If Internet.org is all-inclusive, why was it not launched with more than one service provider?

Marco D'Souza

Batting for Net Neutrality, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg said on April 15, 2015, that Internet.org can co-exist with the stand. He defended his position and said some people have criticised the concept of zero-rating that allows Internet.org to deliver free basic internet services.

For the millions of our country, whose access to the Internet is tenuous at best, having a platform where they can access basic web services--information, jobs, news--can be an undoubtedly massive driver for social and economic advancement. The idea seems noble nonetheless, but when it comes to far-reaching initiatives such as this, I believe it should either be all or nothing. Let’s look at this platform in regards to the basic tenets of net neutrality.

Creating such a framework of low-cost (or free) web services only becomes truly net neutral when:

• Those services do not receive any preferential treatment by way of bandwidth and access privileges.
• Users are free to choose whether to opt in or out of this platform to access these services. If they opt out, they should be able to access these very services with equal ease.
• Any user is allowed to access these services from any cellular operator without having to utilize any one in particular.

Of these points, Zuckerberg makes the following statements:

Internet.org doesn't block or throttle any other services, or create fast lanes. We will never prevent people accessing other services, and we will not use fast lanes.

Point no.1 addressed.

Internet.org doesn't block or throttle any other services, or create fast lanes. We will never prevent people accessing other services, and we will not use fast lanes.

Point no.2 addressed.

He then states:

In India, we've already rolled out free basic services on the Reliance network to millions of people in Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Kerala and Telangana.

We're also open to including all mobile operators in Internet.org, and we're not stopping anyone from joining. We want as many internet providers to join so as many people as possible can be connected.

Great. So if Internet.org is indeed all-inclusive, why was it not launched with more than one service provider? If I’m not an RCom subscriber, I should not have to see this screen when I hit Internet.org on my browser.

So until the time the millions are able to access services such as these from any device, at any time via any provider, I’m not going to be convinced it is 100% net neutral

And with net neutrality, there is no grey area. All, or nothing.