The internet is indeed big and still growing. When it comes to bringing internet access to those that aren't yet connected, what's more important? Maintaining open neutral internet without limitation or restricting it so the poor can access it for free?
The debate comes when tech companies like Facebook which is a business entity, is giving free internet access to places that aren't yet connected. This is a debate since Facebook is against net neutrality believes with its numerous petitions, forums and newspapers.
Facebook's Internet.org initiative was launched so anyone in selected places can access the internet for free. Facebook and its Internet.org app offer free data access to a limited part of the internet. Available in roughly 35 countries around the world, Internet.org is Facebook's partnership with local telecommunication operators persuading users to buy data plans.
What makes the debate is that Facebook is in control to everything Internet.org has to give. Beside having in control of its guidelines to what's free and what's not, Facebook is also putting itself high above with its social network service. This has sparked many backlashes from net neutrality advocates.
On December 26th, 2015, Vice President of Internet.org Chris Daniels denied that Facebook is becoming the gatekeeper of the internet. On the next day, Facebook ran a full-age advertisement in the Sunday Times Of India asking readers to pledge support for its corporate-managed version of the free internet. What these can affect is the digital fates to billions of people in developing countries that are just having internet access for their very first time.
Internet.org with its Free Basics service is aimed to be a philanthropic service. While it was billed that way, many people saw the potential of Facebook as a business entity that are giving people their very first internet experience to benefit its own.
At the start Facebook offered itself, its Messenger service, Wikipedia, educational resources, health info, news, job listings and in some cases, Google Search results pages. While these websites can do good things, Facebook is receiving heavy criticisms because it's controlling what qualified to be free and what don't. For example, under some circumstances, Free Basics users can access Google through the Internet.org app. But because Google is Facebook's heaviest competitor in terms of user base and influence on the web, Free Basic is limiting users to use Google Search. While people can search for anything via Google, pages inside Google aren't free to access.
Competitors such as Twitter and others are also not free and require users to buy data plans before using them within Free Basics.
The Free Limited Internet Vs. The Paid But Unlimited
By having control of what's free and what's not, Facebook is giving free access to those that it wants while limiting the capabilities of others. This in turn can give the poor a more limited internet which is more diluted.
Facebook first responded this concern by renaming Internet.org app to "Free Basics", and opening its platform so any website can apply as long as they can meet its low-bandwidth technical guidelines and some other criteria. But still, Facebook is in control and it can decide who can enter and who can't.
Critics saw Facebook’s control of those guidelines as deeply problematic.
The net neutrality debates can be described and detailed as follow:
Supporters
They believe that having a small part of the internet is better than having none at all. Especially to those who can't afford data access, Free Basics is seen as a solution to the problem.
By requiring websites to be approved, wanting them to have high-quality service and having low bandwidth, Facebook has convinced many local mobile carriers to pay for people's internet access by opening the chance of them to buy data plans for more internet.
Free Basics generates leads for the carriers. Those mobile carriers are the ones who sell data plans to those who want to access the whole Internet. This way, everyone can have reliable access to messaging, social networking, and resources for education, job-seeking, health, and civic engagement.
Opposers
While Free Basics has many supporters coming from many different backgrounds, it's also having a strong push from those that's against it. Including India's #SaveTheInternet, other net neutrality advocates believe that Internet.org's ability to give limited free access violates the "free internet" because it's creating a "poor internet for poor people."
Because Facebook is in control, the social network giant is able to modify any its guidelines to suit its goal. Facebook can limit its competitors' exposure while exponentially increasing it's reach. And because Facebook itself is behind the encryption and decryption of data, there could be concerns about privacy.
Because of Facebook's massive popularity, influence, wealth, credibility and political reach, it can be a huge disadvantage to others that are competing with it. The opposers fear that someday, Facebook can have too much power over the internet, making it impossible for others to compete fair and square, limiting the growth of the internet.
Daniels tried to counter these critics. His argument is that Free Basics is open, and is now allowing free access to any site without JavaScript, VoIP, video, HD images, or flash. He wrote that Facebook is willing to let third-parties audit the Free Basics site approval process to ensure it’s not arbitrarily rejecting sites that technically qualify because their content doesn't fit Facebook’s taste, or they’re competitive with the social network.
But this still didn't stop the opposers from disliking Internet.org.
In Reddit's AMA (Ask Me Anything), Daniels tried to answer this. He responded on why Facebook should be permitted to be the internet's gatekeeper, and whether Free Basics creates the true equality.
"We really did open the platform and are not rejecting apps for any reason besides compliance with tech specs and local laws. In addition, its not really a gatekeeper if people are quickly moving onto the full internet which benefits everyone in the internet ecosystem."
According to Facebook, services that are offered by Free Basics are essentially less of a threat as what the net neutrality is giving. And because of that Free Basics is a stepping stone. But since the future of the world's digital information is at stake, many people are worried. They're wondering about Facebook's motives and its effort to go to a great length to connect the whole world.
In essence, Facebook is claiming that since people quickly move on from Free Basics, it’s less of a threat as a restricted replacement to the neutral Internet, and is more of a stepping stone to it. But since the future of information access is on the line, many are worried about Facebook’s motives for going to such lengths to connect the world.