Net-Neutrality to be continued...
Net-neutrality is a principle coined by Tim Wu, Columbia
University, which states that the internet service providers should treat the
content, application or web services equally, there should not be differential
treatment in any way on the basis of content.
‘Free Basics’ an initiative by Facebook, which
purports a free internet to reach poor users is banned in India. A similar
initiative by Airtel called ‘Airtel Zero’ was also condemned for its
differential treatment for the content on internet. Many intellectuals have
been at loggerheads on the pros and cons of these marketing strategies by the
giants. TRAI even asked the Indians their opinions and people voted for a
neutral net. Finally TRAI considered both of them a threat to net-neutrality and imposed
a ban on ‘Free Basics’.
‘Airtel Zero’ was a plan to work by asking marketers or
application developers to register to them for which they might have to pay an
amount and in turn the users or the customers would use the application on
internet for free. ‘Free Basics’ a new name for internet.org, was about to work
on the similar lines, however the only difference in their way of marketing was
keeping ‘Free Basics’ free for application developers and customers, it seemed a win-win platform for both the
sides at prima facie.
But there are two sides to every coin, let’s try to
understand how it was beneficial for the users and customers. ‘Free Basics’
kept it clean by allowing marketers to register to them for free and also
thought of user welfare, making a free content available for a poor mass, who
could have not afforded an internet. ‘Airtel Zero’ and ‘Free Basics’ seemed a
perfect suit for the ‘Digital India’ initiative, which envisages Indians, even
the most unprivileged ones using internet to get exposed to opportunities
online. They also appeared to boost the ‘Startup India’ initiative, by turning
to be a boon for startups, as startups need publicity the most and could have
helped them compete the rivals effectively.
But these plans were not beneficial for the marketers not
registered to them, these marketers would have faced extreme difficulty in
their business and would have finally found refuge in registering to them. In
this way it could have overtaken the internet. Though ‘welfare’ is what ‘Free
Basics’ proposed, there was huge mass they pointed to, and more publicity for the
advertisements they offered.
Internet neutrality was a certain threat in this case, it
not only could have gulped the market of those not in support but also have had
an extra user base on its way. The benefits it offered could also not be
neglected and could be contemplated if it proves to be impartial.