The Non-Neutral Internet for the Poor: Jana vs. Internet.org

 I was replying to a friend on Facebook about the similarities and differences between the different free data propositions that have been rolled out in developing markets. It started off as a short summary and as with these topics,  ended up becoming a maxi blog post in itself.

Of late there have been a slew of organizations that have come together to bridge the  digital divide- ie. how to narrow the gap between the digital haves and the have-nots.  While mobile penetration may be reaching record levels in many developing markets, cost of data is a barrier for many people to effectively use the Internet. India's internet penetration is at 19%  compared to China which is at about 50%

Two organisations that are at the forefront of addressing  this  issue of data accessibility, are Internet.org, promoted by Facebook and the new kid on the block, Jana. I'm not going to talk about Google's project Loon, as the commercials or details around that is still in flux.

Jana and Internet.org are aim to deliver exactly the same thing: cheap Internet to poor people.Its their business models that differ.

Similarities :
1. Both subsidize the cost of Internet data to end users
2. Both need existing mobile networks to deliver their services to end users. ( as of now)
3. Both have partnerships with existing operators to deliver their services to end users
4. You can take up their service as long as you have a SIM from a partner operator and a cheap android smart-phone.
5. There is no slowing down of Internet by using either service.  The speed of this service is what you get from your mobile operator using a regular data plan.
6. You're not tied down to either service.  You can always turn off the service and pay for a non-sponsored Internet service from your mobile operator.

The differences

1. Jana: Contrary to its reputation Jana is neither a charity nor not-for-profit. It is very much a profit seeking  company, whose business model centers around sponsored data.  They pay the mobile operator in the countries in which it operates, for the data used by Jana's users. It recovers those costs  and makes a profit,  by serving sponsored content such as apps and videos to those users.  Jana users can redeem free data by downloading or viewing these sponsored content, which may be apps or ads. Once online, users can access any internet site within their data allowance. If they exceed their data allowance, they can make use of another offer from Jana to redeem more data  or purchase data directly from Jana. There is nothing new in this model. There are in fact a number of mobile operators who offer this model to their customers. Jana seems to have made some efficiency  innovations around their backend operations, which allows them to deliverer these sponsored services more cheaply to their users. Jana also makes a tidy profit selling anonymised data about its usage to companies that may be interested in trends like app usage, location data etc ( Psst.. All telecom companies do  that as do Facebook and Google)  



Jana Business Model 

2. Internet. ORG :  Propped up by Facebook, their business model is unclear. I'm not sure who pays who for this. FB has agreements with mobile operators to provide basic Internet services for free to the users of that operator.  FB claim thst they don't pay the operator for this, nor do the partner sites pay FB, for including their sites in this service. See here for what sites are included in india:  http://www.rcom.co.in/Rcom/personal/internet/internet-org.html. You always have the option of using services outside of the Internet. ORG walled garden,  but of course you purchase your data directly from the operator,such as Reliance. If users wanted just basic facebook access, news sites like bbc  etc, this will do the job.  As for usage data, Facebook has built a billion dollar business around that, so it shouldn't be surprising that all that usage data, anonymised or not, would be used by Facebook for analytics.

Alleged business model of Internet.org

So which one is better.  Well it really  depends on who you are and what are your reasons for accessing the internet.

Deprived, Below Poverty Line users of RelianceMobile 

The target market for both these services are people in the most deprived areas, where a choice has to be made between the cost of food or the cost of mobile data. As long as they have access to a basic smartphone, both these services would be great as an entry point into the Internet.  I would say Internet.org is simpler for the novice user.  They could probably graduate to Jana as their Internet requirements increase or switch to a data bundle from their operator if their financial situation improves. For some people, INternet.org is all they will need . The vast majority will want more out of the internet. For these consumers, Net Neutrality would be the last thing on their mind. 

Cat pictures ?

Net Neutrality :

Net Neutrality is the big elephant in the room, for both these services. If you go by the Net Neutrality definition that broadband providers be detached from the information sent over their networks, then yes,  these services are net neutrality compliant,  as they don't throttle the services they offer and the operator treats their traffic on par with other data services.  Where this starts getting controversial is around the criteria for which services get included in the free plan.

Jana provides some content for free like apps and videos in exchange for which they give you a data allowance.  You could argue that this goes against net neutrality, as it is unfair on other companies whose services don't get promoted.  FB gives you Facebook and a host of other sites for free in their package,  which may be unfair on other sites providing similar services. Is Facebook promoting its own social media services over others like Twitter and Google+ ? Absolutely! Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg come under a lot of criticism for exactly this.

....and the universal declaration of human rights! 

Traditional net neutrality states that operators shall not provide any priority or throttling of any Internet services.  Internet.org and jana operate in a grey area.  They are not the operators -  they are content providers with a social objective: to get people on the Internet. They don't solve all the problems around making the internet more accessible to people at the bottom of the pyramid. They only  solve a few of the challenges- namely cost of data.

They also solve one of the biggest issues around net neutrality -  one of of operator conflict of interest in selling open internet access vs selling priority access to their own content. InternetOrg and Jana detach the operator from the data that is passed over their networks. It results in a win-win situation where consumers get access to cheaper internet and operators are able to monetize  their networks more effectively. 

Of course, when Facebook and Google get their drones and balloons off the ground and start offering data services, then they will be treated as an operator and will be subject to the same regulations as the traditional land based mobile operators.The net neutrality equations will be subject to a different debate then. At this stage, those services are atleast 3-4 years away from commercial service availability.

Non-Net-Neutral Flying Object

Regardless of all the activism and chest beating around net-neutrality,  I don't believe governments of developing countries will clamp down on these services or the operators who offer them. It is in the governments interest to get people online. This is part of the agenda for Digital India as well.  When the Net Neutrality law does get passed, I'm fairly certain that they will only restrict ISPs from blocking, throttling or prioritizing services. Governments would rather  delegate the responsibility of subsidising internet,  to a 3rd party organisation that has cracked that business model.

Net neutrality advocates in India and abroad are a bunch of idealistic folks. They have little understanding of the economics of running an Internet services provider.  There are physical limits to how much data can be delivered and at what speed and to how many users. Networks in most of the developing world are reeling under the strain of growing usage, with frequent issues around congestion and call drops. In the real world it is not digital divides and corporate social responsibility that drives roll-out of mobile networks, reduction of data charges and upgrade of services- They are determined by business cases, ROIs and ARPUs.  Till someone comes up with a better net-neutral  solution to delivering cheaper Internet to the under privileged , I'm all for services like Jana and Internet.org. Simple economics will eventually determine what users will want to consume and what services they want to pay for.

Opinions expressed are solely my own and do not express the views or opinions of my employer.

Digital India : An enabler for development

Digital India - Definitely a game changer if they do it right !

The most important digital event of last week was of course the launch of India’s #Digital India programme , which aims to integrate better connectivity and services to India . The gist if this whole scheme is

a.     Integrated government services across states, center and different divisions,

b.     Enable delivery of governmentservices via mobile platforms

c.     Expand current optical fibre connectivity towards greater digital inclusion of all citizens.

4.5Lakh Crores have been ear marked for this project. . Digital India is not only a game  changer for  the current generation of Indians, it is a key enabler innovation and opportunity for the next generation.  See PDF Presentation from GOI 

What is however interesting to note is that many of the pillars of this scheme are already in progress or completed. The big ticket items like infrastructure is going to be the glue that ties in all these services together. 

 Some things that come to my mind around this.:

a.     It’s actually not Modi's Digital India : As with most Modi schemes, these are essentially repackaging of pre-existing schemes that have been lying dormant for many years. If the Congress governments were sleeping on them and haven’t got around to executing them- that's a collective loss for India. If Modi executes those dormant projects, don’t deny his government the credit of following through . "Ideas are like candy—colorful, fun, easy to indulge in. The hard part—the part that matters—is the follow-through." – Marc Andreesen

b.     The capacity issues in India are related to infrastructure – India has no shortage of submarine cables connecting it to the rest of the world. There are some multi-terabit cable systems that land in various parts of India –connecting it with global internet exchanges. While all that capacity is great – how do you deliver that connectivity to towns and villages across India. Digital India aims to address that last mile connectivity by following through with the National Optical Fiber Network ( which incidentally was a brainchild of the Congress) 

Source : http://www.submarinecablemap.com/

c.     Most government projects have been open ended. other government projects this one comes with a date – December 2016. Yes folks, he’s made a commitment of connecting 250,000 Panchayats through the National Optical Fiber Network within the next 18 months.  If I were you, I would put a reminder in my calendar for December 2016 and check with the government on whether they have fulfilled this promise or not. As the Modi Govt is being benchmarked against a higher standard, let us hold them to this date. Please be ready to make RTI requests around this.

d.     Don’t make the mistake of confusing net neutrality with broadband speeds – Net Neutrality is related to less than 1% of India’s Internet problems- OK I made that  statistic up-however ., Many writers have tried to pin low internet speeds on monopolistic telecom carriers throttling users. What they don’t realise is that fast unlimited mobile internet is a business model that does not scale – Almost all global telcos have some form for fair use poliy or the other to provide an equitable service to all their users. While Net Neutrality needs to be one of the focus areas of Digital India, it does not underpin it. That's between TRAI and the telcos. 

e.    Some people are quick to point out thatthis Digital India is all well and  good, but the government should address the issues around poverty and food shortages ( Remember Chandrayaan ?)  : Yes and No. Addressing poverty and food shortages are important- howevermore than that is to address the underlying causes. A connected nation offers greater opportunity to its citizens. As with any start-up organisation, countries have to be at the cutting edge of technology or lose out . According to a UN Study, there are 3 stages to a society’s evolution towards a connected society –

a.     Readiness of Infrastructure – Clearly, India has a few 100,000 more miles to go before that infrastructure is ready. At least there’s some progress being made (Have you set a reminder for Dec 2016  already ?)

b.     Intensity : A connected government is clearly what #DigitalIndia is planning to deliver, with integrated government services.

c.     Impact ( reflecting outcome of effective ICT use) : Now the impact of many of  #DigitalIndia Initiatives may be in job creation around infrastructure.


As Indian society goes further down the path, we should start seeing greater efficiencies around government operations and delivery of services to its citizens.Already Direct transfer schemes have saved over $2Billion by cutting out gross inefficiencies in the system. Digital India aims to integrate health care, and agricultural services education, banking, insurance and pension services through service centres around those 250,000 Panchayts around the country .

Net Neutrality : Premature Obituaries

"Rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated " - Mark Twain 

The internet has been awash over the last few weeks with misinformation around the death of net neutrality. Journos with no idea of how the internet works have been making allegations of backroom deals done between Netflix and Comcast . Thankfully, most of that is now coming to rest and the voices of reason have started speaking louder. Finally, Peering coordinators at ISPs are feeling better about what they do for a living. 

The one misinformation that refuses to go away is the idea around ISPs and mobile operators throttling traffic from websites they do not like. In my opinion, this "Throttle to Extort" revenue model  is pure hogwash. All telcos have had this capability for years and they have mainly been managing P2P traffic with it , so that the seeders don't clog up the network with their illegal downloads. It is not net neutrality that stopped them from throttling the likes of Google and Netflix- It is customer loyalty that set the parameters of what they can 
and cannot do . Verizon or any other operator for that matter are not going to rock the boat so hard that customers look for better internet experience elsewhere .They may be evil- they are not dumb!

Now, P2P may have been the traditional bad boy of internet traffic. His popularity has, however waned over the last few years with the rise of other legal forms of media consumption. Video, now  forms almost 70% of all network traffic these days. There's definitely a case for managing traffic on the mobile side, where capacity is limited and performance depends  on many external factors.




You can do 2 things in a mobile network. First option is to treat everyone equally, so when the shit hits the fan and the network does gets congested, because everyone's streaming the 'House of Cards' on to their mobiles in glorious HD- everyone gets the same shitty quality and you can't even update your Twitter feed. Everyone is equally pissed and they vent their anger against the mobile operator on social media. Clearly a Lose-Lose proposition for everyone.

The second option /opportunity, is that you treat traffic equally for everyone,  however when network capacity reaches its peak and the cell gets congested, you prioritize services for those who are paying higher, or those services which are so critical that their owners will pay to have them available across all network conditions. This is the model which the EU Commission are proposing to table later this year for operators within the European Union.( BTW this is exactly the model that many busy roads follow during rush hour traffic ). 

There is a debate on whether this model would even work. Would ESPN or any other provider pay to have a higher priority on a network across all network conditions ? Probably not. Would they pay to have it available during high congestion, say during a world cup final or super bowl event?  Maybe, if they can see a clear business justification for that. In my opinion, this should be a win-win for everyone involved. 

Under the earlier FCC regulations, Verizon would always have to offer the first option, under all network conditions. There is a provision in the FCC regulations for 'reasonable' traffic management during congestion. However there is no clear definition of what is 'reasonable' and what is 'unreasonable' . We could all agree that it is 'unreasonable' for Verizon to throttle your Netflix, because they don't get along with Netflix's CEO. The bigger issue is would it be considered 'reasonable' for them to offer a prioritized lane for paying service providers during these cases of extreme congestion. The court decided that FCC does not have a case and handed victory to Verizon. They're pretty clear that if the FCC need this regulated, they need to take it up with Congress and have Congress pass a bill that expressly tells operators what they can and cannot do. This is exactly what is being done in Europe.


There is of course the 3rd evil option that everyone is talking about. This is where Verizon and other operators will treat ALL traffic as low priority, except for those services that pay to have them available at the highest speed. ( Check out this proposition ..) Technically, this is possible, however it is a complete bitch to implement and manage. There are too many complexities involved with even implementing this in a fool proof way. Not to mention all the bad press this would bring along with it. I highly doubt that any operator would follow this 3rd option and risk a massive churn of subscribers to the competition. American operators, with the exception of a few MVNOs are already seen as DeathStars staffed by evil Vaders.The situation in Europe and other parts of the world may be marginally better for operators, however they are still seen as the bad guys. Option 3 is again a lose-lose proposition and is not even worth considering..

Unfortunately , option 3 is the one that has captured the imagination of most of the popular media and the blogosphere ..

Enough for the first blog post. I hope to go into more detail on these business models in my later posts. 

Laters..