Internet.org - a universal good or a threat to net neutrality?
Facebook’s ‘Internet.org’ has hit some controversy recently for its potential breach of net neutrality. However, Mark Zuckerberg maintains that internet.org and net neutrality are compatible and that regardless, some internet connection is better than none at all.
Internet.org is a project aiming to provide basic internet access to people in less economically developed countries. It does this via ‘zero rating’ – where certain services are not charged for by the mobile operator. Without this service, these people would be unable to afford access to the internet. The only other option for them would be to get a phone with a browser and pay for a data plan.
Internet.org is currently available in eight countries – Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana, Colombia, the Philippines, Guatemala and India – and is being used by 800 million people. The plan is to expand the project worldwide, providing internet access to low income individuals across the globe.
The app includes access to a small range of services including Facebook, Wikipedia, ESPN and BBC News. You cannot access the full internet through the app; only the approved services and sites. There is no access to Google (it uses Bing) and no YouTube, suggesting a bias by Facebook. This is because it includes apps it is affiliated with (like Microsoft’s Bing) and does not include apps from Google - its competitor. Facebook, however, claims that it does not decide what services are made available – Mark Zuckerberg explained that “we actually don’t choose the services by ourselves. We work with local governments and the mobile operators to identify local services in each country.”
However, if the local government and mobile operators decide which services are available, this may still be problematic. It could lead to censoring, with higher powers blocking content they do not deem positive, like the censorship in North Korea. Governments can prove to be problematic for net neutrality.
There are many reasons internet.org could be problematic for net neutrality. First, the decision of what to include is made by a ‘higher power’ (local authorities, mobile operators, Facebook etc.). These people are in power and dictating what less privileged people have access to. This poses a threat to innovation and free speech.
It also gives the services included an unfair advantage, and leaves smaller businesses and sites that cannot afford to be included at a severe disadvantage. It also means that people on low incomes will only get to see content from large corporations like Facebook and the BBC, leaving them with a highly skewed and limited view of the internet that lacks any companies that have less power and influence. This may leave them with access only to biased views on big issues.
It may also be Facebook’s aim to make new internet users believe that Facebook is the internet, confusing them into thinking that the internet and Facebook are one and the same.
However, Mark Zuckerberg has a point – some internet access for people in developing countries is far better than none at all. Even if they are receiving biased internet, surely that is more positive than no internet at all?
Perhaps a solution can be reached for internet.org that will keep it neutral. If there were competitors in the market for internet.org, perhaps this would lead to better neutrality as there would be a choice. Or instead of allowing Facebook and governments to decide what to include, maybe they should include a voting app as a part of internet.org to allow its users to decide what apps and services they would like to be included.
It is important to note that for now, internet.org remains an un-advertised service, allowing new internet users to experience an ad-free internet while they learn to use it.
One must consider if internet connectivity should be a priority for raising global economic growth, or whether there are better ways to improve global wealth, standard of living and quality of life than providing a potentially biased form of the internet.