Google Backs Off Zero Rating In India After Facebook Takes A Global Public Relations Beating
from the laying-low dept
Google appears to be backing away from its plans to support zero rated apps (deals that allow some apps to bypass broadband ISP usage caps) in India after Facebook found itself at the heart of a global public relations kerfuffle for the practice. As we've been noting, Facebook's Internet.org initiative has been under heavy fire in India as the nation debates net neutrality rules. The program, which provides free access to some Internet content curated by Facebook, has been criticized for being a security, privacy (since it doesn't allow encrypted content and creates a one-stop shopping location for aggressive governments) and net neutrality threat.Internet.org Project content partners have been dropping out of the project in droves, noting they're not comfortable with an AOL-esque version of the Internet where Facebook gets to decide who is, and who isn't, included. Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg haven't been making things any better for themselves with a series of tone-deaf responses to criticism in which they've tried to argue that a crippled version of the Internet is better than no Internet at all. Oppose Facebook's vision for the developing world, Zuckerberg has repeatedly argued, and you're the one hurting the poor.
Of course, net neutrality supporters and companies like Mozilla have argued that if Facebook wants to really help the poor, it would provide subsidized access to the real Internet and get out of the way. Facebook isn't willing to do this, and continues to operate under the pretense that it's engaged in an entirely selfless, altruistic endeavor that they've insisted has absolutely nothing to do with making money. The assumption is that nobody's quite smart enough to realize Facebook has its eye on being the gatekeeping cornerstone of the developing world's future Internet ad empire.
Google has a similar, though less publicized zero rated initiative called Google Free Zone that they've deployed in a handful of countries like Kenya, Sri Lanka, Thailand and The Philippines. Reports had suggested that Google was starting to push this effort to India, but after watching Facebook take a vicious beating, the company has apparently decided to put its plans for India on hold. At least according to anonymous insiders, since Google itself has been unwilling to formally comment on the matter to the press:
"The Internet giant, which was in early discussions with telecom operators and applications developers to launch a zero rating platform, has now decided to take a wait and watch approach, they said. "Google has shelved the idea of any kind of zero-rating tieup because they are very scared of the backlash which came up against (Facebook's) Internet.org in India," said one of them...Asked about the zero rating plans, a Google spokesperson said, "We don't comment on rumours or speculation." Zero rating — or, the practice of letting users access select applications free of data charges by striking deals with telecom operators — has been hugely debated in India."While Google is often trumpeted as a net neutrality champion in the media, the reality is the company has been a no-show for years in the net neutrality debate in the States and elsewhere, vacillating between hypocrisy and total silence. This would be a prime opportunity for Google to take the global lead on neutrality issues and speak out against zero rating. Instead, Google's apparently engaging in what's becoming Google's modus operandi on the neutrality front: sitting on the sidelines with a rather dumb look on its face, just hoping none of the net neutrality pitchforks get pointed in its direction.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: controversy, india, net neutrality, zero rating
Companies: facebook, google, internet.org
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Always jumping on the Google can do no wrong bandwagon!
Here you go again with the Google is great and everyone else is evil and trying to ruin the world. When are you going to face the fact that your Google masters are just as bad as everyone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1)The article is NOT written by Mike.
2)The articles is critical of Google, especially the last paragraph.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Though I'm not entirely sure. I got yelled at yesterday for having one nice thing to say about Google in an entire article largely critical of them. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And well deserved, too. We all know that everything is either 100% good or 100% evil. Nuance and accuracy are for losers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Google Free Zone
Does it mean:
1. A zone where there is no Google?
2. A zone where Google gives you something for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little freedom, and a 'free' gift
Our Dear Leader says that a little freedom is better than no freedom. You're still free to breathe, but that freedom is at The Dear Leader's pleasure.
How about real freedom? You can connect to anywhere. Use encryption. Maybe the only limitation, quite reasonably, is bandwidth and/or a usage cap. Reasonable considering it is given free of cost.
If it is annoying ads you want people to see, then you could have a mechanism whereby people must agree to watch ads in order to earn 'credits' to 'pay' for the 'free' service.
Ah, that's what you're trying to do. But you can't inject ads into encrypted connections. And you don't want people seeing competing ad networks.
The pure greed motive of your 'free' gift becomes clear.
How about being transparent and honest enough to plainly admit what this really is?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Helping the poor
* Helping them to see ads. Helping the poor and probably easily manipulated, to be manipulated by ads to fuel the profits of a big foreign corporation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Dan on May 29th, 2015 @ 7:49am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am unfamiliar with this. But the way you described it, sounds like Wikipedia would subsidize certain carriers (that they could come to agreement with) to not charge for access to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia being a large database of information seems like it would be beneficial for everyone to have easy access to. Especially the poor.
I don't see this as comparable to Netflix paying (certian) carriers to offer free, unlimited, or unthrottled access to Netflix. Netflix is for profit, and charges for access to Netflix. Wikipedia does not charge for access to its site.
Also Wikipedia's information is probably of more actual value to poor countries than Netflix's streaming of Hollywood content. Which probably helps to keep people dumb without going quite so far as making their brains explode which could trigger liability for Hollywood.
Wikipedia has its problems. But there is a lot of useful information there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not familiar with it, either. But if this is accurate, then I object to it as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Its real. But while noble, the goal is to zero rate Wikipedia. And that helps foster and push the biases of the Wikipedia editors over the truth, because no alternative will be big enough to be zero rated. Its the same problem with zero rating anything - it immediately has a huge leg up on all competition. That will hurt competition. Its that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As I said before, Wikipedia has its problems. Overall, I still think it is a valuable resource for everyone and would encourage that access to it should not count towards internet connection limits.
Similarly, if there are other 'competitors', that are similarly valuable resources, I would encourage access to those to be free as well. It doesn't have to be either/or.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[x] Advertising
[_] Terrorism
[_] Think of the children
[_] Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I strongly disagree. Yes, it's a valuable resource, but I cannot be in favor of efforts to weaken or destroy the ideal of net neutrality. Net neutrality is, in my opinion, the greater good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think along the way I conflated that with paid internet access. Ideally paid internet access should be neutral. It should be cheap enough that it is irrelevant what sites you use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Always keep in mind...
Some people like this become dictators. Some become serial killers. Some become CEOs. They're all incurably evil to the core. So if you want to understand them, don't apply the usual norms and expectations: ask yourself what a combination of Caligula, Jack the Ripper, John Wayne Gacy, and Ghengis Khan would do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't Google a publicly traded company with shareholders? Well, there's your answer. Shareholders demand 'maximized shareholder value'. CEO's are bound by law to provide this maximized shareholder value.
Net neutrality doesn't provide maximized shareholder value. Zero rated services do.
Google doesn't have a say in being evil or not. They're just like every other publicly traded company on the stock market. Every decision revolves around maximizing shareholder value.
In other words, if it doesn't make dollars. Then it doesn't make cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]