I was just having a chat with a few people in a few Indian villages which got connected to internet in last 1-2 years. A few of my observations:
1. They think FB/Whatsapp is NOT internet. Internet is meant to be accessed through browser. So we already have an illusioned world.
2. 'Internet' is only meant for the elite.
3. Whatsapp/FB serve the same purpose that text messages did. They use FB/Whatsapp to save on cost of sending sms.
4. Their biggest issue is that they don't have jobs. Cities are very far away. The ONLY employment opportunity available to young people (including college graduates) is farming!!
5. I tried to quiz them on how FB/Whatsapp has helped in creating jobs/economic activity/improving farming. Couldn't get a lot of answers. (not saying FB cannot help)
6. They can afford to pay for cheap data packs to get access to FB/Whatsapp (about $2-4 per month). All the young people in the villages have Whatsapp/smart phones. Although this may not stand for the poorest of the poor.
It is going to be very hard to decide if banning free basics is going to create more jobs for the poor or not. But I think the basic premise of the regulator's decision is giving Indian startups a fair chance. The regulator is only trying to create a fair battle field for startups. The poor need Indian entrepreneurs more than anything else. The regulator is only trying to help entrepreneurship in India.
But one thing is clear, FB isn't being entirely altruistic (for obvious reasons), but the same cannot be said for Indian regulators. I believe the regulators have ONLY the interest of the people in mind.
Why isn't facebook running this programme in USA? There are 50 million Americans without internet. Although 50 million is not as big as 600 million Indians without internet, it is still bigger than populations of many countries Facebook is running Free Basics in. The Americans without internet are usually old and poor and internet connectivity can do a lot for them. A lot of these people cannot afford the internet.
My only question...would Americans think it would be wise to destroy Net Neutrality?? Just asking. Perhaps someone should try and get Facebook to start this in USA.
I figured out that people bond with other people better by engaging in 'wasteful activities'. I figured out the importance of "fitting in". It is funny but I couldn't realize it in the first 24 years of my life. I had never needed to make others happy. At work, I would go about my stuff and didn't have to bother about what others thought (as long as my work was being done). In College, I could simply ace exams and didn't have to worry about what other people thought about me. People around me have always engaged in things that seemed excessively wasteful to me (going to movies, partying, drinking). And I was happy in my own little world.
Things changed when we started a company...a B2B company. We started selling at the beginning of this year and I found myself in a salesman's role (lucky me). I couldn't say no to meeting people, I couldn't say no to events, I couldn't say no to going to bars after events, I couldn't say no to partying, I had to engage in everything that I thought was wasteful. I was awkward and dumb at times but it helped me bond with people. I kept away from it for far too long, but now I try to force myself to meet people.
I know this is nothing new to most of you. But it was revelation for me. In startups, sometimes you have to force yourself to go against your very nature.
Reaching out to poor people is a poor propaganda excuse to make sure the regulator doesn't come after them.
Free Basics is being advertised in metropolitan areas, not poor villages. Why waste money advertising it on TV Channels which only the elites watch? Poor people cannot afford subscriptions to those channels. Yet they're running Free Basics ads on those channels. Why don't they limit Free Basics to first time FB sign ups? Why are they targeting people who already have internet connections? Majority of people who will sign up for Free Basics are the ones who already have internet. That is exactly what Zuck wants. No advertising money to be made in remote villages. If it was...Facebook would be in the villages...it is NOT!
The fact is that Facebook is not committed to Net Neutrality.
> I think you underestimate people's intelligence. More so, if they only want to use Facebook, or don't want to use anything else enough to pay for it, what's the problem?
Would people have moved to Facebook from Myspace if they had to pay $10 per month just to access it? Would people have tried Google if they had to pay $10 per month to access it?? This is a tax on innovation. The innovation from big players doesn't get taxed while a founder would need to innovate 100x instead of the current 10x to make people move. Founders have limited resources. Creating 100x innovation will take a lot more time than getting people to move to 10x innovation, making some money and innovating further. What do you think this would do to the angels in India who have recently started investing in startups rather than gold/land/stocks? They would go back to land/stocks.
> Only if Facebook is the only ISP, which could only happen if government passed a law or regulation that made that so.
Facebook intends to use data services (3g,4g) to deploy its free basics. There aren't many companies providing data services because of obvious spectrum limitations.
>Are you implying they wouldn't without net neutrality?
They primarily get information on radio and newspapers. If those sources are corrupt, lets not add another corrupt source into the mix.
>Not, it isn't. It would be more innovative if it was forced to compete with Facebook.
Really? There was a time in India when you had to be REALLY REALLY REALLY innovative (in many different ways) to merely get a license to start a business from the govt. We called it 'license raj'. You know what it did. It killed all the innovation. You have to let smallest of innovations thrive for them to grow into bigger ones!!
>Now you just have to pay expensive prices even if you just want to chat with your friends.
Better than the possibility of being stuck with that same 'chat' for the next 20 years. India needs jobs more than 'free chat'. Jobs will come from Indian companies. And Indian companies cannot thrive unless the field is even. Plus, its not about Indian vs Foreign. If a small guy produces 2x innovation, his innovation should triumph over facebook. Facebook's coffers shouldn't prevent progress happening in the world. That 2x innovation, if given a chance will grow to 200x.
Facebook rather spend that money on Billboards, advertising "Free Basics". Facebook should come clear on what it is gaining from "Free Basics" instead of acting as an angelic, non-profit. Or is all the money they're spending to advertise 'free basics' in India for a non-profit motive?? Should mention the profit motives in their ads.
Indians were taken aback by the amount of money Facebook chose to spend to advertise Free Basics. Premium Billboards, 2 page advertisements on major publications, other ads...They must have a plan to make profit out of all this spending. They should come clean on it in their ads.
I hope this turns into a more permanent decision. Indians need to keep sending emails to TRAI. Indian government should be worried about handing over private details of Indians to the NSA on a silver platter. But even without that risk, Free Basics can evolve into something disastrous for Indian startup scene and jobs/innovation.
Lets look at two extreme scenarios.
->India without net neutrality: Everyone has free Facebook. "Free basics" didn't help in advancing electrification of the country but it did provide free facebook/wikipedia to everyone. So 30% of the country is still in dark. But 50% of the rest of India doesn't pay for internet and it thinks there is no need to because that is ALL the internet has to offer. A young founder launches a new education app to teach reading/writing to poor villagers. But she first needs to get a 'license' from facebook. Facebook doesn't think it is a good idea for its users to 'waste' time on other services instead of watching ads on FB, so it declines. Startups don't receive as much funding because of the 'licensing' issues and there aren't as many Indian tech companies as there could've been. News is censored by Facebook and Facebook can now influence Indian politics. 100,000 fewer jobs were created because the Indian tech scene didn't take off.
->India with net neutrality: 50% of the country cannot pay for internet. They still don't have access to internet. They use other forms of communication to get their daily, unfiltered news. The startup scene in India is growing at its natural pace and the culture has become more innovative. In another 10-15 years everyone will have internet. 100's of thousands of poor were lifted out of poverty due to tech jobs in India.
One is a short term 'fix' which ruins the future. Another is a little bit harder but provides for a better future.
->India without net neutrality: Everyone has free Facebook. "Free basics" didn't help in advancing electrification of the country but it did provide free facebook/wikipedia to everyone. So 30% of the country is still in dark. But 50% of the rest of India doesn't pay for internet and it thinks there is no need to because that is ALL the internet has to offer. A young founder launches a new education app to teach reading/writing to poor villagers. But she first needs to get a 'license' from facebook. Facebook doesn't think it is a good idea for its users to 'waste' time on other services instead of watching ads on FB, so it declines. Startups don't receive as much funding because of the 'licensing' issues and there aren't as many Indian tech companies as there could've been. News is censored by Facebook and Facebook can now influence Indian politics. 100,000 fewer jobs were created because the Indian tech scene didn't take off.
->India with net neutrality: 50% of the country cannot pay for internet. They still don't have access to internet. They use other forms of communication to get their daily, unfiltered news. The startup scene in India is growing at its natural pace and the culture has become more innovative. In another 10-15 everyone will have internet. 100's of thousands of poor were lifted out of poverty due to tech jobs in India.
One is a short term 'fix' which ruins the future. Another is a little bit harder but provides for a better future.
I think their "free basics" is geared towards people who already have internet. They are not exactly going to remote villages and electrifying them.
Imagine how hard it would be for Indian startups when you need a 'license' from Facebook to deploy your app to your target market. The poor will have free facebook, but they won't have tech jobs. I've seen thousands of really poor guys being alleviated out of poverty due to Indian tech businesses which could grow because competition was fair. Tomorrow when launching an app means getting a license from facebook, it would be much harder!!
And it is a fair argument to make that other big boys will jump in to give some competition to facebook's "zero rating" but what about the small guys??
Thanks for your suggestions.
So should I ask the attorney who did a $1000 worth of legal work to act as our banking address? We don't formally have a law firm which represents us. Just got some stock agreements executed. Can you suggest a good law firm which can do what you suggest?
1. They think FB/Whatsapp is NOT internet. Internet is meant to be accessed through browser. So we already have an illusioned world.
2. 'Internet' is only meant for the elite.
3. Whatsapp/FB serve the same purpose that text messages did. They use FB/Whatsapp to save on cost of sending sms.
4. Their biggest issue is that they don't have jobs. Cities are very far away. The ONLY employment opportunity available to young people (including college graduates) is farming!!
5. I tried to quiz them on how FB/Whatsapp has helped in creating jobs/economic activity/improving farming. Couldn't get a lot of answers. (not saying FB cannot help)
6. They can afford to pay for cheap data packs to get access to FB/Whatsapp (about $2-4 per month). All the young people in the villages have Whatsapp/smart phones. Although this may not stand for the poorest of the poor.
It is going to be very hard to decide if banning free basics is going to create more jobs for the poor or not. But I think the basic premise of the regulator's decision is giving Indian startups a fair chance. The regulator is only trying to create a fair battle field for startups. The poor need Indian entrepreneurs more than anything else. The regulator is only trying to help entrepreneurship in India.
But one thing is clear, FB isn't being entirely altruistic (for obvious reasons), but the same cannot be said for Indian regulators. I believe the regulators have ONLY the interest of the people in mind.