws-americas-tech-titans/2015/10/30/03b646d8-7cb9-11e5-bfb6-65300a5ff562_story.html" target="_blank">Inside the Indian temple that draws America’s tech titans</a>]</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In Alwar district in the northern state of Rajasthan, many remember when Zuckerberg came to visit but fewer know about Free Basics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Farukh has only been computer literate for two years, but he’s already emailing and using YouTube to post videos and promote his band.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This place is very backward,” he said. “India as a society is lagging far behind in terms of Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Farheen Fatima and Subuhi Parvez contributed to this report.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/washington-post-annie-gowen-january-28-2016-india-egypt-say-no-thanks-to-free-internet-from-facebook</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebook2016-02-03T01:49:25ZNews ItemFacebook’s Fight to Be Free
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava
<b>In India, Mark Zuckerberg can’t give Internet access away.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Shrivastava was published in Bloomberg Businessweek on January 15, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="callout" style="text-align: justify; ">“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</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The bottom line: Facebook’s free data plan in India faces strong opposition from local businesses and Internet freedom advocates.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-businessweek-adi-narayan-bhuma-shrivastava</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceSocial Media2016-01-31T09:11:52ZNews ItemFacebook is no charity, and the ‘free’ in Free Basics comes at a price
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity
<b>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”.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 – <a href="https://theconversation.com/facebooks-free-access-internet-is-limited-and-thats-raised-questions-over-fairness-36460">limited only to Facebook</a>, Facebook-owned WhatsApp, and a few other carefully selected sites and services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg was responding to the strong backlash that Free Basics has faced in India, where the country’s Telecom Regulatory Authority recently <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/facebook-free-basics-ban-net-neutrality-all-you-need-to-know/">pulled the plug on the operation</a> while it debates whether telecoms operators should be allowed to offer different services with variable pricing, or whether a principle of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-uk-doesnt-need-net-neutrality-regulations-yet-38204">network neutrality</a> should be enforced.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Not content to await the regulator’s verdict, Facebook has come out swinging. It has <a href="http://mashable.com/2015/12/23/facebook-free-basics-net-neutrality-india/">paid for billboards</a>, <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/27/gatekeeper-or-stepping-stone/">full-page newspaper ads</a> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg’s indignation illustrates either how little he understands about the internet, or that he’s willing to say anything to anyone listening.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">This is not a charity</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">First, despite his <a href="http://boingboing.net/2015/12/27/facebooks-fuddy-full-page-a.html">claims to the contrary</a> 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 <a href="https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform-technical-guidelines">submission guidelines</a> 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2015/05/05/mozilla-view-on-zero-rating/">alternative models</a>: in Bangladesh, <a href="http://m.grameenphone.com/">Grameenphone</a> gives users free data after they watch an advert. In some African countries, users get free data after buying a handset.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/ie/Documents/TechnologyMediaCommunications/2014_uk_tmt_value_of_connectivity_deloitte_ireland.pdf">self-serving industry report</a> sponsored by the firm that stands to benefit? India has a <a href="http://indiatribune.com/indias-literacy-level-is-74-2011-census-2/">literacy rate of 74%</a>, 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Third, the claim that Free Basics isn’t in Facebook’s commercial interest is the most outrageous. In much the same way that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-baby-milk-scandal-food-industry-standards">Nestlé offered free baby formula in the 1970s</a> as development assistance to low-income countries – leaving nursing mothers unable to produce sufficient milk themselves – Free Basics is likely to impede commercial alternatives.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them">aptly noted</a> 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.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">Poverty consists of more than just no internet</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India will not always have low levels of internet access, this is not the issue – in fact Indian internet penetration growth rates <a href="http://geonet.oii.ox.ac.uk/blog/changing-internet-access/">are relatively high</a>. Instead the company sees Free Basics as a means to establish a bridgehead into the country, establishing a monopoly before other firms move in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is decades of <a href="http://r4d.dfid.gov.uk/">research</a> 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?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In presenting Free Basics as an act of altruism Zuckerberg tries to silence criticism. “Who could possibly be against this?”, he asks:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>What reason is there for denying people free access to vital services for communication, education, healthcare, employment, farming and women’s rights?</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-conversation-january-11-2016-facebook-is-no-charity</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionFacebookInternet Governance2016-01-30T11:32:47ZNews ItemThe Internet Has a New Standard for Censorship
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-jyoti-panday-january-29-2016-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship
<b>The introduction of the new 451 HTTP Error Status Code for blocked websites is a big step forward in cataloguing online censorship, especially in a country like India where access to information is routinely restricted.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published in the Wire on January 29, 2016. The original can be <a class="external-link" href="http://thewire.in/2016/01/29/the-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship-20386/">read here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Ray Bradbury’s dystopian novel Fahrenheit 451 opens with the declaration, “It was a pleasure to burn.” The six unassuming words offer a glimpse into the mindset of the novel’s protagonist, ‘the fireman’ Guy Montag, who burns books. Montag occupies a world of totalitarian state control over the media where learning is suppressed and censorship prevails. The title alludes to the ‘temperature at which book paper catches fire and burns,’ an apt reference to the act of violence committed against citizens through the systematic destruction of literature. It is tempting to think about the novel solely as a story of censorship. It certainly is. But it is also a story about the value of intellectual freedom and the importance of information.<br /><br />Published in 1953, Bradbury’s story predates home computers, the Internet, Twitter and Facebook, and yet it anticipates the evolution of these technologies as tools for censorship. When the state seeks to censor speech, they use the most effective and easiest mechanisms available. In Bradbury’s dystopian world, burning books did the trick; in today’s world, governments achieve this by blocking access to information online. The majority of the world’s Internet users encounter censorship even if the contours of control vary depending on the country’s policies and infrastructure.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Online censorship in India</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In India, information access blockades have become commonplace and are increasingly enforced across the country for maintaining political stability, for economic </span><a href="http://www.indiantelevision.com/regulators/high-court/delhi-hc-restrains-200-websites-from-illegally-showing-balajis-kyaa-kool-hain-hum-3-160123" target="_blank"><span>reasons</span></a><span>, in defence of national security or preserving social values. Last week, the Maharashtra Anti-terror Squad </span><a href="http://www.abplive.in/india-news/maharashtra-ats-blocks-94-isis-websites-brainwashing-the-youth-280192"><span>blocked</span></a><span> 94 websites that were allegedly radicalising the youth to join the militant group ISIS. Memorably, in 2015 the NDA government’s ham-fisted </span><a href="http://thewire.in/2015/08/03/the-government-does-not-want-you-accessing-porn-on-the-internet-anymore-7782/"><span>attempts</span></a><span> at enforcing a ban on online pornography resulted in widespread public outrage. Instead of revoking the ban, the government issued yet another vaguely worded and in many senses astonishing order. As reported by </span><i><a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/08/223-porn-india-ban/"><span>Medianama</span></a></i><span>, the revised order delegates the responsibility of determining whether banned websites should remain unavailable to private intermediaries. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The state’s shifting reasons for blocking access to information is reflective of its tendentious attitude towards speech and expression. Free speech in India is messily contested and normally, the role of the judiciary acts as a check on the executive’s proclivity for banning. For instance, in 2010 the Supreme Court </span><a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Supreme-Court-lifts-ban-on-James-Laines-book-on-Shivaji/articleshow/6148410.cms"><span>upheld</span></a><span> the Maharashtra High Court’s decision to revoke the ban on the book on Shivaji by American author James Laine, which, according to the state government, contained material promoting social enmity. However, in the context of communications technology the traditional role of courts is increasingly being passed on to private intermediaries. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The delegation of authority is evident in the government notifying intermediaries to proactively filter content for ‘child pornography’ in the revised </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/dot-morality-block-order-2015-07-31/view"><span>order</span></a><span> issued to deal with websites blocked as result of its crackdown on pornography. Such screening and filtering requires intermediaries to make a determination on the legality of content in order to avoid direct liability. As international best practices such as the </span><a href="https://www.manilaprinciples.org/"><span>Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability</span></a> <span>point out, such screening is a slow process and costly and intermediaries are incentivised to simply limit access to information. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>Blocking procedures and secrecy</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The constitutional validity of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 which grants power to the executive to block access to information unchecked, and in secrecy was challenged in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Curiously, the Supreme Court upheld S69A reasoning that the provisions were narrowly-drawn with adequate safeguards and noted that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. Unfortunately as past instances of blocking under S69A reveal the provisions are littered with procedural deficiencies, amplified manifold by the authorities responsible for interpreting and implementing the orders.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Problematically, an </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure"><span>opaque</span></a><span> confidentiality criteria built into the blocking rules mandates secrecy in requests and recommendations for blocking and places written orders outside the purview of public scrutiny. As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders, the public has to rely on ISPs leaking orders, or media reports to understand the censorship regime in India. RTI applications requesting further information on the implementation of these safeguards have at best provided</span> <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-deity.clarifying-procedures-for-blocking.pdf"><span>incomplete</span></a><span> information. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Historically, the courts in India have </span><a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/hDIjjunGikWywOgSRiM7NP/SC-has-set-a-high-threshold-for-tolerance-Lawrence-Liang.html"><span>held</span></a><span> that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is as much about the right to receive information as it is to disseminate, and when there is a chilling effect on speech, it also violates the right to receive information. Therefore, if a website is blocked citizens have a constitutional right to know the legal grounds on which access is being restricted. Just like the government announces and clarifies the grounds when banning a book, users have a right to know the grounds for restrictions on their speech online. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Unfortunately, under the</span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015"> <span>present</span></a><span> blocking regime in India there is no easy way for a service provider to comply with a blocking order while also notifying users that censorship has taken place. The ‘</span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/information-technology-procedure-and-safeguards-for-blocking-for-access-of-information-by-public-rules-2009"><span>Blocking Rules</span></a><span>’ require notice “person </span><span>or</span><span> intermediary” thus implying that notice may be sent to either the originator or the intermediary. Further, the confidentiality clause </span><a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act-judgment-and-secret-blocking/"><span>raises</span></a><span> the presumption that nobody beyond the intermediaries ought to know about a block. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Naturally, intermediaries interested in self-preservation and avoiding conflict with the government become complicit in maintaining secrecy in blocking orders. As a result, it is often difficult to determine why content is inaccessible and users often mistake censorship for technical problem in accessing content. Consequently, pursuing legal recourse or trying to hold the government accountable for their censorious activity becomes a challenge. In failing to consider the constitutional merits of the confidentiality clause, the Supreme Court has shied away from addressing the over-broad reach of the executive. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Secrecy in removing or blocking access is a global problem that places limits on the transparency expected from ISPs. Across </span><a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=s1LBBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=transparency+and+blocking+orders&source=bl&ots=8kJ5LNJU5s&sig=gB9E01_gQ3QsjwFtnpa5KdIL8oA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirzr7ZlMzKAhXEt44KHdxkBxQQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=transparency%20and%20blocking%20orders&f=false"><span>many</span></a><span> jurisdictions intermediaries are legally </span><a href="https://books.google.co.in/books?id=s1LBBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=transparency+and+blocking+orders&source=bl&ots=8kJ5LNJU5s&sig=gB9E01_gQ3QsjwFtnpa5KdIL8oA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirzr7ZlMzKAhXEt44KHdxkBxQQ6AEIOzAF#v=onepage&q=transparency%20and%20blocking%20orders&f=false"><span>prohibited</span></a><span> from publicising filtering orders as well as information relating to content or service restrictions. For example in United Kingdom, ISPs are prohibited from revealing blocking orders related to terrorism and surveillance. In South Korea, the </span><a href="http://www.singo.or.kr/eng/01_introduction/introduction.php"><span>Korean Communications Standards Commission</span></a><span> holds public meetings that are open to the public. However, the sheer v</span><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/south-korea-only-thing-worse-online-censorship"><span>olume</span></a><span> of censorship (i.e. close to 10,000 URLs a month) makes it </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/08/south-korea-only-thing-worse-online-censorship"><span>unwieldy</span></a><span> for public oversight. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>As the Manila Principles </span><a href="https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/08/manila_principles_background_paper.pdf"><span>note</span></a><span>, providing users with an explanation and reasons for placing restrictions on their speech and expression increases civic engagement. Transparency standards will empower citizens to demand that companies and governments they interact with are more accountable when it comes to content regulation. It is worth noting, for conduits as opposed to content hosts, it may not always be technically feasible for to provide a notice when content is unavailable due to filtering. A new standard helps improve transparency standards for network level intermediaries and for websites bound by confidentiality requirements. The recently introduced HTTP code for errors is a critical step forward in cataloguing censorship on the Internet. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>A standardised code for censorship</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>On December 21, 2015, the Internet Engineering Standards Group (IESG) which is the organisation responsible for reviewing and updating the internet’s operating standards approved the publication of 451-’An HTTP Status Code to Report Legal Obstacles’. The code provides intermediaries a standardised way to notify users know when a website is unavailable following a legal order. Publishing the code allows intermediaries to be transparent about their compliance with court and executive orders across jurisdictions and is a huge step forward for capturing online censorship. HTTP code 451 was introduced by software engineer Tim Bray and the code’s name is an homage to Bradbury’s novel Fahrenheit 451. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Bray began developing the code after being inspired by a blog post by Terence Eden calling for a censorship error code. The code’s official status comes after two years of discussions within the technical community and is a result of campaigning from transparency and civil society advocates who have been pushing for clearer labelling of internet censorship. Initially, the code received pushback from within the technical community for reasons enumerated by Mark Nottingham, Chair of the IETF HTTP Working Group in his </span><a href="https://www.mnot.net/blog/2015/12/18/451"><span>blog</span></a><span>. However, soon sites began using the code on an experimental and unsanctioned basis and faced with increasing demand for and feedback, the code was accepted. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The HTTP code 451 works as a machine-readable flag and has immense potential as a tool for organisations and users who want to quantify and understand censorship on the internet. Cataloguing online censorship is a challenging, time-consuming and expensive task. The HTTP code 451 circumvents confidentiality obligations built into blocking or licensing regimes and reduces the cost of accessing blocking orders. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The code creates a distinction between websites blocked following a court or an executive order, and when information is inaccessible due to technical errors. If implemented widely, Bray’s new code will help </span><a href="http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10632678/http-status-code-451-censorship-tim-bray"><span>prevent</span></a><span> confusion around blocked sites. The code addresses the issue of the ISP’s misleading and inaccurate usage of </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_403"><span>Error 403</span></a><span> ‘Forbidden’ (to indicate that the server can be reached and understood the request, but refuses to take any further action) or 404 ‘</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_404"><span>Not Found</span></a><span>’ (to indicate that the requested resource could not be found but may be available again in the future). </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Adoption of the new standard is optional, though at present there are no laws in India that prevent intermediaries doing so. Implementing a standardised machine-readable flag for censorship will go a long way in bolstering the accountability of ISPs that have in the </span><a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-india-blocks-imgur/"><span>past</span></a><span> targeted an entire domain instead of the specified URL. Adoption of the standard by ISPs will also improve the understanding of the burden imposed on intermediaries for censoring and filtering content as presently, there is no clarity on what constitutes compliance. Of course, censorious governments may </span><a href="https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2015/12/23/welcome-to-http-error-code-451-unavailable-for-legal-reasons/"><span>prohibit</span></a><span> the use of the code, for example by issuing an order that specifies not only that a page be blocked, but also precisely which HTTP return code should be used. Though such sanctions should be </span><a href="https://cdt.org/blog/censorship-transparency-comes-to-the-web/"><span>viewed</span></a><span> as evidence of systematic rights violation and totalitarian regimes. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In India where access to software code repositories such as Github and Sourceforge are routinely </span><span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/2014-12-17_DoT-32-URL-Block-Order.pdf">restricted</a>,</span><span> the need for such code is obvious. The use of the code will improve confidence in blocking practices, allowing users to understand the grounds on which their right to information is being restricted. Improving transparency around censorship is the only way to build trust between the government and its citizens about the laws and policies applicable to internet content.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-jyoti-panday-january-29-2016-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-wire-jyoti-panday-january-29-2016-internet-has-a-new-standard-for-censorship</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernanceChilling EffectCensorship2016-01-30T09:17:54ZBlog EntryPublic Debate on 'Differential Pricing': Series 3
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/public-debate-on-differential-pricing-series-3
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society, in association with ICRIER and the Department of Civics and Politics, University of Mumbai, is pleased to announce “A Series of Public Debates on Differential Pricing” in the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai and New Delhi. The third public debate will be held at India Habitat Centre, Lodhi Road near Air Force Bal Bharti School, New Delhi on February 5, 2016.</b>
<div class="kssattr-target-parent-fieldname-text-b0c8dac0221d45df8f2e6e8e3a8d7a4a kssattr-macro-rich-field-view kssattr-templateId-widgets/rich kssattr-atfieldname-text " id="parent-fieldname-text-b0c8dac0221d45df8f2e6e8e3a8d7a4a">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In light of the recent consultation paper released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the objective of these debates will be to deconstruct the issue of differential pricing through a discussion on the variety of views this subject has attracted. Speakers will also discuss possible implications of differential pricing policy on questions of access, diversity, competition and entrepreneurship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Each debate will comprise three rounds. In the first round, speakers will present the body of their arguments over 10 minutes each. The second round will be a rebuttal round, with each speaker being given 5 minutes. The third and final round will see the floor being opened to the audience who will engage the speakers with comments and questions.</p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/public-debates-on-differential-pricing" class="internal-link">Download the Invite</a></h2>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/public-debate-on-differential-pricing-series-3'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/public-debate-on-differential-pricing-series-3</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTelecomEventInternet Governance2016-01-28T13:53:12ZEventPublic Debate on 'Differential Pricing': Series 2
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/public-debate-on-differential-pricing-series-2
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society, in association with ICRIER and the Department of Civics and Politics, University of Mumbai, is pleased to announce “A Series of Public Debates on Differential Pricing” in the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai and New Delhi. The second public debate will be held at Pherozeshah Mehta Bhavan, Vidyanagari, Kalina, Mumbai on February 3, 2016.
</b>
<div class="kssattr-target-parent-fieldname-text-b0c8dac0221d45df8f2e6e8e3a8d7a4a kssattr-macro-rich-field-view kssattr-templateId-widgets/rich kssattr-atfieldname-text " id="parent-fieldname-text-b0c8dac0221d45df8f2e6e8e3a8d7a4a">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In light of the recent consultation paper released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the objective of these debates will be to deconstruct the issue of differential pricing through a discussion on the variety of views this subject has attracted. Speakers will also discuss possible implications of differential pricing policy on questions of access, diversity, competition and entrepreneurship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Each debate will comprise three rounds. In the first round, speakers will present the body of their arguments over 10 minutes each. The second round will be a rebuttal round, with each speaker being given 5 minutes. The third and final round will see the floor being opened to the audience who will engage the speakers with comments and questions.</p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/public-debates-on-differential-pricing" class="internal-link">Download the Invite</a></h2>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/public-debate-on-differential-pricing-series-2'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/public-debate-on-differential-pricing-series-2</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTelecomEventInternet Governance2016-01-28T13:51:06ZEventPublic Debate on 'Differential Pricing': Series 1
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/a-series-of-public-debates-on-differential-pricing-series-1
<b>The Centre for Internet and Society, in association with ICRIER and the Department of Civics and Politics, University of Mumbai, is pleased to announce “A Series of Public Debates on Differential Pricing” in the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai and New Delhi. The first public debate will be held at the Centre for Internet & Society office in Bangalore on February 1, 2016. </b>
<div class="kssattr-target-parent-fieldname-text-b0c8dac0221d45df8f2e6e8e3a8d7a4a kssattr-macro-rich-field-view kssattr-templateId-widgets/rich kssattr-atfieldname-text " id="parent-fieldname-text-b0c8dac0221d45df8f2e6e8e3a8d7a4a">
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In light of the recent consultation paper released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the objective of these debates will be to deconstruct the issue of differential pricing through a discussion on the variety of views this subject has attracted. Speakers will also discuss possible implications of differential pricing policy on questions of access, diversity, competition and entrepreneurship.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Each debate will comprise three rounds. In the first round, speakers will present the body of their arguments over 10 minutes each. The second round will be a rebuttal round, with each speaker being given 5 minutes. The third and final round will see the floor being opened to the audience who will engage the speakers with comments and questions.</p>
<hr />
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "><a href="resolveuid/a01978fec6244f86b178b26006f1b312" class="internal-link">Download the Invite</a></h2>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/a-series-of-public-debates-on-differential-pricing-series-1'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/a-series-of-public-debates-on-differential-pricing-series-1</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiFreedom of Speech and ExpressionTelecomEventInternet Governance2016-01-27T13:51:06ZEventWhy Indians are turning down Facebook's free internet
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-post-nimisha-jaiswal-why-indians-are-turning-down-facebook-free-internet
<b>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. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Nimisha Jaiswal was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.globalpost.com/article/6718467/2016/01/12/india-free-basics-facebook-internet">Global Post</a> on January 13, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">That’s the invitation that Facebook has sent to India. Many there, however, are rejecting such benevolence.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">“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 <a href="http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net-neutrality/" target="_blank">newspaper</a>. “Free Basics is a bridge to the full internet and digital equality.”</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">However, net neutrality researchers and activists in India define it quite differently.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">Last spring, as part of a homegrown <a href="https://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank">Save The Internet</a> 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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">According to Abraham, such a platform harms free speech, privacy, innovation and diversity by adding another layer of surveillance and “censoring” the internet.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">Mahesh Murthy, a venture capitalist who is part of India’s Save The Internet movement, puts it more bluntly.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">Zuckerberg and Facebook’s India team have vigorously rebutted net neutrality activists in India, <a href="http://thewire.in/2015/12/30/facebooks-rebuttal-to-mahesh-murthy-on-free-basics-with-replies-18235/" target="_blank">including Murthy</a>, challenging their criticism of Free Basics and accusing activists of deliberately trying to prevent the masses from gaining internet access.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">“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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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].”</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-editorials/free-basics-is-a-walled-garden-heres-a-much-better-scheme-direct-benefit-transfer-for-internet-data-packs/" target="_blank">free data packs</a>.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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 “<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Facebook-under-fire-for-asking-US-users-to-support-Free-Basics-in-India/articleshow/50286467.cms" target="_blank">accidentally</a>” notified to add their backing to the Indian campaign.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">Some of the company's critics suggest that it is driven less by philanthropy, more by guaranteeing itself a stream of new users.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.”</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p class="ng-scope" style="text-align: justify; ">“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.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-post-nimisha-jaiswal-why-indians-are-turning-down-facebook-free-internet'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/global-post-nimisha-jaiswal-why-indians-are-turning-down-facebook-free-internet</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFree BasicsFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-01-17T16:25:10ZNews ItemNetwork Neutrality Regulation across South Asia: A Roundtable on Aspects of Differential Pricing
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/network-neutrality-regulation-across-south-asia-a-roundtable-on-aspects-of-differential-pricing
<b>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. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/network-neutrality-across-south-asia" class="internal-link">Download the Invite</a></b></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Draft Agenda</h3>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>11:00 – 11:30</td>
<td>Tea and Registration</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>11:30 – 12:30</td>
<td>Roundtable 1: Framing the issue:<br />
<ul>
<li>The practice of differential pricing</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Examples of differential pricing</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Stakeholder perspectives</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Competition and market effect of differential pricing</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Larger social consequences of differential pricing</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>12:30 – 1:00</td>
<td>Lunch</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1:00 – 2:30</td>
<td>
<p>Roundtable 2: Regulatory response:</p>
<ul>
<li>Discerning governmental actions</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Locating public interest</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Moving from research to action</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2:30 – 3:00</td>
<td>Tea</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3:00 – 4:30</td>
<td>
<p>Roundtable 3: Impact on rights:</p>
<ul>
<li>Access</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Freedom of expression</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Privacy</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Equity and Social Justice</li>
</ul>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>4:30 – 5:00</td>
<td>Discussion and research agenda building<br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h3>Roundtable Questions:</h3>
<p>Roundtable 1: FRAMING THE ISSUE:</p>
<ul>
<li>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?</li>
<li>What has been the response from different stakeholders to differential pricing schemes? What are the arguments for/against differential pricing?</li>
<li>What could be the market effect of differential pricing?</li>
<li>What are possible larger social impacts of differential pricing?</li>
</ul>
<p>Roundtable 2: REGULATORY RESPONSE:</p>
<ul>
<li>How have governments responded to differential pricing? What can these responses tell us about the position of governments?</li>
<li>What are the different components for consideration with developing a regulatory response? What are different forms of regulation for differential pricing?</li>
<li>What type of policy research around differential pricing can drive meaningful action?</li>
</ul>
<p>Roundtable 3: IMPACT ON RIGHTS:</p>
<ul>
<li>How does differential pricing impact the right to access, freedom of expression, privacy, and equity and social justice?</li>
<li>Are there ways to mitigate this impact through regulation? Market incentives? Company policy?</li>
<li>What are forms of redress that individuals could seek in the context of differential pricing?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/network-neutrality-regulation-across-south-asia-a-roundtable-on-aspects-of-differential-pricing'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/events/network-neutrality-regulation-across-south-asia-a-roundtable-on-aspects-of-differential-pricing</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaPrivacyFree BasicsInternet GovernanceFreedom of Speech and ExpressionEvent2016-01-17T02:41:13ZEventWhat are People's Rights in Digital World
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/what-are-peoples-rights-in-digital-world
<b>Vanya Rakesh participated in this workshop organized by IT for Change on December 4, 2015 in Bangalore.</b>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/PeoplesRights.jpg" alt="Peoples Rights" class="image-inline" title="Peoples Rights" /></p>
</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Above: Participants from the workshop</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This workshop by IT for Change to build conceptions of rights with regard to the digital realm based on our tacit formative consciousness about them and undertake such an exercise to draw the first outlines of the social contract that must underpin our pervasively digital existence. IT for Change brought together thought leaders engaged in rights frameworks (including rights activists across domains and digital rights activists) to participate in this preliminary inquiry, to build from scratch a conception of what constitutes an equitable and just digital society, and what individual and collective rights would be commensurate to such a conception.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more info <a class="external-link" href="http://sflc.in/workshop-on-what-are-peoples-rights-in-the-digital-world/">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/what-are-peoples-rights-in-digital-world'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/what-are-peoples-rights-in-digital-world</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet GovernancePrivacy2016-01-12T01:51:53ZNews Item