Why I think Net Neutrality is a misnomer..

This is a term that was coined by Tim Wu in 2003 stating that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication (Source: Wikipedia)

Firstly, Tim Wu is a lawyer and my best guess is that when he coined the word, he meant the meaning to be applied on a more broader level, such as every website on the internet should stand an equal chance or independence of the user from manipulation on the internet. Cues can be taken from his fights against the search results of google. He might not be among the best technical brains to understand the various tricks internet bellwethers could deploy to dictate their terms on the internet, so I would consider it part-witted to propel 'Net Neutrality' without being convinced about the actual purpose. This is important because this gives a structure to the debate whether Net Neutrality is actually worth fighting for and if yes, what should we get out of it. That time websites were static and not interactive, they were purely informative. Today it's web 3.0.

Secondly, in 2003, there were no google freebies, there was no Amazon, there were no recommendation engines (even if there were they weren't as powerful as they are today) and the term big data didn't exist then. Net Neutrality needs a new definition. Today when I search for a particular item on google why am I directed towards Amazon to buy it? If you do not have an objection to this, my take is you shouldn't have a problem with Facebook's free basics. Ultimately both are business arrangements where users do not have the right to choose. We seem blushed when google offers us nearly infinite email space and we are indifferent to the way in which the e-commerce websites recommend certain products. There are claims that Facebook is trying to unethically pre-empt the data of millions of Indian but we gladly acquiesce to google and let it even scan our most private emails and suggest contextual ads as it pleases?

Two words come to mind when thinking more on the issue - accessibility and discovery. I guess as an entire nation we are voicing out concerns for unequal accessibility. Accessibility involves cost, if someone's giving that to you for free one would seek some benefits, which is what free basics does. This is business. If a telecom provider gives me 100MB just for youtube, that's ok. This could also be viewed as unbundling of services. To put this burden on telecoms only would not be fair, this is what net neutrality stood for in 2003 and it was right back then because at that time websites were pure static and not interactive.

So the point of concern becomes discovery, which comes much before accessibility. First you become aware about a particular website or product or service and it's then and only then that you access or buy it. Free basic's ill intent is they only let you discover 100 selected websites and they have the power over your discovery of information. Now think about it, all the big internet companies have this power.

Google, Amazon, Flipkart etc. are what we love, but do we have the right to decide that rest of the India should like them too? When Free Basics does not give them to 'the people' and we contest that the Indians who do not know internet should know these first or know them compulsorily too, are you we forcing it on to them? (I agree these companies define internet of today but the mere fact that we're contesting these to be included in the list is a bias). We consider ourselves to be aware and intelligent and we fear that fb will manipulate the people who are not on internet. Why so? Once they get to know what internet is and would like to explore certain things they can try out other methods to reach the internet, pay for it maybe. To think that we have not been manipulated by any of the big companies is a mistake. Google, Amazon and all the other names on the list fool us on a daily basis.. they take money from businesses and classify us, categorise us, push us towards buying certain things or visiting some pages. How many Indians do not believe the rumours daily spread on whatsapp? Half the politicians now use it to spread their agenda or defame oppositions. They all conquer us by giving free stuff and then propagate their agendas.

I do not object to the method of free basics for educating because I might have taken the same way. Say I had to teach my grandma about what internet is, I will take her to a web brower and type “www.google.com”. And to explain further I will take her to few other websites. Whether I type google.com or bing.com is my personal choice. When somebody wants to do it at a mass scale, one cannot just give 200MB of free internet and say go. You have to guide them which is what the initial list of 100 websites do. Now who are we do decide that the poor farmer should go to amazon first?

The biggies we want included in the free basics were early movers in their respective spaces and this is one of the most important things that gives them the supremacy. So what if free basics is changing the game and offering us something good (with a huge benefit to self). Is free basics not what Flipkart/Amazon/Snapdeal tried to do to us? They took huge losses to create a good base and offered us phenomenal discounts? But are we enslaved to them?

Many excellent websites come and go because they cannot compete with these google and amazon. It's not level playing field even there. So why should the next billion be introduced to the lords necessarily? The people should be able to decide on their own. FB is an early mover in that space. Others could come in and shower the consumers with more free benefits. I won't mind. Upholding Net Neutrality should be a cause of concern for these companies who also wanted to conquer the billion but now feel threatened.

To conclude, the fundamentals of internet that Mahesh Murthy is so vehemently fighting for, may not have stood the test of time. Net Neutrality was defined in 2003, that wasn't the era of diabolical big data. My personal take is that the things that we are fearful of (if free basics come in) are already happening to us.