The Cost of Free Basics in India: Does Facebook's 'walled garden' reduce or reinforce digital inequalities?
In 2015, Facebook introduced internet.org in India and it faced a lot of criticism. The programme was relaunched as the Free Basics programme, ostensibly to provide, free of cost, access to the Internet to the economically deprived section of society. The content, i.e. websites, were pre-selected by Facebook and was provided by third-party providers. Later, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) ruled in favor of net neutrality, banning the program in India. A crucial conversation in this debate was also about whether the Free Basics program was going to actually be helpful for those it set out to support.
This paper examines Facebook’s Free Basics programme and its perceived role in bridging digital divides, in the context of India, where it has been widely debated, criticized and finally banned in a ruling from Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). While the debate on the Free Basics programme has largely been embroiled around the principles of network neutrality, this paper will try to examine it from an ICT4D perspective, embedding the discussion around key development paradigms.
This essay begins by introducing the Free Basics programme in India and the associated proceedings, following which existing literature is reviewed to explore the concept of development, the perceived role of ICT in development, thus laying the scope of this discussion. The essay then examines the question of whether the Free Basics programme reduces or reinforces digital inequality by looking at 3 development paradigms: (1) Construction of knowledge, power structures and virtual colonization in the Free Basics Programme, (2) A sub-internet of the marginalized: looking at second level digital divides and (3) the Capabilities Approach and premise of connectivity as a source of equality and freedom.
The essay concludes with a view that the need for digital access should be viewed as a subset of overall contextual development as opposed to programs unto themselves and taking purely techno-solutionist approaches. There is a requirement for effective needs identification as part of ICT4D research to locate the users at the center and not at the periphery of the discussions. Lastly, policymakers should look into the addressal of more basic concerns like that of access and connectivity and not just on solutions which can be claimed as “quick-wins” in policy implementation.
