Zero-Rating Platform and : A Platform Study of ’s Free Basics Platform New Media and Digital Culture MA Thesis

Thesis Supervisor: Dr. Stefania Milan Second Reader: Prof. Dr. Richard Rogers

Author: Afra Suci Ramadhon Student Number : 11127708 University of Amsterdam 24 June 2016 Abstract In 2014, Facebook, an online networking service corporation, launched a platform named Internet.org (later changed to Free Basics) to bridge the digital divide. The Internet.org aims to provide internet connections for two-thirds of the world’s population. The platform implements a practice known as a zero-rating. The zero- rating refers to a practice enacted by internet service providers (ISPs) to give free access to particular online content and services. The Free Basics and zero-rating practices have triggered global debates on the net neutrality and the open internet. The proponents of zero-rating believe that the implementation of zero-rating is a response to competitions among ISPs and a way to accelerate the diffusion of internet. The opponents consider zero-rating practices violates the principle of net neutrality and open internet. The implementation of zero rating has influenced discussions surrounding the internet governance. The Free Basics platform is the major global player in the zero-rating practices (available in more than 30 countries). This platform indicates a contentious cooperation between Facebook and internet service providers. The cooperation has redefined the discussion of net neutrality and determined the direction of internet regulation.

This study aims to investigate how the Free Basics functions and arranges its service and how it influences the discourse of net neutrality. To analyze what technical affordances and constraints underpin the configuration, this research engages with the platform studies approach. The ongoing debates of zero-rating and net neutrality often overlook the technical and the underlying design of a particular practice of zero-rating. This research employs platform studies method with additional insights from the ethnography of infrastructure approach to carry out participant observation, content analysis and semi-structured interviews. Since Free Basics only operates in the designated countries, this study takes the implementation of Free Basics in Indonesia as the case study. The findings show the configuration of Free Basics from the analysis of front-end and back-end parts. The platform does not fully perform a zero-rating practice due to the restrictions applied. The arrangement of Free Basics reflects that there is no ultimate freedom for the users within the zero- rating practice. From the back-end part, the Free Basics repurposes a virtual private network (VPN) mechanism to deliver zero-rated internet access. I argue that to provide a zero-rated internet service, an interruption to the network is inevitable. Henceforth, it is evident that the implementation of Free Basics and other zero-rating models incline to undermine the principle of net neutrality. However, not all actors involved in the internet governance agree with the principle of net neutrality.

Keywords: zero-rating, net neutrality, Free Basics, platform studies, Facebook, internet governance

Word count: 24,879

2 1 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9 1.1 The Zero-Rating Models Implementation ...... 9 1.2 Zero-Rating and Zero-Sum Game of Internet Access ...... 12 1.3 Net Neutrality is Not Neutral ...... 16 1.4 Facebook’s Internet.org and A Piece of The Internet ...... 22 1.5 Facebook and The Power in the Network ...... 29 2 RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 33 2.1 Indonesia as The Free Basics’ Case Study ...... 34 2.2 Platform Studies and The Ethnography of Infrastructure ...... 35 2.3 Data Collection ...... 37 2.3.1 Participant Observation ...... 38 2.3.2 Content Analysis ...... 39 2.3.3 Semi-Structured Interviews ...... 40 2.4 Data Analysis ...... 42 3 RESEARCH FINDINGS ...... 44 3.1 How Free Basics Functions ...... 44 3.1.1 General Application ...... 44 3.1.2 Front-end Analysis ...... 48 3.1.3 Back-end Analysis ...... 52 3.1.4 The Middleman in The Network ...... 53 3.2 The Free Basics’s Ecosystem ...... 57 3.3 Net-Neutrality and Zero-Rating ...... 60 4 DISCUSSION ...... 65 4.1 Free But Restricted Basics ...... 65 4.2 Interfering by Design ...... 69 4.3 Net Neutrality and The Power in The Network ...... 71 5 CONCLUSIONS ...... 74 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 79 APPENDIX 1- Interview & Observation Questions ...... 87 APPENDIX 2- Matrix to Analyze the Interview ...... 90 APPENDIX 3 – Transcript Sample ...... 96

3 List of Figures

1. Figure 3.1-1 APN Setting in Android Operating System 45 2. Figure 3.1-2 Introductory Page of Free Basics in the Application version 45 3. Figure 3.1-3 Free Basics Directs Facebook Access to Browser 46 4. Figure 3.1-4 A Map of the distribution of Internet users in Indonesia 47 5. Figure 3.1-5 A Content Failed to Open in 2G connection 48 6. Figure 3.1-6 Menu in the Free Basics 48 7. Figure 3.1-7 Marketplace website displays the listing in the Free Basics 49 8. Figure 3.1-8 Categories in Free Basics browser version 50 9. Figure 3.1-9 Adding more services in Free Basics 50 10. Figure 3.1-10 Prompt to get a data subscription when limit is exceeded 51 11. Figure 3.1-11 Prompt to get a data package in financial application 51 12. Figure 3.1-12 Preview of Free Basics’s SDK, organized in classes 53 13. Figure 3.1-13 Free Basics Proxy Server 54 14. Figure 3.1-14 detected in Free Basics’s code 55 15. Figure 3.1-15 The information as identified with Onavo inside Free 55 16. Figure 3.2-1 Buzzfeed application in Free Basics Environment 60 17. Figure 3.2-2 Girl Effect content 60

List of Tables

1. Table 2.1-1 Top The number of users and base station from the top three mobile operators in Indonesia. 35 2. Table 3.1-2 Free Basics’ Privacy Policy 57

4 INTRODUCTION

This is good for people because they’ll have an affordable way and a reason to connect to the internet and join the global knowledge economy. This is good for mobile operators because they’ll have more customers who want to buy more data, which will increase their profits and help them invest in building out the networks. This is good for phone manufacturers and technology providers because more people will want better devices, which will push the industry forward. This is good for internet services because the efficiencies we’ll all drive will make it easier and cheaper for the next 5 billion people to access their services. This is good for the world because everyone will benefit from the increased knowledge, experience and progress we make from having everyone connected to the internet. (Zuckerberg 2013)

In August 2013, , Chief Executive and co-founder of Facebook, announced a paper on his platform, Facebook, titled “Is Connectivity a Human Right”. He wanted to make everyone happy and connected to the internet through Facebook’s nonprofit initiative called Internet.org. He envisages Internet.org as an innovative model to address the main problems in bridging the digital divide: accessibility and affordability. A year later, the Internet.org launched its “game- changer” platform with the same label. This platform manifests what Zuckerberg thinks of as a virtue, providing free internet access to basic services in a lightweight manner. Facebook adopts what is known as a zero-rating practice. Zero-rating denotes a practice performed by internet service providers (ISPs) that allows their subscribers to access particular online services and contents through exempting data charge (Layton & Calderwood 2; Kak 5; Gillwald & Futter 2; De Guzman 2014; Rossini & Moore, 1). In the case of Internet.org, the users can access several pre-selected contents and services for free within the platform. Moreover, the Internet.org cooperates with the mobile operators in the targeted countries to carry out this zero- rating model. Facebook believes the zero-rating game brings advantage to all players, but Zuckerberg cannot fulfill his objective entirely. The zero-rating practice has become a

5 controversy in the internet governance domain. Providing free access to particular contents or services indicates a discriminative action towards the network, and it signals a net neutrality violation (Layton and Calderwood 3; Wu 145; Rossini and Moore 2). Net neutrality refers to a non-discriminative network, which treats all contents and applications equally and allows the network to support every kind of content or application (Wu, 146). Digital rights activists, technologists, and other actors supporting the open internet and net neutrality principle, are against the zero- rating model. Facebook’s Internet.org is currently the most contentious zero-rating model. It triggered global protests in May 2015, whereby 67 digital activist groups from more than 20 countries announced an open letter to Zuckerberg, concerning net neutrality, privacy and other propensities (North 2015; Velayanikal 2015). The protest accused Facebook of masquerading as the internet (using ‘Internet’ to label the service) while only giving an access to selected contents and services. In September 2015, Facebook replaced that Internet.org label with Free Basics and improved a few aspects in its configuration by promoting it as an open platform. Apart from the protest, the zero-rating practice has garnered supporters, the majority of whom come from business sectors. The proponents of the zero-rating model consider this practice is necessary to sustain the companies’ profits in a competitive environment so that the companies can invest more in the network infrastructure (West 5; Carew 1). As has been quoted above, Facebook continues to insist that a zero-rating model like Free Basics (previously Internet.org) is fruitful for all parties. Despite the fact that this platform has been banned in India (since February 8, 2016) and Egypt (since December 2015), Free Basics has been extended to more than 30 countries (Statt 2015; 2016; Internet.org 2016). This research contextualizes the debate around how Free Basics as a zero- rating practice is harmful to the principle of net neutrality. It aims to investigate how Free Basics configures and performs its service and how this arrangement influences the net neutrality discourse. Free Basics has prompted many experts and scholars to scrutinize zero-rating practices and its impact on the net neutrality. However, the discussion is mostly situated in the legal, economic or social aspects of this case and rarely focused on the technical features. Given these points, this study taps into the technical and infrastructural side of a zero-rating model to give a critical perspective on this debate. A study of a platform provides the capacity to uncover any interventions made by the platform (Gillespie 1). Thus, this study applied the platform

6 studies approach to rejoin the main research question (Bogost and Montfort 2007). This research enriched the platform studies approach with insight from the ethnography of infrastructure to guide this empirical research (Star 1999). Central to this approach, I conducted participant observation during ten days of the fieldwork to experience first-hand the Free Basics platform. Because Free Basics only runs in the designated countries, this research looks at Free Basics implementation in Indonesia as a background to generate data from observation and to delineate the platform’s arrangement. As a country with just over a third internet penetration (34%) and the highest Facebook penetration in the world (92.4%), Indonesia is a prospective area for Free Basics (Noviandari 2015). Besides the observation, I collected and analyzed relevant official documents to complement the observation analysis. In addition, to contextualizing Free Basics in the respective country, I gained valuable insights from the interviews with digital rights activists and a government representative. The Free Basics platform is a special case of zero-rating practice. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach to exempt data charge of the users. Free Basics does not imitate the carrier-initiated zero-rating arrangement nor replicate the sponsored data agreement as described by Jeffrey Eisenach (5). In the context of Indonesia, it is evident that the Free Basics does not totally function as zero-rating because it enacts daily volume quota of free access. Previously, zero-rating practices apply restrictions only in the selection of contents and services, the duration or in the type of data subscription (Kak 5). Another key point from the results, there is a zero-rating application () inside a zero-rating platform (Free Basics). Although concerns that the Free Basics will lock users in the platform is not proven in this study, the Facebook Zero feature may keep the users from accessing other applications. The Free Basics is a middleman in the network since all traffic initiated from the platform needs to stop by at the Facebook’s server before reaching the destination. This study reveals that Free Basics repurposes the Virtual Private Network (VPN) mechanism to interfere with the packet and check whether it meets the specification. It is evident that Free Basics does not completely interrupt the data transmission made from the platform with blocking, throttling or giving fast lane access to contents and services within the platform. However, Free Basics needs to decrypt and check the packet during the transmission because it performs a tiered service of internet. The conclusions confirm a zero-rating practice would most likely undermine net

7 neutrality. On the other hand, the government and the internet service providers are reluctant to put forward the principle of net neutrality because they think this principle tends to favor the global content and service provider companies. The Free Basics, on the contrary, demonstrates what is always coveted by the internet service providers, a collaboration to carry out a tiered service. This cooperation has strengthened the power of Facebook on the global network. The existence of Free Basics and Facebook Zero amplifies the networking power of Facebook and makes it ubiquitous. This thesis is structured into five main chapters. In the first chapter, I delineate the theories and literature as the point of departure of this research. I start with the working definition of zero-rating and the debates surrounding it. Then I move on to the waves of net neutrality discussion and different translations of this principle in its development. To present the clear context of Facebook’s trajectory in implementing Free Basics, I dedicate a section for this purpose in this first chapter. I also include my analysis of Facebook’s power on the network by using Manuel Castell’s theory and end the first chapter with the description of platform studies. In the second chapter, I expound my research design and recount the main research question as well as the sub-questions. I also explain the context of Indonesia as the country that I chose for fieldwork. In the third chapter, I explicate all findings from the data collection and divide the chapter into three sections. The first section accounts for the operation, interface and how the platform functions. The second section gives more detail on the underlying design of Free Basics and reveals how the platform performs the zero- rating access. The last part of this chapter discusses the issue surrounding net neutrality, zero-rating practice and gives further insight into internet governance. In the fourth chapter, I elaborate the findings along with the literature and debate surrounding zero-rating and net neutrality. In the fifth chapter, I underline the main findings as well as the related findings and limitations that may correspond to the debates and future research topics.

8 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

This research takes Free Basics by Facebook as a case study to delve into a particular model of a zero-rating plan that dominates the current zero-rating practices. This study draws on the relationship between the zero-rating practice and net neutrality, which has influenced several aspects of the Internet around the world, such as internet infrastructure, governance, and the digital divide. This study aims to investigate further how Free Basics works and arranges its service and how it influences the discourse of net neutrality. To analyze how Free Basics configures the zero-rating internet access and what technical affordance underpins the operation, the research engages with a platform studies approach. The contention between the zero-rating plan and net neutrality has encouraged many scholars to investigate the topic, either to support the policy of net neutrality or to contribute academically. However, most studies focus on its legal, economic, or social aspect of the topic, and they rarely emphasize the technical and the infrastructural facet. The exploration of the technical side also initiates further discussion of technological possibilities governing free internet access. Thus, by examining Free Basics as a particular case of zero-rating model, this study aspires to contribute to the academic debates and policy-making surrounding Internet infrastructure and governance, especially in the context of developing countries. In this section, I explore relevant concepts that give grounds to undertake this research. I begin with delineating the zero-rating model definition and implementation. Following this concept, I dissect the notion of net neutrality, and the controversy that surrounds it. After outlining the zero-rating model and the net neutrality principle, I investigate Facebook’s trajectory in designing a particular arrangement of the platform. Lastly, to illustrate the constellation of the zero-rating model, net neutrality debates, and Free Basics platform, I borrow Manuel Castells’s concept of the power in the network.

1.1 The Zero-Rating Models Implementation

Efforts to bring the free internet access correspond to the technology facilitating it. In most cases, ISPs grant a free internet access as part of their promotional activities. During the early phase of internet penetration in developed countries, ISPs arrange

9 such promotion collaborating with telephone companies and advertisers (Haan 359). Nowadays, when most Internet access is increasingly acquired through mobile devices (Kemp 2016; Castells et al. 30), the zero-rating plan becomes the most popular route undertaken by mobile operators as the ISPs. Zero-rating indicates the practice performed by ISPs that allows their subscribers to access particular online services and contents without charging data caps (Layton & Calderwood 2; Kak 5; Gillwald & Futter 2; De Guzman 2014; Rossini & Moore, 1). This practice not only flourishes in developing countries with inadequate internet penetration but also thrives in developed countries with universal internet access. This mechanism is considerably new according to the period when the relevant literature is published. The Zero-rating model gains its controversial reputation through its battle with net neutrality regulation in countries like the Netherlands, Chile, Slovenia, India, and more (Layton & Calderwood 7; Rossini & Moore 3). For the most part, the arguments revolve around economical-business analyses and law-policy studies. Zero-rating implementation requires agreement between mobile operators and content providers to authorize free access to certain services and contents. Although Roslyn Layton and Silvia E. Calderwood argued that before the mobile internet era, the mobile operators practiced zero-rating for their SMS (Shot Message Service) and MMS (Multimedia Messaging Service) services, catering internet service is a different thing. It is important to realize, the mobile operators do not provide the online services and contents like they do with SMS and MMS services. As internet service providers, mobile operators are intermediaries, facilitating content providers and customers with the internet connection. Notably known as a two-sided market because mobile internet service providers have two different user groups that provide each other with network benefits (Wu and Lee 64), their position is vulnerable to net neutrality violation. Today, mobile operators gain revenue not only from phone or SMS consumption but also from selling subscription data packages with various limits of data transfer (data caps) or speeds to access the Internet. By liberating data caps for selected contents, the mobile operators can unbundle Internet services instead of data or speed bundles. With regular data subscription, the limit is the data usage or speed while with the zero-rating, the limit is the online contents and services available for free. The zero-rating scheme operates in several ways. A suitable typology coined by Amba Kak divides zero-rating into three categories (6). First, through a “limited

10 packs” plan the customers can subscribe to a data package at a lower price than a regular data package. But this package only applies to selected services and content (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Whatsapp, , etc.). Landing outside the selection, the subscribers should bear the cost of their phone credit (not data credit). This type attracts mobile operators in many countries offering monthly unlimited social networking and chatting packages. Second, there is “free-walled garden” type that stands for a set of websites or online services free to , no data subscription required. If users want to visit services outside the walled garden, the data charge will apply as usual. Internet.org or Free Basics and the Freezone application belong to this category since they assemble some services and websites inside the application. Third, there is the “un-metered” offer, which allows the operators to waive data caps for certain services and contents. This type is well represented by services like Facebook Zero, , and . However, the first category seems inconsistent with the nature that zero-rating means free access or data exemption. The 'limited packs' type still requires the customers to pay for data subscription so they can enjoy an unbundled Internet content. But the sense that customers are only authorized to connect with particular applications may imply that some applications are more successful than others. Indeed, classifying zero-rating models are not an easy task since the term is quite general, and the difference between every model is subtle. Zero-rating models are also labeled into two groups based on their arrangement, carriers-initiated and sponsored data (Eisenach 5). In a carrier-initiated model, the mobile operator selects which online services and contents are to be exempt from data caps to attract the customers. Zero-rating plan, which falls under “limited packs” in the previous typology, can be categorized as carrier-initiated. Promotions like Facebook or instant messaging unlimited are a common practice among mobile internet service providers. Eisenach also emphasizes that in certain cases, mobile carriers may zero-rate their content or content produced by affiliate companies like the Videotron program offered by a Canadian mobile operator (5). The second group is the sponsored-data model which demands the content providers to compensate the free data that is being consumed to access their websites or applications. Mcent, an application created by

11 Jana1 represents this model establishing free access to download and use applications (Rossini and Moore 7). When the users download and use applications offered within Mcent, they get phone and data credit to compensate their activities. The application developers or content providers endorse Mcent by paying for the data consumed by the users during the application usage. Another unique approach akin to sponsored- data model is Mozilla Equal Rating (Rossini and Moore 11). According to Mitchell Baker, chair of the Mozilla Foundation in her official blog, the scheme employs two methods within environment.2 First, by offering some amounts of data for free or at a discount for subscribers while the companies compensate the free data and receive a ‘brought to you by’ attribution. This model has been undertaken in African and Middle Eastern markets, collaborating with Orange. Second, the free internet can be performed through watch ads to get free access to other websites. This model has been tested in Bangladesh with Grameenphone by Telenor.

1.2 Zero-Rating and Zero-Sum Game of Internet Access

In general, zero-rating refers to a plan offered by the mobile operator to give data-free access to particular online services, contents, or applications to the customers. The fact that this model inclines to discriminate against certain services and contents does not mean all zero-rating models are detrimental. In reality, there are the acceptable and non-acceptable zero-rating plans. The acceptable and non-acceptable here refers to the debate surrounding the zero-rating and the net neutrality. Briefly, several zero- rating forms are acceptable because they are not harmful to net neutrality, which will be discussed in the next part. For example, in Chile after the government banned zero-rating method, Wikipedia Zero was granted permission to continue its service in favor of Wikipedia’s nonprofit initiative, not collecting personal information, and being an open knowledge provider (Rossini and Moore 20; Layton & Calderwood 15). Moreover, sponsored-data mechanism enables the mobile operators to manage an all-encompassing data-free plan without preferential access to particular services and contents. These two groups category do not apply to identify the zero-rating model like Facebook’s Internet.org application, Facebook Zero, and Google Freezone. These models do not come from the mobile carriers and arguably do not involve money to

1 Jana is a company with focus to increase app (mobile application) use in the fastest growing mobile markets. 2 Baker, Mitchell. ‘Zero Rating and Open Internet’. ://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2015/05/06/zero- rating-and-the-open-internet/ accessed March 8, 2016

12 compensate for the free data usage by customers. The content and service providers like Facebook and Google commence the partnership with the mobile operator and impel their services. In such ‘walled-garden’ schemes, a zero-rating plan may disrupt net neutrality. In a recent study conducted by the Center for Democracy and Technology, Erik Stallman and R. Stanley Adams convey that sponsored data arrangements should be avoided because they incline to drive traffic toward contents and services providers who can afford to sponsor the scheme (23). Regarding the ‘walled-garden’ type, Stallman and Adams also criticize an exclusive arrangement made by content providers and mobile operators, since it would leverage the operators’ control of network infrastructure to determine what takes place on the edge of the network (22). Diana Carew suggests that Zero-rating operations exist for the business interests (3). In a study sponsored by Internet.org, Jeffrey A. Eisenach explains that the tough competition of the mobile internet service provider market evokes mobile operators to find an efficient way to differentiate their services (4). Think about cable television deals, which offer numerous choices of channels such as sports channels, kids channels, or entertainment channels. The zero-rating package also proposes a similar strategy. Besides, mobile operators expect more customers to subscribe to data packages because their revenue from phone and SMS credit recharges has shrunk (Layton and Calderwood 9). Data packages are the only way mobile operators can tweak prices as instant messaging and mobile VoIP (voice over IP) applications are replacing phone and SMS activities. Such inclination seems common among mobile operators around the world. In developing countries, the prepaid billing system is more popular and essential to stimulate adoption of mobile connection (Castells et al. 30). Consequently, mobile operators prefer to pack together the prepaid top up with the zero-rating scheme. Another frequent justification from mobile operators is network maintenance and expansion (West 5; Carew 1). If the profit declines, the mobile operator rarely improves the network infrastructure. This argument is not only popular within the zero-rating debate among mobile service providers, but also among broadband providers in the net neutrality debate. An interesting fact from Allot Mobile Trends Charging Report H1/2014 confirms the zero-rating centric promotion with around 45 per cent of mobile operators worldwide now offering at least one zero-rated application (1). Furthermore, Facebook appears as a dominant evangelist of zero-rated applications since it leads 65 per cent of zero-rating cases.

13 Besides business motives, Zero-rating implementation usually exerts philanthropic motivations. This argument refers to the fact that there are more than 4 billion people who still do not have a chance to connect to the internet. Also, most of developing countries with a lack of fixed-line3 infrastructure count on more mobile phones than the fixed lines to connect (Castells et al., 30). In the case of the digital divide, there is a Universal Service Obligation (USO) mandate for mobile operator companies to provide basic telecommunication or Internet services to remote areas and other places where it would not be profitable (Ibid). However, finding solutions to this problem is not as simple as only delivering access, because there are related issues like connectivity and affordability. The zero-rating mechanisms tap into this condition so that more people can access several basic services and get the benefits of being online (Carew 7; Layton and Calderwood 5; De Guzman 2014). Ideally, by bringing more people online, network value increases and gives advantages to every related actor. Diana Carew argues that Zero-rating fosters high-connectivity equilibrium, enhancing the digital economy and generating jobs (4). This assumption aligns with the vision of Information and Communication Technology for development (ICT4D). As a low-cost approach, Zero-rating may encourage more people in developing countries to experience the economic improvement of being online. Facebook via its Internet.org Foundation adopts this assertion to launch several programs related to connectivity. On the contrary, some evidence and analyses oppose this assumption, suggesting a set of requirements to support connectivity such as human rights based policy for the Internet governance and enabling environment (World Bank 2016; Global Partners Digital 2014; De Guzman 2014). The big online service provider companies like Facebook repeatedly frame this justification by constructing partial online services as Internet access. On the other hand, digital rights and consumer rights defenders defy zero- rating scheme for its inherently discriminative approach and the limited choice it offers to customers as well as the limited opportunities for innovation (Carew 9; Layton and Calderwood 3; Kak 13; De Guzman 2014). The repudiations intertwine with the pro-net neutrality argument, pertaining to the equal access of the Internet and prevention of backdoor deals between content providers and mobile operators. In

3 Fixed-line is relating to telecommunications systems using cables laid across land, as opposed to cellular radio systems (e.g. digital subscriber line, cable internet access).

14 developed countries, zero-rating implies a threat to innovation and a course to give a competitive advantage to the mobile operators. Meanwhile in developing countries with low internet penetration, zero-rating implementation mostly speaks on behalf the Internet access. Therefore, a common allegation is that zero-rating plans may give the impression to early Internet adopters that such plans are the true Internet . Another concern addresses the walled-garden model, which possibly forestalls customers to visit other websites and applications, trapping them inside the application. This concern mainly relates to disadvantaged groups that cannot afford the regular data plan. Regarding this matter, an interesting finding in India by Amba Kak suggests that early adopters and low-income users prefer an open and unrestricted Internet (49). The users even prefer to pay for regular data plans to get the most of the internet. This finding contends the argument that partial versions of the internet are better than none at all for such targets. The argument concerning innovation and competition expresses concerns that mobile operators would pick big service and content providers to attract customers (De Guzman 2014). That kind of practice would likely affect new and small-scale content providers that look for more users, but do not have enough resources to join the sponsored-data scheme. As shown above, there is ambivalence surrounding how the zero-rating model is arranged and intended. The implementation of pure zero-rating may offend the basic principle of Internet infrastructure. Giving free access only to certain contents would surely detract from the whole benefit of being online. In developing countries, those with low-incomes have to choose between a piece of the internet or no internet at all. This zero-sum game of internet access would magnify the digital divide and sacrifice the presence of other useful contents and services. As asserted by Anja Kovacs from the Internet Democracy Project India in an Internet Governance Forum4 (IGF) 2015 session on zero-rating, “using zero rating services as the answer to the access problem will hinder the efforts to find other solutions to provide a wider internet access” (IGF 2015 session report). Nevertheless, a zero-rating plan might be acceptable if the mobile operators and content providers can design an egalitarian version of zero-rating and if the government supports such a plan with a policy promoting open internet. Mozilla has proposed this recommendation with the equal

4 Internet Governance Forum is a multi-stakeholder annual forum for policy dialogue on issues of Internet governance. The multi-stakeholder refers to the government, private sector, civil society, technical and academic community.

15 rating and Jose Vargas from Wikimedia suggesting a net-neutrality sensitive zero- rating plan (Dixon-Thayer 2015; IGF 2015 session report). This framework of zero-rating debates is incorporated into the research design to situate the Free Basics platform. Given the controversy surrounding the Free Basics, further inquiry may reveal whether it is an acceptable or non-acceptable form of zero-rating. The configuration of the Free Basics platform determines mobile operators’ control and users’ navigation. Free Basics falls under the ‘free walled garden” model of zero-rating, with an undisclosed partnership scheme. This strategy would likely influence the ecosystem in the mobile communication sector. As has been noted, Facebook dominates zero-rating plans around the world. One of the main concerns about zero-rating is the closed ecosystem impedes other content and service providers to compete. Therefore, it is essential to see if the Free Basics’ selection and structure allows the competitor providers to join the ecosystem or not. Considering zero-rating as an alternative to introducing and providing the internet access for early adopters and low-income populations, it is interesting to explore how the implementation of Free Basics fulfills this intention. This particular case of zero- rating invites this research to evaluate the arguments and justifications that surround it.

1.3 Net Neutrality is Not Neutral

“… the community believes that the goal is connectivity, the tool is the Internet Protocol, and the intelligence is end to end rather than hidden in the network.” (Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)5, Request for Comments (RfC) 1958 document, 2)

Net neutrality refers to a non-discriminative network, which treats all contents and applications equally and allows the network to support every kind of content or application (Wu 146). The deployment of Zero-rating plans has amplified net neutrality debates. Even so, the controversy over net neutrality precedes the discussion of zero-rating. Previously, most discussions on net neutrality took place in

5 The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) It is an open standards organization, with no formal membership or membership requirements. IETF develops and promotes voluntary Internet standards.

16 the United States in relation to Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) cases and later developed throughout the world. Net neutrality is not only about the technical aspects of the Internet but also deals with legal implications. Parallel with the development of technology supporting internet infrastructure, net neutrality has evolved in different forms depending on whose interest it serves. In a 2003 paper, Tim Wu has predicted the continued struggle of net neutrality as he promoted the term in his papers. Wu refers to the case of broadband discrimination in which the network operators "inclined to ban new or emerging applications or network attachments like WiFi devices or Virtual Private Networks (VPN)6 with unidentified motivation" (143). The notion of neutral networks proposed by Tim Wu derives from Jerome Saltzer’s “end-to-end” argument that suggests simply “end-to-end functions can only be performed correctly by the end-systems themselves” (RfC 1958 3). Besides the end-to-end principle, openness, redundancy, and interoperability also govern the Internet architecture (Ziewitz and Brown 15). Openness refers to the absence of central points of control; redundancy denotes the same network function can be delivered by more than one element, and interoperability indicates the capacity to transfer useful data and other information across systems (Ziewitz and Brown 16-17). Therefore, the Internet protocol design follows the end-to-end protocols and the other principles. There is no need to impose restrictions on the customer accessing contents or applications because the applications eventually know best what features the customer needs or does not need. This principle requires the network to be free from interventions by the network operators. At first glance, net neutrality entails technical aspects constructing the architecture of the Internet. The fundamental value embedded in the network and how to govern the Internet influences the first wave conversation of net neutrality revolving in technologist circles in the mid-2000s (Kimball 39). The circle believes that the fundamental principles of Internet architecture should be integrated into the policy that governs it. This first wave debate on net neutrality opposed the discriminatory management practices performed by broadband service providers like AT&T and Comcast, which were proven to block their customers’ access to devices

6 A virtual private network (VPN) extends a private network across a public network, Internet. It allows users to send and receive data across shared or public networks as if their computing devices were directly connected to the private network, and thus benefit from the functionality, security and management policies of the private network (Cisco 2002).

17 and services like VPNs and home WiFi networks (Wu 152; Kimball 38). Henceforth, the technologist circles and their supporters protect the innovation of applications and devices along with customer rights exercised by the net neutrality term. The first thing to remember, the early Internet infrastructure was built across nonprofit spheres like universities and research organizations cultivating innovation. Later on, commercial companies started to expand the Internet infrastructure and invest in the business (Ziewits and Brown 13). The ISPs began to yield subscribers and online content and application providers also arose, spawning notable companies like Google and Yahoo. In 2002, the big content and service provider companies like Google, Yahoo, eBay, Amazon, and hesitated with broadband service providers’ controlling the transmission of their services and contents in the network. To address their concerns, those companies employed the net neutrality argument securing their position in the marketplace from discriminatory advantage made by the ISPs (Kimball 39). This net neutrality positioning marked the second wave of the net neutrality debate with the battle between the ISPs and the application and content providers. The involvement of those big companies in the discussion has dismantled net neutrality from technical interpretations and enclosed it the spirit of the free market. It goes without saying that those companies avoid the possibility of discriminative treatment applied by the ISPs. If the internet access providers exert a tiered Internet mechanism that enables them to partition the traffic on their lines into different layers (tiers), the companies worry the ISPs will offer tiered services demanding customers and content providers to pay for the best Quality of Service (QoS) (Felczak 28; Lee and Kim 2). On the other hand, ISPs disagree with the net neutrality because they wish to acquire licenses controlling traffic congestion and differentiating applications that require more bandwidth (Sikka 168; Lee and Kim 1). This kind of problem mostly occurs in more developed countries with extensive internet penetration and intense usage (Carew 5; De Guzman 2014). The second wave debate transpires outside the United States and evokes the urgency of issuing net neutrality regulations, as has occurred in Canada and the Netherlands. The invasion of content and application providers like Netflix and Spotify with growing numbers of users has intensified the ISPs request to reject net neutrality regulations. The access providers find it difficult to serve the interest of a two-sided market and to comply with the net neutrality principle at the same time. Hence, they aim to maintain their profits through tiered internet, so the content providers or the customers can pay them

18 for priority access. The application of price discrimination in zero-rating plans stems from the rationale mentioned earlier. As a way out, the ISPs have discovered a way to collaborate with the content providers by offering certain services for free or by applying unlimited data subscription. From this second wave debate, it is clear that the net neutrality discourse has fragmented into several points of departure. The term is no longer exclusively associated with the Internet protocol but also business competition and the free market. Nowadays, prominent content providers including Facebook, become one of the strongest proponents of net neutrality, especially in the United States. In the name of innovation and fair market competition, the content and application companies also experience the perks of net neutrality. As the private actors’ (ISP and content provider companies) intervention becomes intrusive, public interest group interference is inevitable. Representatives from civil society coalitions take action to improve the net neutrality discourse. The first wave of the debate has embraced the spirit to protect consumer rights, and this third wave amplifies the interpretation of net neutrality. Preserving the open Internet is not only a matter of consumer rights but also the struggle of citizen rights. If the ISPs possess the authority to scrutinize and differentiate the packet flowing through the network, the users lose their discretion to choose and freedom to engage with the content. In that case of freedom, net neutrality substance goes beyond the tiered internet and affects privacy, freedom of expression, and civic engagement (Kimball 40). The public interest groups believe that the key principles of Internet architecture have shaped The Internet as a favorable space for civic engagement, free speech, innovation, and unlimited opportunity. The civil society coalition movements like Save The Internet and Global Net Neutrality Coalition have prompted many actions against the private interest and policy transformation encouraging net neutrality. For these civil society coalitions, the net neutrality principle means that the internet has to be preserved as an open platform and requires network providers (ISPs or mobile operators) to treat all content, applications, and services equally (Save The Internet; Global Coalition of Net Neutrality). Consequently, civil society groups stand together with technologists and even the content and application providers to defend the net neutrality principle. One point often overlooked in the transformation of the debate is the network itself, with the discussion on competition and consumer rights overshadowing the technical challenges transferring the packet. The terms network congestion, throttling,

19 and the latest controversy over deep packet inspection influencing the delivery of contents and services. Throttling refers to a practice performed by the ISPs to reduce the data in rates of delivered content to end-users (Internet Society 2). This method is carried out via a technique that limits upload or download rates of certain forms of data streams, reducing the congestion occurred in the network. Some contents and applications may cause congestion in the network and cripple its performance, which will frustrate the content providers and the users as well. The condition where the packet may contain a virus undermining the data also recalls the ISPs to conduct the network. The access service providers insist that they need to control the network to overcome the situation. Furthermore, the existence of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology allows detail examination of the data of the packet being sent and delivering the route of the packet in a different direction (Geere 2012; Bendrath and Mueller 1144). This method ensures the content is being delivered in the right format or free from malicious attacks like viruses or intrusions. DPI also performs to scrutinize the information carried in the packet, making customer habit analysis possible. The contention over DPI implementation also correlates with net neutrality infringement and the risks enclosed to it. Internet service providers may use DPI to put tiered internet into action while the government may utilize to monitor the citizen’s traffic and enforce censorship. With this in mind, the concern of civil society coalitions with net neutrality infringement starts to make sense. The middle ground was initiated from the concern about the problems surrounding the network. It is translated into the term network management rather than network neutrality per se (Marsden 14). Nevertheless, the implementation may lead to human rights violations like censorship as discussed in the implication of DPI. At the same time, the net neutrality debate in developing countries relates closely to the issues of zero-rating. As addressed above, most developing countries rely on the mobile internet penetration. A country like Chile that becomes the first country with a net neutrality law, shares the mobile internet-dominated characteristic (Rossini and Moore 16). The government targets the zero-rating plans carried out by mobile operators and big content providers like Facebook and Twitter, as well as blocking and slowing down practices performed by the ISPs. Net neutrality disputes in developing countries imbricate with the rhetoric of fostering connectivity. Coupled with a zero-rating scenario, the mobile operators as the internet service providers work closely with the content providers who support net neutrality in the United

20 States. Companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google inconsistently undertake a risky step to bring connectivity to developing countries. Here, the public interest groups counter the collaboration of ISPs and content providers to protect net neutrality. As Facebook rolls out the Internet.org application in many developing countries, the rhetoric of net neutrality poses a choice between maintaining open Internet or achieving connectivity. The governments of developing countries take multiple standpoints to respond to the situation (De Guzman and Singh 2015). The Indian government for instance, treats the zero-rating as a price discrimination rather than the initial net neutrality (Arora 2016). The evolution of the net neutrality debate indicates how the fundamental role of the Internet in contemporary society illustrates conflicting interests to control the network. The goal of connectivity bridging the digital divide around the world is considered as a necessary condition to improve development and scale down poverty in developing countries. The debate on net neutrality has transformed the policy to govern the Internet with insistence to integrate a human rights approach in its argument. To protect and invigorate citizen rights in the network should become the priority regardless how the government treats the particular case in the country (De Guzman and Singh 2015). This approach is also discussed by the Dynamic Coalition of Network Neutrality, stakeholder groups initiated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). It suggests that “preserving Internet neutrality means maintaining the power of individuals to make choices about how they use the Internet – what information to seek, receive, and impart, from which sources, and through which services” (McDiarmid and Shears 30). With such interpretation, defined zero-rating plans could be regarded as net neutrality infringement as long as the models confine the users’ choice. Despite its intention to provide an easy and affordable internet connection, citizen rights are paramount. Meanwhile, Facebook has interpreted the net neutrality in a conflicting manner. Not to mention that some countries have not issued regulations related to the net neutrality. The condition explains the case that Internet.org or the Free Basics application thrives in many developing countries without objections concerning business competitions or customer rights. Under this circumstance, the goal of connectivity may override the neutrality principle and sacrifice fundamental rights of internet access. In a stable partnership with mobile internet providers, Facebook interferes in the network together with the mobile network. Here, Facebook as the

21 operator of its application performs a gatekeeper role along with the service providers (Constine 2015). This will lead to questions at the protocol level. Hence, this research probes how Internet.org sets the internet protocol within Free Basics and whether Internet.org applies deep packet inspection or any intrusive techniques to identify the data and user’s habit. While from the innovation argument, it is important to consider how the technical requirements of Free Basics would influence the innovation within the ecosystem. In addition, assuming Free Basics limits the user’s choice, further analysis is imperative for examining how the platform affects the user’s experience. Each relevant argument in the waves of the net neutrality debate guides this research.

1.4 Facebook’s Internet.org and A Piece of The Internet

With Free Basics as its first manifestation of an accessible Internet, Facebook’s intention is now facing global protests. To discern its motives, it is worthwhile examining the whole picture of Facebook’s trajectory uniting people online. In an interview with David Kirkpatrick, Mark Zuckerberg revealed his belief, which is fundamental in guiding the development of Facebook and the conception of Internet.org as well. Zuckerberg argues that the more the network expands, the stronger it becomes (Kirkpatrick, 195). This view leads to the logic in which Facebook is more fruitful if it has more users in it. This case portrays the idea of the as Facebook’s fundamental principle because the series of nodes (individual) are nothing without connections (friendship). From book written by David Kirkpatrick, several pieces of the puzzle were combined explaining the quintessence of Facebook as well as its latest invention, Free Basics. The “gift economy” is what Mark Zuckerberg refers to in his thinking about the Internet (Kirkpatrick, 287). His vision for Facebook as a potlatch party, where the users make their contribution reciprocal, depicts Internet.org’s ideal vision that connectivity delivers common benefit. Thus, by bringing more people from every part of the world into the network, it will not only strengthen the network but also increase gift or contribution exchange in it. Although this may be true, the exchange that occurs on the Internet between the content or service providers and users does not function simply like a traditional potlatch. When users utilize online and content services, they need to trade the access with their personal information collected during the usage. Hence, the content providers wield the data to generate revenue through

22 online advertising within their service. Facebook gained 5.63 billion in revenue from selling advertising and 80% of the earnings came from mobile advertising (Isaac 2016; Facebook Newsroom 2016). The number of users also contributes to the increasing value of the company. As the number of active Facebook users increases each quarter and the revenue continually soars, Facebook’s stock continues to appreciate (Facebook Newsroom 2016). Then, the discussion of the gift economy and common benefit is difficult to balance with the company interest of market growth and profit making. The future of Facebook does not lie solely on the social media platform but also on its initiatives to set up communications infrastructure around the globe. While Facebook is not the only company who leans in this direction (e.g. Google’s Project Loon), Internet.org cultivates multiple avenues such as Free Basics, Connectivity Lab, and Express Wi-fi (Internet.org 2016). Connectivity Lab deals more with technology experiments, Free Basics and Express Wi-fi handles partnership with local parties providing affordable internet access to areas with low internet penetration. Notwithstanding, Zuckerberg denies that these divisions serve for profit making, at least not at the present time (Isaac 2016; Hempel 2016). This company concentrates on building universal connectivity in a digitally-divided world. Given the fact that there are currently estimated 3.4 billion people using the internet and around 4 billion people not using the internet (Kemp, 2016; Internet.org 2015; World Bank 2016). Indeed, I am aware that achieving universal, accessible and affordable Internet connections should become a primary objective, but connectivity alone cannot guarantee equal resource distribution and better development of countries. The emerging risks of inequality outweigh some advantages of digital technologies, in which better-educated and well-connected populations enjoy most of the advantages (World Bank 3). On a quest for network connectivity, Facebook has previously deployed its first free version of the through the Facebook Zero program (0.facebook.com). Facebook Zero officially launched in May 2010 offering free access to a stripped-down version of Facebook with a text-only mode interface by using the mobile site (Facebook Newsroom 2010). Facebook Zero collaborates with more than 50 mobile operators around the world, so the users of those Internet providers can delve into Facebook without incurring data charge. With this light rendition, the users are expected to log in faster albeit with no photo views possible.

23 The Facebook Zero program does not only apply to the areas with low internet penetration, but it is also available in countries like United Kingdom, France, and Australia. Even so, this program has successfully boosted the number of Facebook users in Africa by 114%, 18 months since Facebook Zero launched in the continent (Mims 2012). Although, it is still open for discussion how the program correlates directly with the increase in users. The arrangement of Facebook Zero requires Facebook to convince the mobile operators embracing the partnerships, as it would enlarge their market share by adding prospective customers. It is still unclear whether Facebook compensates the participating operators to open toll-free data for Facebook Zero (Mims 2012). Even if the partnership does not involve money, Facebook has much confidence that by introducing Facebook, more people are joining the network and turning into regular customers. Indeed, Facebook’s standpoint is justifiably confident, since it dominates the global social media landscape with 1.59 billion active users (Kemp 2016). With Facebook Zero, Facebook has positioned its social media platform as an entrance to the internet service. This becomes one of the early stories of unbundling services offered by mobile operators. Scale-down products and services such as Facebook Zero have been considered as one of the alternative and effective mechanisms to address the connectivity problem in developing countries along with prepaid systems, low-cost handsets, shared access and resource redistribution from wealthier to poorer users (Castells et.al. 220). Facebook apparently clings to the zero-rating models with the partnership scheme and transforms such models into the conception of Free Basics. Facebook Zero also sparks a fad of free and light versions that induces Wikipedia Zero and Google Free Zone to practice a similar model. The ‘Zero’ version moved away from net neutrality for several years until Chile, one of the targeted countries of Facebook Zero, issued a regulation on net neutrality in May 2014, which forbids this type of zero-rating model (Mirani 2014). Amid the net neutrality debate, Facebook insists on developing its large-scale partnership platform, the Internet.org. It began its data-free package of online services via a mobile application (app) in Zambia, collaborating with Airtel in May 2014 (Facebook Newsroom 2014). When it first launched the service, the Internet.org mobile app consisted of 13 services including Facebook, Accuweather, Google Search, Wikipedia, Messenger by Facebook, Airtel, a women’s rights app, Go Zambia Jobs, and much more. Airtel customers in Zambia can access

24 this application by downloading the mobile application (app) for Android or by logging into Facebook for Android app then enter the Internet.org app on Facebook. In a nutshell, Internet.org app seems like an app within an app because customers can access it through the Facebook app and the app itself contains several apps as well. Up to the time of writing, the app is only available for Android. After Zambia, some countries adopted the scheme, and the cooperating mobile operators now use it as a way of acquiring new customers. The Internet.org application is an amplified version of Facebook Zero. If the Facebook Zero means to offer a free service of stripped-down Facebook, then Internet.org stands for stripped-down Internet (Wall BBC). The Internet.org app also embodies Facebook’s DNA of platform assemblages. From the outset, Zuckerberg always emphasized building a platform (Kirkpatrick 217). Facebook should be more than just a social networking site. It needs to include software developers to contribute and build an app on top of Facebook. Even Facebook was very different before it transformed into a universal platform for external parties. Therefore, Internet.org app aims to accommodate other apps and services on it and introduce such contents as a preface to the internet for potential customers. Internet.org compresses the selected services into a lighter rendition so that they do not encumber the data traffic. Internet.org invites other online services to bring their contents to the application from commercial, NGO to government-related services. Akin to the previous attempt by Facebook when it encouraged developers to build an application inside Facebook’s social networking site. Internet.org holds the authority to decide which services can be inserted in the application (Internet.org 2015). The data-free feature applies limited only by the access to enjoy services inside the application. If the users do a query in Google within the app, they would be charged for data usage when they visit a website that appears on the results page. In the same way as Facebook’s platform, the online service providers or website developers are subjected to Internet.org’s criteria and technical protocols. As a platform, Internet.org engenders a new ecosystem of online services and contents coated as a basic, if not a low-set, of free internet. After the first move in Zambia, Internet.org landed in Tanzania (October 2014), (November 2014), Columbia (January 2015), India (February 2015), and the list continues. In most of the designated countries across the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and Latin America, Internet.org works not only with one mobile operator per country. There are partnerships with two or three operators in a few countries

25 (Internet.org, 2015). Soon after the massive invasion, a wave of protests emerged publicly criticizing the Internet.org application and condemning Facebook’s arrangement of the so-called free internet. From digital rights activists in India to a worldwide coalition deemed the Internet.org application to be masquerading as the real version of the internet and violating net neutrality (An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg Access Now; Levy 2015; Murthy, 2015). Internet.org anticipated these circumstances by posting a video by Mark Zuckerberg on May 4, 2015, defining what Internet.org is and how it is impossible to make the whole Internet free (Facebook Newsroom 2015). On 18 May 2015, Access Now posted a joint open letter directed at Mark Zuckerberg with several vital points agreed upon by more than 50 NGOs around the world (An Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg 2015). The open letter remarked that firstly, Internet.org infringes the net neutrality principle because it fails to preserve the open Internet by treating the contents and applications unequally, hampering users’ ability to experience the unlimited choices of the internet. Second, the coalition denounced zero-rating practices as structurally preferential, allowing mobile operators to play favorites for particular services. Third, it was the Internet.org label, which misled the users to think it is the whole Internet whereas it is only a piece of the internet. Fourth, the concerns over basic human rights including freedom of expression, privacy, and security, suggest that Internet.org protocols are vulnerable to surveillance either by the government or malicious actors. The last point, Internet.org practices two-tiered internet, ignoring the fact that millions of people are financially incapable of paying for data plans. I use these four points to guide my platform analysis, substantially emphasizing the protocols and arrangement. However, a previous study on zero-rating by Amba Kak as aforementioned in the previous chapter, has analyzed the experience of zero-rating application users. It took several months for Facebook to respond to the outcries of Internet.org. Along with the video by Mark Zuckerberg, Internet.org began to open an application for external developers so that they could submit their services to be part of the platform. Even with the submission scheme, Internet.org remains authoritative in determining which services are eligible. This maneuver is still inadequate to rejoin the allegation of the walled garden built by Internet.org. In September 2015, Internet.org made a significant move with changing the application name from Internet.org into Free Basics. Avoiding the impression of the full internet service, Internet.org emphasized its application is only offering several basic services (Facebook

26 Newsroom 2015). Furthermore, Internet.org started to show its commitment to protecting users’ privacy and security by embracing HTTPS within the app. Despite Facebook’s strong response to the allegations, resistance continues to grow. In Egypt, Free Basics terminated its operation after two months of activity and 3 million users, without any clear reason from the mobile operator or government (Statt 2015). Later on, a report by Reuters revealed that the official reason behind the prohibition was a competitive advantage (Abutaleb and Menn 2016). While the Reuters’ source disclosed that Facebook refused the government’s request to spy on users (Ibid). The most contentious battle took place in India, the second most- populated country in the world with only 15% internet penetration (Internet Live Stats 2016). After Internet.org commenced its operation in India with Reliance as the partnered mobile operator, on February 10, 2015, a net neutrality defenders platform named savetheinternet.in sent more than a million emails to the Telecom Authority of India (TRAI) to resist zero-rating services in the country (Dua 2016). Under the term zero-rating, Internet.org was not the only player in India; Airtel Zero played a similar game. Here, TRAI employed differential pricing as its angle defending net neutrality (Arora 2016). The government had to decide whether, through such arrangements, the network providers give a competitive advantage to certain apps and services. This specific angle of net neutrality also framed the demand proposed by the Save The Internet campaign. Facebook suffered an intense backlash not only from the digital activists but also journalists, opinion leaders, start-up companies and political figures in India. The critics also denounced Facebook for creating a walled-garden (Wadhwa 2016). In defense of its presence, Mark Zuckerberg wrote a plea in The Times of India in December 2015, insisting that Free Basics protects net neutrality and helps poor people out of poverty (Zuckerberg 2016). On the same day, a representative from savetheinternet.in, Nikhil Pahwa, noted his points, attacking Mark Zuckerberg for imposing a discriminative and limited access free internet, instead of adopting other possible ways to give a free internet to poor people (The Times of India 2015). Indeed, there are several potential ways to provide free internet without contravening the net neutrality principle. On February 8, 2015, TRAI decided to ban practices and arrangements by the service provider that exempt data caps to access apps or online services (Calamur 2016). Henceforth, Facebook lost its battle, and net neutrality defenders triumphed. Free Basics could not continue its operation in India ever since.

27 Meanwhile in Indonesia (and more than 30 countries), Free Basics walks freely without restriction, working closely with local service providers. A representative from Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Information even endorses Internet.org’s application by stating that Internet.org allows more impoverished people to enjoy the benefits of internet access (Nistanto 2015). It is important to realize that Indonesia is always part of Facebook’s outlook with more than 62.6 million users and 92.4% penetration levels continue to flourish (Kirkpatrick 286; We are Social 2015). It is the fourth most-populated country in the world with just over a third internet penetration (34%) yet high mobile penetration (126%) (We are Social 2016). It is evident that Mark Zuckerberg strives for a cooperative partnership with local service providers and government. Internet.org officially introduced its application in Indonesia on April 17, 2015, six months after Mark Zuckerberg’s official visit to the country. Oddly, the Internet.org application was first tested collaborating with XL Axiata, a mobile operator, which has partnered with Facebook for the Facebook Zero service. All of a sudden, Internet.org aborted its partnership with XL Axiata and launched the application with another mobile operator, Indosat Oreedoo (Prihadi 2015). The cancellation was not a matter of net neutrality, but was about a business deal disagreement. The director of Indosat Oreedoo claims that Internet.org or Free Basics targets rural populations rather than internet-literate urban dwellers and is also designed to be compatible with 2G connection for a potential market in remote areas (Nistanto 2015). According to a Dailysocial report, up until June 2015, Internet.org application has been accessed by a million Indonesian users who are mainly early Internet adopters (2015). In contrast, with net neutrality outcries in India, the rhetoric of connectivity moves smoothly in Indonesia. A quiet dissent only came from a group of digital activists, who also joined the global open letter to Mark Zuckerberg. At the same time, this condition confirms the accusation that Facebook gives poor internet for poor people and conceals its interest of expanding the network through corporate social responsibility actions (Murthy 2015; Pahwa 2016). After almost a year of implementing Free Basics, Facebook announced its progress during the F87 event in April 2016, reporting that Free Basics has reached 25 million users around the world

7 is an annual conference held by Facebook to gather developers and entrepreneurs who build products and services around the website.

28 (Facebook Newsroom 2016). This number indicates that Free Basics is only accessed by 1.67 percent of its 1.4 billion potential audience (Styles 2016). Indeed, compared to Facebook’s massive effort and the number of countries in which Free Basics operates, the accomplishment reflects that the platform’s implementation is still far from successful. Furthermore, neglecting the fact that Internet.org facilitates the service provider with a competitive advantage, Internet.org also does not resolve its restricted scheme for developers. Given this reality, I notice conflicting interpretations of several fundamental arguments that Facebook promotes. Certainly, Mark Zuckerberg has misled two central principles, human rights, and the net neutrality. Facebook is not supposed to speak on behalf of human rights and disadvantaged groups as an excuse for net neutrality infractions. The human rights framework has its principles, which preserve universality, participation, and non-discrimination. Another key point, diversity of content and user interactivity are paramount to a successful implementation of zero-rating (Stallman and Adams, 14-15). In line with the spirit of open internet architecture and net neutrality, Facebook needs to rethink its double standard position. As shown above, a critical investigation of the platform will be constructive to illustrate the contradictions of its argument from the platform politics perspective. And by taking Free Basics in Indonesia as the object of study, this research aspires to supply the debates with an example from another targeted country.

1.5 Facebook and The Power in the Network

Having discussed how zero rating intensifies the net neutrality debate in developing countries and the predominant role of Facebook behind it, I would like to define Facebook’s position within the network by employing Manuel Castell’s notion of the power in the networks. As the Internet becomes the primary backbone of people’s communication and information access, it is essential to analyze how power influences the direction of network architecture. Manuel Castells conceives of this concept to account for where power lies in the global network society and how it is being exercised. He identifies four different forms of power in the networks comprising networking power, network power, networked power, and network- making power (Castells 42). Although the difference between every type of power seems subtle, the difference is in the way that the power is being exerted. The

29 ‘networking power’ renders the actors who enact their power by forming a network, which involves resource accumulation, and determining who takes part in the network. If the ‘networking power’ emphasizes the gatekeeper role, the ‘network power’ deals with making the standards being adopted to regulate who can join the network. All kinds of power that existes in the network constitutes a relationship based on its objective. How power influences other powers defines the ‘networked power’, implying the multiple sources of power within the network. And to possess the influence, it needs the capacity of ‘network-making power’. This power manifests in two manners, programming and switching. According to Castells, ‘programming’ relates to the ability to establish the network and to program or reprogram the goals presented in the network (45). And ‘switching’ represents the competence to connect and assure the cooperation of different networks that have similar objectives to generate a strategy eliminating competition from other networks. Above all, the actors who play as 'programmers' and 'switchers' have the most significant structure of power, the ‘network-making power’. Although Manuel Castells does not elaborate further on a specific case in the book, I propose to link Facebook’s Free Basics position to those four forms of power in the networks. Free Basics as a platform integrates the internet service providers and the content providers in delivering its service. The fact that Facebook, one of the biggest application providers, designs Free Basic application cannot be separated from its intention to exercise its power in the network. Free Basics implementation in more than 30 developing countries around the world portrays how Facebook via its Internet.org initiative embodies those four forms of power in the networks. Facebook needs to cooperate with the mobile operator to put the zero rating application into practice in the selected countries. Before the global protest against the Free Basic’s zero rating system, Facebook arranged its cooperation below the surface, without any open calls for mobile operators to apply. It still needs to be investigated whether Facebook makes a proposal to all mobile operators available in the country or chooses several prospective operators. Through this mechanism, Facebook initiates its network of mobile operators. In offering the Free Basics proposal, Facebook convinces the mobile operators that the partnership is fruitful in the long run. On Internet.org’s website, Facebook introduces Free Basics as “a sustainable program that addresses each step of the new subscriber journey” (Internet.org). Besides the mobile operators, Facebook also needs to involve local or nonlocal content and

30 application providers to incorporate their contents in Free Basics. Despite the open invitation to mobile operators and content providers, it is Facebook who has the authority to include or exclude the partnership applicants. With this authority, Facebook practices the networking power that involves resource accumulation in the partnership. Free Basics as a platform is quite different from Facebook as a social media platform in assembling the content providers or developers within the system. When Facebook introduces itself as a platform, it provides Application Programme Interface (API) so every other service provider can make a request to interact and build an application on top of the system (Kirkpatrick 216). In Free Basics, the content and application providers have to submit their service to Internet.org and wait for the response as to whether the submission is eligible. However, the state of the arrangement between Internet.org and the content providers still requires further investigation. The question over whether Internet.org would approve submission of competitors’ content and application providers is also pertinent to explain the way Facebook exercises its networking power. To submit contents or applications, the content and application providers have to prepare their service according to the standards appointed by Facebook. The Free Basics platform designs its environment conforming to the agreement and objective between Facebook and the mobile operators. The Free Basics platform should be a lightweight version and lower data consuming than other updated versions of online services. Facebook has created a set of technical requirements as well as standard legal terms for the content providers (Facebook for Developers n.pag). By forcing these standards on the content providers, Facebook asserts its ‘network power', Facebook has made numerous efforts to gain significant support to make Free Basics available, from business partnerships to state power. The case in Chile with the net neutrality law and in India with differential pricing for data policy shows that state power may obstruct Free Basic implementation. Consequently, it is important for Facebook to influence another power outside its partnership network. The state has legitimate power to ban zero-rating practices like Free Basics and other zero-rating schemes performed by other actors. Otherwise, if Facebook successfully sets up its zero-rating plan, this may encourage other similar initiatives. And with more actors affected by Free Basics, it could even determine the direction of delivering internet access to low-income users. Another point to be considered, in some developing countries it is complicated to measure Internet penetration since Facebook penetration

31 often surpasses the percentage of internet penetration (Mirani 2015). In this event, Facebook could demonstrate the ‘networked power’. Moreover, as Manuel Castells notes, to set the network’s agenda, the actor depends on the ‘network-making power’ either by ‘programming’ or ‘switching’ (45). The programming capacity is demonstrated by constructing a network and programming the network according to the desired goal. At present, Facebook might not acquire the full capacity to be considered the ‘programmer’ in this sense. However, Facebook does meet the criteria of ‘switcher’. The ‘switcher’ bridges the cooperation of different networks and binds the common objective through a strategic partnership to eradicate competitions. Seeing that Facebook dominates zero-rating practices around the world with the Free Basics application, it has successfully established the ‘switching’ role. Castells warns that when the ‘switchers’ grows into single-purpose domination, the power dynamic relationship in the network society becomes more vulnerable (47). Free Basics is not merely a mobile application. It embodies how Facebook exerts its power within the network society. It is a platform assembling the resources of mobile operators as well as content providers. Free Basics also represents the contentious struggle of net neutrality and zero-rating in developing countries. The strategy manifested in the platform will eventually influence the end users’ experience in communicating with other people and accessing information. For instance, a current version of Free Basics has not included e-mail applications. It has supported Facebook’s Messenger application instead. All things considered, the framework provided by Manuel Castells is useful for interpreting the platform, as well as for situating the platform within the net neutrality debate.

32 2 RESEARCH DESIGN

There are multiple arguments as to whether Free Basics is coextensive or adverse to the open internet. The debates also pose various angles, which contribute rich insights for this study. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of clarity regarding how Free Basics performs the zero-rating model and what makes the initiative problematic. The design of the Free Basics application and the infrastructure that surrounds it determines the constraint and capacity of the platform. The underlying structure and system arrangement also governs the implementation and the adoption of Free Basics. This study presents the main question on how Free Basics (Internet.org) configures the platform and how it interacts with the net neutrality principle. This study divides the main question into seven sub-questions:

• How does the Free Basics platform work? • How does Free Basics arrange the zero-rating scheme? • What functions does Free Basics allow and restrict? • How do the constraints and affordances influence the users and developers? • To what extent does Facebook govern the Free Basics platform? • How does the Free Basics infrastructure relate to the net neutrality concept? • To what extent do external factors affect the relationship between Free Basics and net neutrality?

Consequently, the study accentuates the technical and social arrangement of the object, which is very challenging in practice. In the beginning, platform studies’ founders did not provide a fixed methodology to perform this approach (Parikka and Apperley 2). This research learns from the previous study that demonstrates platform studies and occurs in a similar context to this study. With that focus, the study relies on a qualitative approach and analysis, exploring multiple approaches of data collection methods about the theoretical framework. Qualitative methods and analyses provide an in-depth understanding of social phenomena (Silverman 32). As has been noted in the literary review, this study begins with platform studies as its main approach to dissect the Free Basics platform. This approach draws attention to a single platform, technically rigorous inquiry into how computing technologies function and a discussion on the cultural and societal

33 context in which the platform exists (Bogost and Montfort vii-viii). Additionally, the platform studies method also incorporates operational documents and direct observation of the object. At some point, this research resembles a particular ethnographic approach, which is described by Susan Leigh Star as ‘The Ethnography of Infrastructure’ (1999). According to Star, several ethnographic studies on information systems engage implicitly with the study of infrastructure (378). Although this research does not purely implement ethnography, it does not repudiate some similarities between the ethnographic study of infrastructure and platform studies.

2.1 Indonesia as The Free Basics’ Case Study

The Free Basics is a global-scale zero-rating plan, albeit its feature and capacity works differently according to the appointed countries. For the purpose of this study, I take the implementation of Free Basics in Indonesia as a case study. A study on the Free Basics deployment in the fourth most populous country in the world with the highest Facebook penetration may represent a distinctive contribution to the existing zero-rating and net neutrality literature. Indonesia is an archipelagic country located in Southeast Asia. This country has an estimated population of 254.5 million people with GDP per capita 3,475 USD (Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics 2014; World Bank 2016). The latest data by the Association of Indonesian Internet Service Providers shows that by 2014, there were 88,1 million Internet users in the country (20). Currently, Indonesia is one of the top ten countries with the highest number of internet users. Young people (aged 18-25) constitute 49% of Indonesian internet users (Indonesian Internet Users’ Profile 12). Most Indonesian internet users (85%) are online through mobile phones (Indonesian Internet Users’ Profile 24). According to The Citizen Lab’s report, “Indonesia does not have a centralized Internet infrastructure and has several to overseas networks” (The Citizen Lab 9). In the telecommunication market landscape, there are four GSM8 and three CDMA9 mobile operator companies. However, as seen in Table 2.2-1, the cellular network market in Indonesia is dominated by the top three players: Telkomsel, a majority state-owned

8 Global System for Mobile Communications is the default global standard for mobile communications developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). 9 Code Division Multiple Access a channel access method used by various radio communication technologies

34 company; Indosat Ooredoo, previously state-owned and now 65% owned by Qatari telecommunications company, Qtel; and XL Axiata, a private company part of Axiata group (Indonesia Investments 2015; Indosat Ooredoo n.pag). With regards to mobile phone diffusion in Indonesia, it is interesting to note that by 2015 there were 308.5 million mobile connections and 162.3 million unique mobile users (We are Social 226). Most Indonesian mobile phone users rely on prepaid packages (98%) (We are Social 226). Indonesia has the third largest Facebook user population in the world with an estimated 62 million users, with the highest penetration of Facebook users (92,4%) (eMarketer 2015).

No Mobile operator Subscriber (million) Base Station10

1 Telkomsel 152.6 100,000

2 Indosat Ooredoo 69.7 40,756

3 XL Axiata 41.9 52,000

Table 2.1-1 Top The number of users and base station from the top three mobile operators in Indonesia. (data source: Telkomsel Annual report 2015; Indosat Annual Report 2015; XL Axiata 2015, Noor, 2015 http://inet.detik.com/read/2015/06/17/110552/2944604/328/indosat-salip-xl-juaranya-masih- telkomsel retrieved on May 15, 2016) 2.2 Platform Studies and The Ethnography of Infrastructure

The term platform has been used excessively across various fields, particularly in the new media sphere. Stakeholders utilize the term for certain purposes and craft the messages to have a particular consequence for a specific audience within a specific context (Gillespie 359). It can be interpreted in different ways as Tarleton Gillespie delineates the multiple interpretations of the platform in computational, architectural, political, or figurative contexts (349). In the computational realm, platform signifies “an infrastructure that supports design and use of particular application” (Ibid). , co-founder of proposes a specific illustration of a platform on the internet. He explains, “the key term in the definition of platform is ‘programmed’. If you can program it, then it’s a platform. If you can’t, then it’s not” (2007). In the architectural context the term refers to physical structures that are human-made or naturally constructed. The platform also implies a nuanced interpretation, which

10 Base station is used in the context of mobile telephony, wireless computer networking and other wireless communications and in land surveying.

35 Gillespie notes as conceptual usage explaining the ground, foundation, event, condition, calculation and much more (350). Within political circumstance, platform indicates a neutral position that opens to all, flat, and nondescript. These literal and figurative interpretations of platform allow flexibility and specificity for content intermediaries to identify their practices. The application of the term platform embeds it in a particular political motivation and gives the impression of something open and democratic. Before the global protest condemned the Internet.org application, Facebook did not label the application as a platform nor invite external developers to submit their contents. The politics of platform fabricates the structure of the Free Basics application as well as the narrative representing it. Platform studies points to a relatively new concept within new media, which was introduced during the 2007 Digital Arts and Cultures conference. Ian Bogost and Nick Montfort present this approach through their series of publications on platform studies, starting with the title “Racing the Beam: The Atari Video Computer System”. By initially focusing on the gaming device as subject, the platform-centric approach intended to fill in the gaps in new media studies that had extensively investigated the cultural aspects of particular software run on the platform (“Platform Studies: Frequently Asked Questions” 1). Therefore, platform studies suggest concentrating on “how the hardware and software of platforms influences, facilitates, or constraints particular forms of computational expression” (Bogost and Montfort, “New Media As Material Constrain” 1). Platforms activate and deactivate certain new media actions depending on how the features support the operation. Hence, a closer and thorough inspection of the hardware and software of the platform aims to illustrate the experience of both sides, the creator and the user of the platform. Bogost and Montfort emphasize the layered contexts related to a platform that navigates the analysis (“New Media As Material Constraint” 2). The first layer is ‘Reception’, which underlines how the new media platform is being received and comprehended. The second layer, ‘interface’, looks into how the platform allows remediation through its interface. In the ‘Interface’ layer, it is also possible to include the ‘reception’ part. Then the third layer is ‘form or function’ that draws attention to the cybertext studies and derives from former studies on cinema and literature. The next layer is ‘code’, a field that inspects the software programming aspect of a platform and relates to software and code studies. And finally, the ‘platform’ is the last layer which bridges the new media work to the cultural context of the production.

36 To focus on this level means involving the previous and consequent layers of coding, forms, and interfaces. Since the platform settles below other layers, it calls for deeper investigation across its technical features attached to the material side. This study utilizes the ethnography of infrastructure as an approach that supports the primary method to gain a comprehensive understanding of a platform. The ethnography of infrastructure offers an extensive insight to investigate the relation of people, technologies, organizations and institutions, and other infrastructures from the field of science, technology and society (STS) studies. The platform studies method takes into account the underlying narrative inside the platform, particularly in the form and function layer. Akin to this point, studying technological infrastructure through an ethnographic lens delves into a master narrative that predisposes the infrastructure (Star 384). Alongside the master narrative, the ethnography of infrastructure encourages making the invisible work in the information system visible, such as the code and the design (Star 385). By disclosing the unseen elements of the infrastructure, a study of infrastructure can discover the production and the hidden tasks of articulation to understand the constraints and affordances (Star 387). In this regard, the platform studies approach with its layered analysis strives for a comprehensive understanding of the platform’s front-end, back-end, and the context in which it is situated. A recent study on the SMS in mobile for development (m4d) intervention performed by Melissa Loudon integrates a platform studies and ethnography of infrastructure approach (2016). In the context of studying the SMS as a popular platform for m4d interventions, Loudon applies the ethnographic approach that puts forward an observation and an explanation through historical research, documentary sources and additional interviews (6). Hence, this research adopts the integration of ethnographic practice on studying the infrastructure to implement the platform studies approach and the methodology is influenced by the previous study.

2.3 Data Collection

This research explores the Free Basics platform as the object of study and aims to rejoin the research questions by combining several methods that support the inquiries. This study underlines a question of ‘how’ the platform operates and fabricates certain affordances and constraints that shape the net neutrality discourse. In order to answer

37 ‘how’, several methods are deployed to achieve a deeper understanding of the platform.

2.3.1 Participant Observation

As has been discussed above, the platform studies method corresponds with the ethnographic approach in analyzing infrastructure. Central to the ethnographic perspective, the researcher must observe actively from the point of view of the subject of the study or in other words, ‘encountering a world firsthand’ (Silverman 43). Accordingly, the researcher plays what Michael Agar calls a ‘learning role’ rather than a ‘testing role’ like in quantitative research (qtd. in Silverman 43). In making sense of the platform, I carried out an observation by taking the role as user of the Free Basics platform. Since Free Basics is a country-specific application, I conducted my observation in Indonesia, as one of its targeted countries. I ran Free Basics in application and browser mode interchangeably every day for ten days consecutively (from April 7, 2016 to April 17, 2016). I used a low-end mobile device typed ADVAN Vandroid S4f, which is equipped with OS Android Kitkat 4.4, Quad core 1,2 GHz processor and GSM 3.5 G technology. Using a particular type of device also influences the experience. Free Basics targets people who have not experienced the internet because the investment for data subscription is higher than a mobile phone price. By using a low-end type of mobile device, I underwent an observation within a specific environment. To activate the Free Basic platform, I installed an Indosat Ooredoo SIM card. I experienced Free Basics personally to learn the usability and analyze the front-end’s interface. The observation gave major insisghts into the engagement with the contents and services inside the platform as well as the assessment of the performance of the zero-rating access. Within this ‘learning’ process, aside from experiencing the front part, this study also analyzes the back part as manifested in the platform’s source code. The application version of Free Basics produces an Android Development Kit (.apk) that needs to be parsed to obtain the source code. The technical overview of the underlying architecture was consulted to acquire rigorous investigation into how the platform is designed and run. Parsing and interpreting the source code requires a particular skill of programming language. For this purpose, as part of my learning process, I sought advice from an expert that assisted me in dismantling the Software

38 Development Kit. During the observation process, I engaged with typical processes of observation, from a descriptive observation at the early stage that led to a focused observation. In the beginning, the descriptive observation paid attention to everything and after acquiring more understanding of the environment, the process shifted to a focused observation, eliminating irrelevant information (Angrosino and De Perez 677). In the observation process of front-end and back-end, I explored everything that I encountered during my early learning phase of the platform’s front-end. While during back-end analysis, a focused observation was conducted to examine the configuration. The focused observation followed every layer enclosed in Free Basics as suggested by the platform studies approach. From the operation, interface, function, and code to the platform layer, I based my inquiry on that structure. However, there are intersections among layers that are found during platform operation. I examined how Facebook arranges the Internet protocol within Free Basics. Given that the protocol is crucial to facilitate the assemblages of interconnected subjects (Galloway and Thacker 9). Also, I probed whether the protocol set up by Facebook accommodates the protocol’s virtue including robustness, contingency, interoperability, flexibility, and heterogeneity (Ibid). Such protocol virtue is fundamental to operate the network as has been brought up in the initial Internet architecture. Through the technical aspect, I parsed the way Facebook set up a zero- rating service in Free Basics. Along with the technical examination, I concentrated on the interface layer of the Free Basics platform and linked the interface capability within Google’s Android environment. Thus, I have drawn on personal experience using Free Basics to explore the interface and engage further with the platform.

2.3.2 Content Analysis

The platform studies method is considered as a materially grounded discourse and its discursive formation derives from the archive of developer interviews, software and other relevant publications (Apperley and Parikka 6). This consideration confirms how ethnography handles texts. Texts may include any official documents and other publications that have been very helpful to support an ethnographic approach. Texts should be not considered as a substitute for observation, and it should be treated as a process, which represents reality (Silverman 128). Incorporating textual archives in this study can be regarded as an endeavor to follow the historical course of the

39 platform’s development and the context around it. To explore the infrastructure, Susan Leigh Star suggests a fieldwork that combines a historical and literary analysis, interviews, and observation, system analysis and usability studies (382). All documents are produced in specific contexts and are meant to address particular objectives. As a result, incorporating official documents and relevant publications in the data collection process strengthens the narrative surrounding Free Basics. I analyzed the technical guidelines made by Facebook for the external content or service providers to understand how Facebook configures the platform. The guidance also suggests the constraints of the platform in mediating external contents and applications. By using information provided by Facebook on the Internet.org website and Facebook’s newsroom, I investigated the privacy policy, terms and conditions, as well as the legal guideline made for external parties. The platform’s policy influences the scope that the platform embodies. It is important to note, the Free Basics platform operates only in designated countries. This context-specific aspect also affects the context of the documents that I collected. In addition to most documents from Facebook that are available in the Indonesian language, I also included relevant documents in English. Alongside the policy or terms and conditions documents issued by Facebook, I incorporated Free Basics’ press releases, frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), reports and promotional materials. All of these documents are publicly available on Facebook’s Newsroom and Help page as well as Internet.org’s website. Besides collecting documents about Free Basics that are issued by Facebook, I also collected materials from Indosat Ooredoo, the cooperating mobile operator in Indonesia that can be found on its website and within the platform. Furthermore, I examined relevant documents from the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and Information to analyze the context of the findings.

2.3.3 Semi-Structured Interviews

While using the platform studies as the primary approach to this study, another method of collecting data offered potential in investigating the Free Basics. As a new platform that sparks controversy, the research requires comprehensive sources to be considered. Thus, to add clearer understanding on the Facebook arrangement and to clarify relevant arguments derived from the literature review, I carried out three

40 interviews with two representatives from a digital rights non-governmental organization (NGO) and one from the government. For this purpose, I applied a semi- structured interview method. A semi-structured interview is arguably considered the most significant method of conducting a research interview because of its flexible structure and the effective data quality (Gilham 70). Semi-structured refers to the similar questions that are posed to all involved subjects, and it implies a form of questions that are developed to assure the topic is focused (Ibid). The developed questions represent the topic and the interview sequence and act as the interview guide. The interview guide can be developed thematically in line with the research theme, theoretical framework and dynamics of the interpersonal relationship during the interview (Steinar and Brinkmann 129). A semi-structured interview works like a casual conversation, yet it has a specific objective and formation. Steinar and Brinkmann suggest that the semi- structured interview’s question should be brief and simple (132). It has to be manageable to probe detailed questions and not be too restrictive at the same time. Therefore, while a set of questions should be prepared in advance of the semi- structured interview, the interviewer should be also be able to prepare supplementary probing questions during the interview (Gilham 73). Considering the research objective, the semi-structured interview is deployed to gain an authentic and in-depth response from the respondents. Furthermore, semi-structured interviews allow more room for improvisation during the interview session. It is more flexible than the structured interview that requires fixed questions, and standardized procedures that limit the response and interpretation (Brennen 27). The unstructured interview, is not relevant for this study, because it aims for complex voices, emotion, and involves the feelings of the subject (Brennen 28). Therefore, a semi-structured interview is most suitable for this research. As discussed in the literature review, the implementation of Free Basics has involved other related actors including Internet.org, the mobile operators, the content providers, the digital rights activists, and the government. The digital activists that I interviewed were involved in the global protest against the Internet.org. I intended to collect more information and use the data from the interview to support the platform analysis. At the outset, I planned to interview a representative from the Internet.org Foundation (Facebook), Indosat Ooredo (the mobile operator that brings the zero- rating service), digital rights activists and the Ministry of Communication and

41 Information in Indonesia. It turned out that making initial contact with certain actors is quite a challenging process. While I managed to make appointments with two digital rights activists and the representative from the government, the other two relevant sources were hard to reach. I approached Internet.org several times through its official contact channel on the website and Facebook page and through a relative that works at Facebook. Unfortunately, the Internet.org did not respond to the inquiries so this research excludes interviews from Internet.org’s representatives. A similar situation occurred with the mobile operator, which did not appoint its representative to be interviewed although gave an initial response. As a result, this research rejoins the main question through observation and documents and complements the context with existing interviews.

2.4 Data Analysis

In a qualitative research, a researcher plays the role of an “instrument” rather than a designer of objective instruments to test and measure variables as in quantitative research (Schutt 325). The researcher delves into a case thoroughly and constantly reflects on the interpretation. Analyzing data in qualitative research is a back-and- forth process in collecting, reflecting and interpreting the text (Schutt 324). The process of analyzing fieldwork records starts during the observation process. The research questions underline the how and what of a single case. This research works with observation and semi-structured interview methods. These methods are performed to explore a particular platform in a specific context. Therefore, for analyzing the data, this research takes a case-oriented understanding approach. A case-oriented understanding analysis seeks to understand a social phenomenon from the standpoint of the participants (Schutt 344). It indicates an interpretive research that provides a different way to explain social phenomena (Ibid). I combine this analysis approach with the platform studies framework, in which several layers of the platform are dissected. The platform studies framework has already highlighted what elements of the data the researcher is supposed to explore. During the observation and interviewing period, it is crucial to create a contact summary or record immediately as it is useful to organize data (Miles and Huberman 52). A contact summary assists the preparation before a further step of the analysis. I

42 kept the screenshots of the application, which show the process, interface, design and other elements in the platform. Afterward, the documentation of the data is organized into concepts according to the conceptual framework that has guided the data collection process. As Russel Schutt suggests, identifying and refining key concepts is a significant step of the iterative process of qualitative research (328). In this step, the collected data are categorized and coded according to the conceptual framework. I created a matrix that facilitated my data coding from the interview and platform observation. For observation data, the matrix is used to classify the data into the layers applied in platform studies. While for the interview data, the matrix is created as specified on the issue that is being discussed during the interviews. The actors that are interviewed in this research also identify in the interview data matrix. This process also filters and excludes the irrelevant data. Following this process, the analysis process continues to examine the relationship among collected data. This step practices the course of making sense of the data according to the focus of inquiry before generating the conclusion (Schutt 330; Miller and Huberman 91). Then of relationship is exemplified in the case study (the platform) analysis.

43 3 RESEARCH FINDINGS

Through conducting participant observation, content analysis and semi-structured interviews, this study gathered substantive data unfolding how the Free Basics undertakes a specific type of zero-rating practice. Moreover, the findings expound how the platform shapes the net neutrality discussion with its partnership and technical configuration. In this chapter, I divide the research findings into three parts to elaborate the platform and the context surrounding and responding to its presence. I begin with the platform’s flow of operation from every angle including the front-end analysis and the back-end analysis. The front-end analysis focuses on the platform’s interface, form, features and usability. The back-end analysis foregrounds the source code and how Free Basics manages the internet traffic. The next part describes how the platform enacts its partnership with the external content and service developers and generates its ecosystem. The last section explicates the evolving discussion and response towards the net neutrality principle as interpreted from the interviews.

3.1 How Free Basics Functions 3.1.1 General Application

There are two ways to access Free Basics functions. Free Basics can be accessed through the Android Application and browser (). For the browser version, one needs a mobile phone with a particular system including Operating System Android (Android), iPhone Operating System (iOS, Apple), , and Blackberry 10 Series. For Android application version, it entails a device with Android. Free Basics only works in the designated countries when using Free Basic's partner SIM (Subscriber Identification Module) card and the related contract. In this study, the SIM card used to run Free Basics is IM3 Ooredoo from Indosat Ooredoo. As stated in the previous chapter, Indosat Ooredoo is the second largest telecommunication service and network provider in Indonesia. The company maintains three brands of the mobile carrier including Matrix Ooredoo, Mentari Ooredoo and IM3 Ooredoo and holds 22% of the mobile operator market share in Indonesia. Indosat Ooredoo provides communication services for 69.7 million subscribers most of whom are prepaid subscribers (69 million subscribers) (Indosat Ooredoo Annual Report 2015).

44 The Free Basics platform can be accessed through those three brands of SIM card. In Indonesia, Free Basics only cooperates with one mobile service provider, Indosat Ooredoo. Indosat Ooredoo also has a partnership with Facebook to deploy Facebook Zero. Therefore, all Indosat Ooredoo customers have unlimited free access to a “compressed” version of Facebook. Free Basics can be used on 2G (Second Generation) cellular network coverage and above (3G and 4G). Prior to utilization, a user needs to set the network setting on the mobile phone according to the mobile operator's instructions. As seen in Figure 3.1-1, it is very important to change the APN (Access Point Name) in the mobile phone’s setting to “indosatgprs” or the platform will not run on the device. If the user wants to access the Free Basics platform in the application, the user has to download the application in the Google Play Store. Free Basics can be operated through most browsers that support the required system by visiting the http://freebasics.com in the browser. However, the Free Basics’ browser version cannot be accessed with Xpress and UC Browser, standard browsers available on a feature phone11 model.

Figure 3.1-2 APN Setting in Figure 3.1-1 Introductory Android Operating System Page of Free Basics in the (source: Screenshot, Application version. (source: Ramadhon, April 7, 2016) Screenshot, Ramadhon, April 7, 2016)

11 A feature phone is a class of mobile phone; the term is typically used as a retronym to describe low- end mobile phones, which are limited in capabilities in contrast to a modern smartphone.

45 Figure 3.1-2 displays the introductory page of Free Basics. Inside the platform, the user does not need to log in to activate the service. The user can directly choose the contents or services and click on the selected content to visit. Several contents and services will promote their mobile application. If the user clicks the promotion, Free Basics will ask the user to leave the application and will offer data subscription packages to continue to download the mobile application from the Google Play Store. In the application version, the user can keep accessing content and services inside the application. For certain contents and services like Facebook and Messenger, the user is directed to the browser without data charge. As seen in Figure 3.1-3, the user continues to use Facebook and Messenger within the browser environment, and the browser retains the website cookies. Aside from this mechanism, the user can click to the desired content to visit and explore further.

Figure 3.1-3 Free Basics Directs Facebook Access to Browser (source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, April 10, 2016)

It is important to note that within the Free Basics functions, access to the platform is not totally free. Free Basics is arguably free at a certain point. However, the mobile operator determines a data quota for the access to be exempt from data charge. The quota applies differently depending on the user's location. In general, the daily allocation to access Free Basics without data charge is 25 MB (Megabyte) per day. In certain areas of the country such as Java, Lampung, Baturaja, Bali and Papua,

46 Indosat Ooredoo gives an additional quota of 50 MB per day for a month. Meanwhile, Indosat’s customers who reside in regions such as Sumatera, Madura, Kalimantan (Borneo) and Nusa Tenggara, enjoy an additional allocation of 35 MB per day for a month. This variation may be based on the distribution of the base station and the low number of Internet users on these islands. As seen in Figure 3.1-4, Papua and Kalimantan have the lowest number of Internet users.

Figure 3.1-4 A Map of the distribution of Internet users in Indonesia. There are 18.6 million users in Sumatera, 52 million users in Java and Bali, 4.2 million users in Kalimantan, 7.3 million users in Sulawesi, 5.9 million users in Papua. (Source: Indonesian Internet Users’ Profile 2014, 20

Along with a Free Basics promotion, the mobile operator also advertises a ‘cheap internet package’ (data subscription) starting from IDR 5,000 (equals to a can of coke) for 50 MB and IDR 10,000 (equals to a kilo of rice) for 150 MB monthly. When the user uses Free Basics, the user will get quota reminders twice. First, when the user has used Free Basics for 20 MB and the second one when the user has reached the limit 25 MB per day. Regarding the phone credit, the user still can access Free Basics even if they have zero phone credit. The user cannot access Free Basics with regular WiFi connection, but the user can connect to the platform through Super WIFI (the Indosat Ooredoo's WiFi service). Regarding the speed, Free Basics runs on a maximum speed of 7.2 Mbps (Megabit per second)12. In the 2G network, the data delivery speed decreases compared to the 3G network. Consequently, contents and services run slower in 2G and in some cases, fail to open as shown in Figure 3.1-5.

12 The 7.2 Mbps is a standard maximum speed for 3G mobile internet connection. This capacity is sufficient for online gaming purpose. However the performance depends on the several factors such as device performance, proximity to the base station and the network capacity.

47

Figure 3.1-5 A Content Failed to Open in 2G connection (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, April 12, 2016)

3.1.2 Front-end Analysis

The interface of the Free Basics platform creates similar navigation experience to a general browser in terms of its features (e.g. , refresh, and backward - forward, history). The platform also records the most-used services and displays that services at the top. Nonetheless, in the Free Basics, the user is already offered fixed selections that are organized in order with a category. As a result, the user cannot browse any website that the user wants. Different from the typical browser environment, the Free Basics platform does not provide a multi-tab experience, so users are unable to open more than one service simultaneously. As shown in Figure 3.1-6, on the main page, it has More Services, Bookmarks, Share, History, and Options. Under the options menu, there are language setting, Help Center, Report a Problem, and a short description about the Free Basics platform. The loading of contents inside the platform took the author 7 to 11 seconds with a well-functioning mobile internet connection.

Figure 3.1-6 Menu in the Free Basics (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhoon, April 7, 2016)

48

Figure 3.1-7 Marketplace website display the listing in the Free Basics (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, April 10, 2016)

The platform functions as a sort of catalog of several types of online contents and services. As shown in Figure 3.1-8, the contents and services are offered in a categorized form decided by the provider and classified based on the content's feature (e.g. communication, education, sports and entertainment, news, finance, etc.). This arrangement is very different from a normal setting of a website browser experience, in which the users can type any content’s domain to visit the website. Since Free Basics wants to deliver the contents in a lightweight version (so it will not weigh the traffic), it forfeits the quality of the contents and services. Few contents like Kompas.com (a well-known Indonesian newspaper) and Wikipedia can be loaded responsively and maintain their original versions. Most contents and services seem quite different from their usual rendering but still function properly. Unfortunately, many applications cannot display the content properly like their usual displays, and even if they load the content or service, they deliver it poorly. The user also cannot see a video or perform a financial transaction within the platform. Some marketplace services (e.g. Tokopedia13 and OLX14) only display the listing or inquiry with low quality images, but do not provide the capacity to contact the offered listing (see Figure 3.1-7). For the case of sharing contents in the Free Basics, although there is an

13 Tokopedia is now one of Indonesia’s biggest online marketplace. Tokopedia provides a customer to customer (C2C) retail by providing a platform for individual entrepreneurs and small/medium businesses to open online stores. 14 OLX is is a classified ads website in Indonesia focused on buying and selling products and services online.

49 option to share content, the user cannot utilize the sharing feature with free data. This feature demands data subscription. The user cannot customize the order of contents selection because the list of featured contents is fixed. As seen in Figure 3.1-9, the platform allows the users to add the predetermined contents and services with more options available. There is also a bookmark feature in the platform, so the user can mark favorite contents or services and visit them again immediately. Users are allowed to change the language setting (Indonesian or other local languages or English). The Free Basics lets users add more services on the front page with other options offered by the platform.

Figure 3.1-9 Adding more services in Figure 3.1-8 Categories in Free Free Basics Basics browser version (source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, (Source: Screenshot, April 7, 2016) Ramadhon, April 8, 2016)

In an application-based environment of Free Basics, common browsing habits transform into a finite experience of accessing online content. Normally, an app provides a specific service and content according to its main capacity (e.g. dictionary, music, mobile banking, etc.). The users can enjoy some contents and services inside the application, but when users access Facebook or Messengers, they will be directed to a browser. While in the browser version of Free Basics, users only need to visit Free Basics's domain to access contents and services featured on the platform. The platform will calculate data usage while a customer is using the platform. The platform cannot display pictures with high-definition quality, video and any materials

50 larger than 1 MB. In some contents and services, information is not displayed properly. This limitation makes the user unable to access maximum information. Two financial-related services available on the platform cannot be operated inside the free data consumption scheme. From the interface’s flow, all contents and services are less dynamic as they appear in standard mode because Free Basics prevents the developers from using JavaScript. Free Basics tracks the user's consumption of the contents. Consequently, the platform can display most used contents and recall the history of contents and services visited previously. Free Basics has a "search" feature and loads inquiry results that come from Wikipedia and Facebook. From the visual and interface side, using Free Basics via the application provides a better user experience than the website version.

Figure 3.1-10 Prompt to get a data Figure 3.1-11 Prompt to get a data subscription when limit is exceeded package in financial application (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, April (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, 10, 2016) April 11, 2016)

What the user can do with the platform is very limited regarding data caps, features, and contents. First, the daily quota for free data as instructed by the mobile operator prevents users from exploring more services for longer periods of time within the platform (See Figure 3.1-10 and 3.1-11). Second, the services' quality of presentation is low and restricted. The user cannot see videos and photos with high- resolution, perform a financial transaction or upload any materials. Too many

51 limitations to harness the services selection in Free Basics may discourage the user from engaging further with the platform. But, the users would likely be hooked by the free Facebook Zero, a stripped-down version of Facebook (and Messengers) with or without Free Basics.

3.1.3 Back-end Analysis

The Free Basics application is built with a Java programming language. The Android Software Development process usually utilizes Java programming language and uses the Android Software Development Kit (SDK). Alongside Java, in the back-end of the platform, Free Basics works with JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) and PHP (Hypertext Preprocessor) to connect with the content provider’s website server and deliver the contents and services in the platform. The Java is an object-oriented programming language developed by Sun Microsystems (now owned by Oracle15). It is one of the most frequently used programming languages, known for its flexibility (for example, it can run in a browser window or in a virtual machine that doesn't require a browser). The JSON is a lightweight data-interchange format. It can be a way to store information in an organized, easy-to-access manner. The JSON enables the application to be able to load data quickly and asynchronously, or in the background without delaying page rendering. The PHP is a server-side scripting language designed for website development but also used as a general-purpose programming language (PHP’s Documentation). It is known as a server-sided language because the PHP doesn't get executed on the originating computer, but on the computer that requested the page. The Free Basics platform follows most conventions in the Android-based application by using a Java programming language. Java is popular in this context for several reasons. Android Software Development suggests the Java from the outset (Android Developers Guide). Suppose the Free Basics platform aims for a versatile operation and an extensible development, Java enables the platform to do so. Java is known for its flexibility because it is designed to be 'write once, run anywhere' (WORA). It means Java can be developed in any device and run in a heterogeneous environment without needing to recompile (Oracle). Since Java is organized in units

15 Oracle is an American multinational computer technology corporation. The company specializes in developing and marketing database software and technology, cloud engineered systems and enterprise software products.

52 identified as classes (class-based), it can extend the code by loading new classes (See Figure 3.1-12). This makes Java a dynamic code, suitable for developing a platform. Even Java itself is considered to be a platform. The Free Basics platform has to be adaptable with most mobile device because it targets millions of users around the world. Hence, Free Basics requires a portable programming language to develop with. Aside from portability, Free Basics strives for a lightweight, user-friendly and fast loading operation. To fulfill this objective, Free Basics runs JSON (JavaScript Object Notation) on its source code to deliver the contents and services from the external party. JSON is a language-independent data format and a variety of programming language that can parse and generate JSON data. JSON is used most likely because it is considerably easy for humans to read and write, and is simple for software to parse and create (JSON’s Introduction). According to Oracle, "JSON is often used for serializing structured data and exchanging it over a network, typically between a server and web applications". A visible manifestation of JSON's effect is that the platform can load data quickly and asynchronously, or in the background without delaying page rendering.

Figure 3.1-12 Preview of Free Basics’s SDK, organized in classes (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, April 12, 2016)

3.1.4 The Middleman in The Network

Facebook standardizes the traffic made from Free Basics. All traffic requires stopping by in Facebook's proxy server. A proxy server is a server that works as 'middleman' for requests from clients (users) that looks for resources from other servers. Facebook

53 only permits content and service that are free from weighty elements. After passing through Facebook's server, Free Basics will let the traffic reach its designated content or service. Free Basics needs to identify whether the traffic comes from its platform and associated mobile operator's SIM card. For this reason, Free Basics basically establishes a VPN (Virtual Private Network) connection, so that its traffic can be routed to Facebook's server before it interacts with the content’s or service’s server. Although there are several VPN mobile applications available in Google Play Store, Free Basics employs a VPN with a specific purpose. Some VPN apps such as Tunnelbear, VYPR VPN or Hideman VPN, are intended for security and accessing geo-blocked sites. Whereas, Free Basics uses such mechanisms to perform the zero- rate capacity and lightweight content. As seen in Figure 3.1-13 the traffic that has passed through Facebook’s proxy servers will be decrypted so the traffic will be identified as traffic from the server (not the originator).

Figure 3.1-13 Free Basics Proxy Server (Source: Facebook for Developers https://developers.facebook.com/docs/internet-org/platform- technical-guidelines retrieved on April 20 2016)

Acting as a 'middleman', Free Basics routes the traffic from the user to Facebook’s proxy servers first and delivers it to the appointed content and service afterward. Inside the application’s code, Free Basics embeds Onavo as a plug-in to monitor the activity within the platform and to identify the carrier that the user is using. Onavo is known as the developer that develops mobile utility apps, which monitor and calculate data usage as well as compress and protect data. Facebook bought Onavo in 2013 (Lunden, 2013). As shown in Figure 3.1-14, with Onavo, the Free Basics platform can monitor and analyze how the user uses mobile data, as well as the phone. It identifies the type of SIM card and device (See Figure 3.1-15). This

54 function resonates with all kinds of information that Free Basics collects in its server. From the practical side, this feature allows Free Basics to analyze the data usage of the users and give this information to the cooperating mobile operators so it can deliver zero-rate access. Additionally, in the case of Indosat-Ooredoo, Free Basics needs to inform users when they reach the limit of daily quota. The type of data that the Onavo enables Free Basics to collect aligns with the privacy policy that Free Basics presents in the platform. In addition to this point, Free Basics retains the user’s information in the Facebook server for 90 days (see Table 3.1-1). Suppose a user wants Free Basics to remove the user’s data that has been collected, the user has to contact Free Basics in the ‘Help’ section.

Figure 3.1-14 Onavo detected in Free Basics’s code (Source: Screenshot SDK, Ramadhon, April 12, 2016)

Figure 3.1-15 The information as identified with Onavo inside Free Basics’s code (Source: Screenshot SDK, Ramadhon, April 12, 2016)

55 Type of Collected Data Not Collected Remarks information

The domain or name of the The collected information is Third-Party Service stored in Facebook's server for accessed through Free 90 days that it is aggregated and Basics de-identified by Facebook.

The amount of data The cookies are stored to enable (megabytes) used when the the services to function properly users access or use the third- without data charges. party service.

Information about the Facebook may share usage things that the users do information (specifically, Web or or the content that the megabytes used and overall services users view within any level of use of Third-Party information Phone number Free Basics service Services) with the mobile operated by a third- operator in a form that is party combined with other Free Basics users who use that mobile operator.

If the users are accessing Third-Party Services through browser version of Facebook also share such usage Free Basics, the cookies information with the providers placed by the websites that of Third Party Services. the users access will be stored by Facebook in an encrypted format

Facebook may let the mobile operators know which of their The type of device customers’ specific phone numbers are engaged with Free Basics.

Browser

Operating system

App version Basic device and usage App ID information. If a user wants to delete information that personally Device ID identifies the user associated with the use of Free Basics, the Time and date of the user needs to contact Facebook connection through the Free Basics.

Mobile operator

IP address

Phone number

56 Battery and signal strength

Country

Language setting

Third-Party Services that the users search for or use in Free Basics.

Table 3.1-1 Free Basics’ Privacy Policy (Source: Privacy on Free Basic documentation from https://www.facebook.com/legal/internet.org_fbsterms retrieved on April 15, 2016)

Regarding the security issue within the Free Basics, the platform claims to apply HTTPS (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure) wherever it is possible. However, the different setting applies for application and browser versions. If the users use Free Basics via the Android application, the traffic is encrypted end-to-end. But it does not always work that way if a developer's service or content requires HTTP only. In the browser version, Free Basics employs a “dual certificate” scheme to encrypt traffic from the user's device to Facebook’s proxy server and vice versa. The traffic between Free Basics's server to the developer's service is encrypted even if the developer's server does not apply HTTPS. However, the developer may ask Free Basics not to use the HTTPS. In the browser version, Free Basics will decrypt the traffic in the server to be identified as the package from the platform and analyze the data usage. After diagnosing the traffic, Free Basics will re-encrypt the traffic to the appointed content or service's server. However, Free Basics gives a mechanism to the developers to identify the original requestor IP address (See Table 3.1-1).

3.2 The Free Basics’s Ecosystem

Three key players are determining the Free Basics platform: Facebook (Internet.org), the cooperating mobile operators and the developers. Free Basics constructs its ecosystem by collaborating with those key players. To deliver zero-rate access for the targeted population on a large-scale, Free Basics has no other choice besides working with mobile operators. The mobile operators have built the network infrastructure and gained numerous customers, Free Basics only needs to ride on their network. Regarding resources, mobile operators have the strong bargaining power to dictate the framework and regulation of Free Basics implementation. Considering this situation,

57 Facebook’s negotiation with the mobile operators does not always end up with a complete zero-rating access to the platform. With that substantial resource, Indosat Ooredoo may define the allocation of the data exemption in delivering Free Basics. The mobile operator considers the cooperation with Facebook as a business relationship that enables the company to include an added value to its service. In fact, Indosat Ooredoo promotes Free Basics as “Direct Internet Access Without Data Charge” in its advertisement (Indosat Ooredoo 2015). It is evident that this arrangement affects user’s experience and rights in accessing the Internet. The Free Basics imposes a one-way, top to bottom relationship with the contents and services. Free Basics has come with its technical guideline and standard that the developers need to follow. While Facebook calls Free Basics an open platform (Facebook Newsroom 2015), it is not open in the sense of the user’s possibility to shape the platform’s architecture. Free Basics administers restricted criteria to join the platform. The criteria are designed to make Free Basics as lightweight a service as possible. Consequently, all developers who want to join Free Basics should technically adjust their content and service architecture to comply with the criteria. There is a concern that Internet.org would likely favor big players. In most cases based on the findings, several contents are produced by small-scale and individual developers in Free Basics. In general, Free Basics avoids heavy components in the interaction with the external content and service providers as seen in Figure 3.2-1 with the Buzzfeed application. Free Basics disallows the content and service provider to run Javascript on its service. The platform also suggests that the developers should not use SVG (Scalable Vector Graphic) and WOFF (Web Open Font Format). The developers do not rely on iFrames, which allows a visual HTML Browser window to be split into segments. It is because Free Basics suppresses the iFrames in the data transfer process. Free Basics also does not support Flash and Java applets. Lastly, Free Basics strongly encourages the developers to use HTTPS (Hyper Text Transfer Protocol Secure), because Free Basics encrypts the traffic. The last criteria emerged in response to the global protest against Internet.org with security as one of its main concerns. Although the instruction to utilize HTTPS appears to be convincing, Free Basics still interrupt the protocol to decrypt the package, especially for Free Basics access through a browser. With that set of criteria, Free Basics limits not only the developers but also the user experience. Most website developers nowadays use JavaScript to enhance their website operation and user experience.

58 Regarding contents and services that are available on the platform, this study suggests that the numbers of contents and services are slightly different in the browser and application models. In the Free Basics’ browser version, there are 80 choices of content and services. While in the application version, there are 82 contents and services that can be added to the main page. Apparently, Facebook sits on top of the main page with "brought to you by" attribution. It is important to note that up until the time of writing this study, there was no similar service like Facebook and Messenger in the platform. Aside from social media and instant messaging, there are contents and services with similar purposes or capacities, such as a search engine, dictionaries, encyclopedias, job opportunities, e-learning websites, digital books, etc. On the launching page, Free Basics does not display the contents and services all at once. It only presents around ten contents and applications on the launch page. The user can add more contents and services from the platform’s list that can be accessed in the ‘add’ menu feature. Currently, Free Basics categorizes all contents and services into nine groups:

1. Communication 2. E-learning 3. Sports and entertainment 4. News and Weather 5. Women and girls 6. Marketplace 7. Job Opportunities 8. Finance 9. Health and safety In the browser version, the category as mentioned above, is more prominent than in the application version. Several contents are only available in the Free Basics version and not available as a website. For instance, Girl Effect’s nonprofit content does not host its content in a website version so people can only access it in the Free Basics (See Figure 3.2-2). On one side, Free Basics invites existing developers to include their contents and services in Free Basics. On the other hand, content providers mostly design contents and services that run in many kinds of platforms. Some restrictions apply in the guidelines that prevent the content providers from delivering a better user experience within the Free Basic’ infrastructure.

59

Figure 3.2-1 Buzzfeed application in Figure 3.2-2 Girl Effect content

Free Basics Environment (only available in Free Basics) (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, (Source: Screenshot, Ramadhon, April 9, 2016) April 10, 2016)

3.3 Net-Neutrality and Zero-Rating

The existence of Free Basics in Indonesia has encouraged local digital rights activists to join the global movement against the implementation of Internet.org (Free Basics). In Indonesia, a zero-rating model is not performed exclusively by Free Basics. Several mobile operators have demonstrated the model previously. Practices like giving unlimited access to Facebook or Google, for instance, have been around for a while. The mobile operators bundle their zero-rate features with other data subscription scheme promotions. Although the zero-rating model has been demonstrated even before Facebook launched Free Basics, such practices escaped criticism. A representative from ICT Watch16 (Information and Communication Technology Partnership Association), a renowned Indonesian nongovernmental organization working on internet rights, confirms the zero-rating model often uses as a marketing scheme for mobile operators. There is no objection regarding this kind of practice, as long as the promotion does not limit the user’s right to choose and the mobile operator does not give privilege to particular contents. As quoted below:

16 For further information about this organization visit http://ictwatch.id

60

People who only afford to use im3 (popular name for Indosat Ooredoo) with limited credit, only can access the chosen content by its operator. If they want anything else, they need to pay more or another content will be slower. In that point, it is not only about business competition but there is public interest. (Donny BU, Interview April 13, 2016)

If the zero-rating model evidently delivers advantages to the customers and brings benefits to the early adopters of the internet, then it could be a good alternative. ICT Watch is not against zero-rating per se; it opposes a dubious form of zero-rating. The zero-rating model can be translated into many forms such as sponsorship-based or advertisement-based services. What makes Free Basics (or Internet.org) problematic at the outset is it is disguised as the ‘real’ Internet and a philanthropic endeavor. It is actually not the Internet and has a promotional element of selling data subscription. Indeed, during the early phase of the implementation of Free Basics in Indonesia, ICT Watch informed the national media about the arguments against Free Basics. As a strong advocate of internet rights in Indonesia, ICT Watch was approached by a representative from Facebook to consult on the protest against Free Basics. Donny revealed that

Yes they (Facebook) were asking for a meeting after they were protested. But Facebook understood our points. So, when we spoke to Facebook, in one dinner. They knew that there was a letter, and it was Global CSO, said: “Your action in delivering your initiative is unacceptable”. (Donny BU, Interview April 13, 2016)

The ICT Watch was invited to give suggestions for the platform. In response to Facebook’s consultation, ICT Watch pointed out similar concerns to the global protest, especially in how Free Basics is promoted. While from the government’s insight, the Indonesian Minister of Communication and Information criticized the mobile operator’s maneuver with Facebook. He discussed why the mobile operator supports a significant international content provider company and not local content providers instead (Karimmudin 2015). ICT Watch questions Facebook’s approach in implementing Free Basics and why Facebook does not work to support the

61 infrastructure development in remote areas rather than deploying a platform like Free Basics (he gave Google’s Project Loon17 as an example). Regarding the net neutrality issue, within the Indonesian context, net neutrality had barely been touched upon previously. The digital activists that were interviewed for this study consider that the big content provider companies (e.g. Facebook, Google, Netflix, etc.) have abused the meaning of the net neutrality principle. Thus, discussing net neutrality in the Indonesian context becomes less relevant. One of the SAFENET (Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network)18 members underlines the issue of privacy in Free Basics. Keeping the log for 90 days, SAFENET concerns Free Basics for taking advantage from poor people that use Free Basics. Since data mining has been a core business element of Facebook, the company has access to information of Free Basics’ million users. Also, a lack of privacy awareness among people puts them in a vulnerable position. People are willing to trade their information in return for accessing content and services, without understanding the privacy policy. Besides the privacy issue, there is another issue of how to develop the network infrastructure equally so that people who are underprivileged and situated in remote areas can have equal internet access. In the Indonesian archipelago, where development is centralized around Java island, there is a wide gap of internet access availability. For this reason, the government works at many levels to ensure a universal service so that citizens can have equal access. This effort includes working with the mobile operators. From the government’s viewpoint, the mobile operators often complain that they hardly invest in the infrastructure development because the income is burdened by OTT (Over-The-Top) contents and services. Thus, the government is unsure why mobile operators want to work with OTT companies to deliver free access. The government recommends that the mobile operators work with local content and service providers. With regards to net neutrality, most mobile operators in Indonesia do not support net neutrality (Karimuddin 2015). Donny from ICT Watch also added

This term (the net neutrality) is also used by global player like Facebook, Twitter, Google, to lobby the government and say that their contents cannot be intervened and transmitted without any charge. They urge the operators to be

17 Project Loon is a research and development project being developed by X (formerly Google X) with the mission of providing Internet access to rural and remote areas. 18 For further information about this coalition visit http://safenetvoice.org

62 neutral. When ISPs in Indonesia, particularly Telkom (parent company of Telkomsel), heard about Net Neutrality, they become not open at all and reluctant. (Donny BU, Interview April 13, 2016)

The mobile operators argue that they have the network infrastructure, and if the OTT companies want to pass through it, the companies need to follow the mobile operators’ proposal. Again, the discourse of net neutrality has shifted from equal access to business interest as profit discrepancy influences the network. In this regard, the Ministry of Communication and Information is about to issue a regulation to govern OTT companies. The main objective of the government is to settle the contention between the Internet Service Providers and content providers and to secure the local market environment. It is important to note that the state also owns the biggest telecommunication service provider named Telkomsel. This fact may affect the government’s direction in shaping the regulation. In the regulation’s public draft, the government requires OTT providers to collaborate with the mobile operators (Ministry Regulation on OTT Contents and Service Providers-Draft version, 2016). As cited below:

Article 7 (1) Service Provider OTT can charge (paid) or not to charge (unpaid) to the OTT Service’s users. Option 1: In the provision of OTT services, OTT service providers can cooperate with the telecommunications operator. Option 2: In the case of OTT services that are provided, have the same function or substitutive with telecommunications services, OTT Service Providers shall work closely with telecom service providers. (Ministry of Communication and Information’s Regulation on OTT contents and service providers- Public Draft version, May 2016).

From arguing for equal access to promoting mutual business benefit, the net neutrality principle becomes more complicated when the government also makes a content removal regulation mandatory for content and service providers. In a country

63 where censorship laws are forcefully applied, content removal can be a serious threat to the freedom of expression. An activist from SAFENET, a regional network initiative that supports freedom of expression, indicates that the government’s policy becomes a serious threat to limit freedom of expression in Indonesia. The inclination to filter or block content reappears in the draft of the OTT regulation. The representative from SAFENET also recalls evidence that Finfisher19 is being used by several ISPs (Internet Service Providers) in Indonesia. However, this does not directly indicate that the government is involved in surveillance. Once more, citizens’ (and users’) rights are subdued. There are only a few civil society organizations that work to promote digital rights and advocate a human- rights based policy for internet governance. Damar from SAFENET admitted

Because the issue was only understood by digital rights activists in the context of Indonesia. I do not know the context outside Indonesia though. It is currently difficult in Indonesia to encourage people to be critical about zero- rating. The idea of zero-rating and net neutrality is not easily understood by common people. (Damar Juniarto, Interview April 14, 2016)

ICT Watch and SAFENET are two organizations that consistently supports and represents citizen rights in the multi-stakeholders forum of internet governance. ICT Watch currently focuses on privacy issues as it becomes more cautionary than before. The interview findings delineate multiple layers of concern that cover the net neutrality discourse. Overlapping interests of the content providers, the mobile operators, and the government obfuscates the public debate on net neutrality. The representatives from the digital rights organizations construct net neutrality as equal access enjoyed by the users and the contents. While the government representative associates the ‘neutral’ as ensuring an enabling environment to generate equal benefits for the mobile operators and the big and small-scale content and service providers.

19 FinFisher, also known as FinSpy, is surveillance software marketed by Lench IT solutions PLC with a UK-based branch Gamma International Ltd in Andover, England, and a Germany-based branch Gamma International GmbH in Munich, which markets the spyware through law enforcement channels. Gamma International is a subsidiary of the Gamma Group, specializing in surveillance and monitoring, including equipment, software, and training services (The Citizen Lab, 2013).

64 4 DISCUSSION

Having discussed the research findings in the previous chapter, I separate the discussion section into three parts. The first part locates the zero-rating practice as enacted by Free Basics within the available classifications of the zero-rating scheme. The second part recounts the architecture of the Free Basics platform and its interconnection with the net neutrality principle. The final section explores the consequences of the implementation of Free Basics for the net neutrality debate and Facebook’s power in the global network.

4.1 Free But Restricted Basics

The zero-rating model can be translated into various ways depending on the objective and the potential audience. The Free Basics platform enacts specific affordances and constraints to achieve its goals. The analysis of the operation and interface layers indicates there are two facets to understanding Free Basics. First, there is a Free Basics platform, which operates through application and browser. The platform offers a set of contents and services within the platform, including Facebook Zero and Messenger. Second, there is Facebook Zero that allows an unlimited free access for Facebook and sits on top of the Free Basics’ selection menu. Consequently, a user can access Facebook Zero through the Free Basics platform and continue to use Facebook Zero free of charge even if Free Basics’ free data limit has been exceeded. It can be said that there is a zero-rating application (Facebook Zero) inside a zero-rating platform (Free Basics). The next significant aspect is the daily data ceiling applied in Free Basics usage. This data exemption cap implies that there is a limit to a particular zero-rating model. Previously, a zero-rating model refers to a practice where customers can access specific contents or services that are free of data charge (Layton & Calderwood, 2015; Kak, 2015; Gillwald & Futter, 2015; De Guzman, 2014; Rossini & Moore, 2015). At first, this explication implies a free of charge service although the contents might be limited. But with the daily limit, Free Basics, particularly in the Indonesian context, does not function as an actual zero-rating model. The platform keeps metering and liberating the data usage up to a certain volume and discontinues the zero calculation afterwards. This multifaceted operation makes Free Basics a unique version of zero-rating practice.

65 According to Amba Kak, Free Basics falls under the “free walled-garden” type of zero-rating practice that offers only a selection of contents and applications and no data subscription is required (6). This study found that Free Basics does not only provide limited contents and services but also a restricted quota of free access. Moreover, not all contents and services in Free Basics are available without data subscription, two finance and money management apps cannot be accessed free of data charge. This restriction substantiates the assumption that the zero-rating model exerts a discriminative approach and offers limited choice for customers (Layton and Calderwood 3; De Guzman, 2014). There is also a concern that this type of zero- rating is likely to lock users into its ecosystem. On the contrary, according to the observation, several constraints occurred during the operation, the platform actually encourages the user to leave from the platform and pay for a data subscription. The fact that the users can only view limited contents with low quality presentation and restricted capability, and have an insufficient free quota and are unable to share contents without data charge, confines the users and encourages them to withdraw. Also, most contents and services in the platform promote their stand-alone application on their front page. This platform is designed to be limited and sub-standard, in order to drive the users to buy a data subscription. The mobile operator also offers several affordable options for data subscription packages. It confirms Amba Kak’s finding that early adopters and low-income users would prefer an open and unrestricted Internet (49). One of the interviewees also admits that the Free Basics’ scheme does not offer an added value for the customers. With relatively cheap data packages, more data quota, free from restricted access, the user will favor a standard data subscription over Free but restricted ‘Basics’ access. In spite of this intention, Free Basics is definitely a zero-rating platform that gives a special treatment and drives users to Facebook Zero and Messengers service. When the users access Facebook through Free Basics, the user can enjoy unlimited access to Facebook in a Zero mode. This capacity would potentially lead the users to favor Facebook over others although Facebook Zero is not exclusively available in Indosat Ooredoo. Facebook Zero is also accessible via five other operators in Indonesia. As identified by Amba Kak, Facebook Zero is an ‘un-metered’ type of zero-rating. This type evidently predisposes users’ inclination to jump and spend more time with certain content or service. For this reason, Free Basics is not only a form of

66 zero-rating that discriminates against other contents and services on the Internet but also gives an advantage to its affiliated platform, Facebook. From the arrangement, considering Eisenach’s classification, Free Basics is not a carrier-initiated, nor a sponsored data form of zero-rating (5). Free Basics is much more complicated than these two dimensions. At the outset, Facebook, a service provider company, initiates Free Basics. In reality, Facebook has to offer and invite mobile operators to team up. Hence, Facebook can operate Free Basics through the cooperating mobile operators’ network infrastructure. Collaborating with the mobile operators is not enough because Facebook needs to attract content and service providers to make their service available in Free Basics. To construct Free Basics as an ecosystem of a platform and zero-rating access, it takes three actors to achieve the model. This multi-actor arrangement also differentiates Facebook from other service provider companies that lean toward the sponsored data category. Regarding the competitive advantage argument, this study discovered that the zero-rating practice could not be judged solely based on a market competition point of view. The network infrastructure is another factor influencing the competition among mobile operators. This study confirms that a better network infrastructure also means a better network coverage and more users, particularly where geographical factors hinder internet access. Within the Indonesian context, where a majority state-owned mobile operator company (Telkomsel) owns the largest base station among others, this company has always dominated the local cellular market (45% market share). Although the cellular market competition among non-market leader companies is quite dynamic, the implementation of the zero-rating model would not have much effect on the competition map. The infrastructure factor also questions the assumption that poses the zero-rating model as a means of bridging the digital divide. Suppose Facebook wants to reach potential users in outlying areas, they need to consider the network coverage of the partnered mobile operators or work with all mobile operators in the appointed countries. Unless infrastructure development is involved in the arrangement, a zero-rating practice would only circulate within the existing coverage. Since competition-based pricing in the Indonesian cellular market has generated relatively cheap data subscriptions, the demand for infrastructure developments is more relevant than the pricing issue. Hence, the affordability issue is not always applicable in certain contexts. Indeed, Anja Kovacs’s warns that viewing zero rating

67 services as the answer to the access problem will hamper the efforts to find other solutions to provide wider internet access (IGF 2015 session report). Regarding consumer rights, this research shows that Free Basics as a zero- rating practice not only curbs customers’ choice but also implements complicated provisions that may disconcert customers. Free Basics has excellently provided its privacy policy and other terms on the starting page. Nevertheless, it requires thorough scanning and adequate awareness during the observation, to fully understand the terms and conditions. Even the researcher had to check the complete frequently asked questions on the mobile operator’s website. There is a lack of transparency in Free Basics’ disclosing of provisions and tariff options. The digital activists suggest Free Basics should display the restrictions and scope of the platform with simple and plain language in advance. If the terms and conditions are too long and difficult to read, the customer tends to ignore the risks, which the platform may incur (e.g. unexpected data charge) (Carew 10). Having been framed as free access to the internet or to some online contents and services, Free Basics and the mobile operator should downplay the image of Free Basics in its marketing and promotion materials. The daily quota of free data, for instance, should be made explicit both, in the front page of the platform and the promotion materials. Otherwise, the offer would mislead existing and prospective customers. Considering all these aspects of the Free Basics’ zero-rating arrangement, there are several indications that incriminate Free Basics. Despite its generous endeavor to provide affordable internet access, Free Basics demonstrates an unequal ecosystem of a platform. Instead of giving freedom to the users during their first experience of connecting to the Internet, Free Basics chooses to maintain the assumption that a piece of free and limited online access is better than none at all. Moreover, Free Basics gives privileges to Facebook and Messengers, without making other similar services available on the platform. While scale-down services are considered as an alternative to improve diffusion of the mobile internet (Castells et.al. 220), this study suggests that a scaled-down service in a form like Free Basics turns out not to be optimal for users to get full and significant information. The ability to exchange information should not be hindered by the fact that the users have only a few channels available to access information because they pay less or do not pay at all. Furthermore, limiting the choice and quality of information would preserve the digital divide; those who are left behind cannot obtain maximum benefits of the

68 Internet. Regardless of what the civil society movements have recommended, Facebook insists on continuing this kind of arrangement, which may distort other possibilities to implement zero-rating in more a democratic and acceptable manner. This study confirms that a Zero-rating scheme is acceptable if it performs data exemption for access to all contents and services available on the internet as well as if it prioritizes transparency in its provision. However, a zero-rating practice like Free Basics inclines to restrict and threaten the users’ freedom.

4.2 Interfering by Design

Free Basics is constructed as a platform that allows other contents and services to be run on top of the application. At the same time, Free Basics controls the protocol of delivering zero-rate access within the application. In the open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Free Basics is deemed as a net neutrality violation (Access Now 2015). At the outset, this study intended to experience and explore the configuration of Free Basics as well as examine how the arrangement interacts with net neutrality rather than to justify the allegation against Free Basics. On the other hand, Internet.org has persisted in claiming that Free Basics stands for net neutrality because it does not block, throttle and give a fast lane to certain services (Internet.org 2015). The notion of the net neutrality principle in this study derives from the evolving arguments surrounding the principle. This study finds that Free Basics disregards fundamental architectural principles of the Internet from its configuration, particularly the openness principle. It contradicts Internet.org’s argument that believes Free Basics coexists with the net neutrality principle. The net neutrality principle stands for a non-discriminative network, which treats all contents and applications equally and allows the network to support every kind of contents or applications (Wu 146). Indeed, Free Basics treats all contents and services in the platform equally in a way that it does not give a fast lane to certain contents. But through implementing Free Basics, the mobile operator and Facebook (Internet.org) have created an arrangement that discriminates against contents and services outside the platform. Within the net neutrality debate, the internet service providers always incline to undermine the net neutrality principle. In the context of implementing Free Basics, together with Facebook, the cooperating mobile operators only give free access to participating contents and services. By any means, a practice of giving privilege to particular contents and services in network management is

69 always regarded as a discriminative gesture. McDiarmid and Shears argue that the internet’s full potential can only be unleashed insofar as the network stays compatible with net neutrality (30). The analysis of the form and function layer confirms that Free Basics impedes the full potential of the internet by constraining the quality of contents and the users’ choice. The mobile operator is the one who owns the network infrastructure, and Facebook is the one who manages and identifies the traffic from and to Free Basics. Regarding the end-to-end argument, it is evident that Free Basics does not completely interrupt the data transmission made from the platform with blocking or throttling. Rather, Free Basics intercepts the packet to match it with its standard. Free Basics emphasizes the endpoints by applying certain requirements for both the user and the content or service provider. From the end users’ side, they must use a SIM card from a specific mobile operator and change the access point name (APN) setting in the device. While on the content provider’s side, it needs to comply with Free Basics’ technical requirement. Thus, Free Basics intervenes more at the infrastructural level than during data transmission. On the other hand, by centralizing its point of control, Free Basics becomes a threat to the openness of the internet. From the beginning, the openness of the internet has contributed to its advanced development. The openness feature enables an inclusive environment, which encourages new users to join and new uses to unfold (Ziewtiz and Brown 15). Meanwhile, Free Basics creates a new game, imposing its rules and criteria, which restrict the end users and the content or service providers. Facebook holds the control to determine which contents and services meet its requirement. The findings suggest that the technical requirement, which is meant to compress the content, influences how the content and service providers deliver their information and services. This requirement also affects the interoperability principle of the network. Interoperability is often associated with compatibility. The development of the internet, which depends on the interoperability allows innovations to grow. The developers aim for innovation, but Free Basics forces them to compress and rework their applications. Nevertheless, according to the findings, the accusation that Facebook cherry-picks the content is not proven. Facebook incorporates assorted contents and services, which meet its technical requirements. The debate on net neutrality is relevant to infrastructure and innovation concerns but also to the network’s invasion of user privacy and rights. Free Basics constructs an infrastructure, which resembles a VPN mechanism. Within this method,

70 Free Basics acts as an intermediary in the traffic. Technically, all requests made from Free Basics have to route to Facebook’s server. In the server, the Free Basics verifies whether the traffic comes from the partnered mobile operators’ SIM card. The analysis in the code layer showed that the users’ data usage is calculated to monitor the daily quota in the Free Basics system. To carry out this mechanism, Facebook employs the technology from its subsidiary company, Onavo. The Onavo company provides mobile utility applications and VPN services. Therefore, the configuration of Free Basics replicates how the Onavo’s application works. The problem occurs when Facebook decrypts the packet and records the user’s information in the system. Despite the fact that Facebook only records what it calls basic device and usage information, Facebook actually acquires the user’s personal information (e.g. phone number, IP address, country) and retains the information for 90 days. This procedure raises serious concerns among digital rights activists who view this practice as jeopardizing users’ privacy. The VPN mechanism is supposed to work as a way to improve the security of data transmission and to assist a user bypassing internet censorship. The development of the net neutrality debate discusses the Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) mechanism and the associated risks. The existence of DPI technology allows for detailed examination of the data of the packet being sent and delivering the route of the packet in a different direction (Geere 2012). In the case of Free Basics, Facebook repurposes the VPN mechanism to perform similar actions with the DPI. The Free Basics’ protocol functions to differentiate the packet from Free Basics and to deliver a tiered service in the mobile operator’s network. The findings denote that Facebook interferes in the network to filter the packet and to store the users’ information. Furthermore, Facebook aggregates the information, which is extracted from the data transmission. The aggregated data has just recently been made available to the content and service developers as demographic insights (Internet.org 2016). It is evident that a zero-rating practice that differentiates the access will most likely involve a data inspection mechanism.

4.3 Net Neutrality and The Power in The Network

Throughout the data collection and analysis process, this research engages with net neutrality issues from different perspectives. As discussed in the literary review, net neutrality can be viewed from various different angles. The net neutrality debate illustrates the power dynamic within the network. The actors impose their interest in

71 tackling the net neutrality principle. Therefore, there are multiple narratives of net neutrality shaping the effort to govern the Internet. This research finds that the voice of users or customers is often excluded in the consideration as well as the decision- making process. Business interests tend to frame and lead the conversation on the net neutrality. While governments rarely include users’ rights in regulations, the civil society movement attempts to inform and amplify citizens’ voices. In the context of developing countries like Indonesia, the study discovers the fact that net neutrality has not been widely discussed and has been circumvented for several reasons. Through the case of Free Basics, this study reveals that the influential content and service provider companies like Facebook misuse the net neutrality principle to overstep the open internet. Likewise, The mobile operators are reluctant to consider net neutrality because they believe it would only be profitable for the big content provider companies. The mobile operators push the government to regulate the content providers. Meanwhile, the government has to balance those interests. The constellation of the net neutrality debate in this context discloses that the content provider company (Free Basics) and the mobile operator (Indosat Ooredoo) disregards net neutrality and the government does not speak the language of net neutrality. The current issue of the Over the Top (OTT) services influences the direction of internet governance. The government identifies Facebook as an Over the Top (OTT) service company, which is subjected to this policy. By contrast, the government’s OTT regulation encourages the OTT service companies to cooperate with the mobile operators. This recommendation would lead to net neutrality violations because it gives an opportunity for a discriminatory arrangement. The OTT regulation may later influence the Free Basics implementation in several ways. Net neutrality is more important for open internet architecture now more than ever. In this recent situation, the question of who vouches for and protects net neutrality besides civil society becomes prominent. With Free Basics dominating the zero-rating landscape globally, Facebook implicitly expands its power within the network. By using Manuel Castells’s notion of power in the network (Castells 42), the findings indicate that the existence of Free Basics has transformed the role of Facebook in the global network. Also, the discussion of power in the network should distinguish the power of the global content and service providers and the local providers. From the Indonesian government’s perspective, global service provider companies like Facebook endanger the local

72 ecosystem of internet service providers and the local service provider companies. Thus, the government has initiated an effort to protect local companies and to control global service provider companies. Oddly, the government’s position toward the zero- rating practice remains unclear because the government leaves the decision to the mobile operators. The collaboration between Facebook and mobile operators to deploy Free Basics has obfuscated the battle between the internet service providers and the global service provider companies. It is important to realize the power of internet service providers that is exercised through their network infrastructure. The implementation of Free Basics demonstrates the Facebook’s ‘networking power’, which involves resource accumulation and determines who can participate in the network (Castells, 42). Although Free Basics is implemented by multi-actor collaboration, Facebook is not the only actor who holds the power. Facebook shares the power with the mobile operators because Free Basics requires the mobile operators’ network infrastructure to reach its potential target. In the Indonesian case, the mobile operator sets the daily quota for free data within the Free Basics platform, and this makes Free Basics not entirely free. Facebook and the mobile operator control the implementation of Free Basics. However, the content and service providers hardly find room to negotiate in the arrangement. The constellation among Facebook, mobile operators, and the government exemplifies the ‘networked power’ and represents multiple sources of power within the network. To this extent, when Facebook cooperates with the mobile operators, Facebook shares the ‘programmer’ position with the mobile operators. Programming implies the ability to establish the network and to program or reprogram the goals presented in the network (Castells 45). At the same time, Facebook plays the part of ‘switcher’ ensuring the collaboration with the other content and service providers meets the objectives and eliminates competition from other networks. Through the implementation of the Free Basics platform and Facebook Zero, the networking power initiated by Facebook becomes more significant. Free Basics accommodates any contents and services, yet the configuration gives an advantage to Facebook services. The narrative behind the networking power of Facebook seems clear, creating the Free Basics platform to assemble every actor and element under Facebook guidelines and environment. Therefore, Facebook can extract and aggregate more data from the user’s information. Thus, Facebook’s effort to build up the networking power cannot be regarded merely as a philanthropic initiative.

73 5 CONCLUSIONS

This research aimed to explore how Free Basics configures and performs its service and how this arrangement influences the net neutrality discourse. This study looked at the Free Basics implementation in Indonesia as a background to generate data from observation and delineate the platform’s arrangement. Towards this end, this study concluded that Free Basics does not adequately function as zero-rating because it limits the free data capacity. Furthermore, Free Basics is not only a particular form of zero-rating that discriminates against other contents and services on the internet but also gives the advantage to its affiliated platform, Facebook. To deliver its zero-rating service, Free Basics sets up a centralized configuration that conflicts with the net neutrality principle. The platform plays the part of a middleman in the network, inspecting and filtering the packet during transmission. To rejoin the main research question, I utilized a platform studies approach and incorporated insights from the ethnography of infrastructure. Both perspectives completed each other and helped to formulate the data collection and analysis method. This research observed the platform as the main process to gather the primary data. I experienced the platform for ten days to unfold each layer of the platform. The observation process examined the operation, interface, function, code, and platform layer as suggested in the platform studies approach. From this platform trial session, this research discovered how Free Basics assembles its services and infrastructure. A closer look at the platform’s operation and interface uncovered the constraints such as daily quota, services that cannot be used and limited selections. The experience also showed that stripped-down contents and services impede the maximum benefit of what the internet can offer. This research included the platform’s source code as an element to be observed. Through parsing the Free Basics’s application source code, this study detected Free Basics’ interference in the packet sent from Free Basics to the designated content or service. This underlying design of Free Basics illustrates the environment in which the Free Basics platform is built upon it. Moreover, the source code signifies Free Basics’ main technical characteristics, lightweight and fast rendering. Besides the platform trial process, this research also delved into a content analysis of Facebook’s documents and archives. Through analyzing all terms and

74 conditions related to the Free Basics platform, this study tracked down Facebook’s attempt to retain the user’s personally identifiable information for 90 days and organize the data for Facebook’s purposes. Likewise, this research made use of the news and reports, which are published in the Facebook Newsroom and Internet.org’s press section. From the documents, it is evident that Facebook insists that Free Basics is aligned with net neutrality and continues to expand Free Basics in other countries. Alongside the documents, this research explored the net neutrality debate and the response towards Free Basics through interviews. From the interviews, this study gained in-depth description of the debate surrounding net neutrality and the Internet governance within the national context. The way the government and civil society organizations perceive the relationship between the zero-rating practice and net neutrality. The conversation led to a further discussion on the challenge of governing the internet. This process helped to situate Free Basics implementation in the context of the repudiation towards the OTT services in Indonesia. The representatives from civil society organizations admit that the zero-rating practice is tolerable with certain conditions, although they disagree with Free Basics. The users’ rights and transparent provisions are paramount in this regard. Unfortunately, this study did not manage to include interviews with two key figures of the platform, Facebook (Internet.org) and the mobile operator (Indosat Ooredoo). Accordingly, the data, which came from official documents, are supplemented with the interview data. This research compiled the data as if assembling the ‘Free Basics puzzle’. A closer look at a particular zero-rating practice like Free Basics investigated what lies beneath the implementation and promotion. Most of the academic endeavors on zero- rating practices address general comparisons between zero-rating models and concentrate on the pros and cons of such practice. Although opinions about zero- rating schemes are fragmented, this study verifies that to achieve zero-rating internet access, interruption during the data transmission process is inevitable. By providing zero-rating internet access, the mobile operator performs a tiered-service scheme, determining whether the data are free of charge. Regarding the user’s choice and experience, the findings reflect that there is no ultimate freedom in the zero-rating model. The Free Basics arrangement illustrates that zero-rating practices undermine users’ right to choose and acquire maximum information. During the process of data collection and analysis, this research had to catch up with the net neutrality debate that evolves rapidly. This study only reflects a

75 specific side of the numerous perspectives on net neutrality and zero-rating. However, technical approaches through the platform studies approach and the ethnography of infrastructure can provide valuable insight that challenges the assumption that the zero-rating model can bridge the digital divide. Since zero-rating schemes like Free Basics incline to push aside the open internet mandate, providing internet access with such a model would only disadvantage the users and the development of the Internet. The findings from this technical approach highlighted the interoperability issues and closed infrastructure, which constitute Free Basics. Facebook presents Free Basics as an open platform while the centralized configuration proves it works in the opposite way. Meanwhile, the net neutrality principle is not a concept that can be translated easily in different countries. Business interests seem to win the argument as to whether the net neutrality principle should be protected. Even the government is reluctant to let the packet flow in the network without intervention. The findings highlight concerns over the power of global content and service provider companies. In this case, this study reveals that Facebook’s power in the network is omnipresent, and it exists in the Free Basics platform and Facebook Zero. Apart from the main findings, this thesis uncovers several aspects, which link to other topics surrounding the net neutrality and zero-rating debates. The related themes are as follows: Privacy. The exploration of the Free Basics platform leads to the issues of privacy. The global protest condemning the loopholes in the privacy policy of Free Basics has not moved Facebook to make improvements in this area. The critics perceive Free Basics as a trade-off between free online services and the user’s information. What Facebook defines as basic device and usage information is opaque, because the information contains personally identifiable information such as phone numbers and IP addresses. Moreover, there are other contents and services besides Facebook Zero and Messengers in Free Basics, and they have their own privacy policies (not subjected to Facebook’s privacy policy). This fact indicates that an implementation of the zero-rating model in the form of a platform like Free Basics entails a very precise and clear explanation of the privacy policy and risks. Although, according to interviewees, most users in Indonesia are not aware of privacy issues, Free Basics is not supposed to exploit this situation.

76 Barriers of internet diffusion. One of Facebook’s justifications for deploying Free Basics is the issue of affordability. In the case of affordability, even Facebook realized that the affordability constraints vary in different countries, and the price falls considerably (Internet.org 21-22). In the case of this research, the availability and accessibility of the necessary infrastructure to connect is more prominent. In a context where a highly competitive telecommunication market has generated a lower cost for data subscription, an initiative like Free Basics should consider the network coverage. Suppose Free Basics aims for potential targets in remote areas, it should also initiate partnerships with more mobile operators in the implementation process. Moreover, Free Basics should be compatible to operate not only from a smartphone but also a featured phone. In fact, Facebook has responded to the issue of availability with its other initiatives, Express Wi-fi, and Connectivity Lab. Such endeavors would surely have a stronger impact on fostering internet diffusion.

Areas for Future Investigation

This research contextualizes Free Basics amidst the contention of zero-rating practices and the net neutrality principle. It shifts the discussion in a different direction that could not be accommodated in the research process. Indeed, this study has several limitations to be considered. The absence of important firsthand information from the main actors, Internet.org and the mobile operator, has made this study unable to clarify particular judgments towards Free Basics. In addition, the utilization of participant observation as an approach to understand the user’s standpoint cannot speak for all general Free Basics users. Thus, a future investigation on particular areas may significantly enhance the current debates within internet development globally.

ICT4D: Infrastructure and Governance. The Free Basics platform emerges as an initiative to bridge the digital divide. This study suggests further exploration into the alternative avenues to provide affordable internet access without disrupting net neutrality or undermining the open Internet principle. In early 2016, the World Bank issued a report on the Digital Dividends outlining a comprehensive analysis in tackling the digital divide and maximizing the benefit of the internet for development. The report suggests that the effort to convert connectivity into broader development benefits (e.g. jobs, growth) will work best where an open access internet ecosystem allows content creation and applications development to thrive (World Bank 200).

77 Reflecting on this research, the network infrastructure plays a central role in stimulating innovation and deserves further investigation. As it stands, the struggle to maintain the open internet continues along with the endeavor to advocate effective and constructive policy. The Free Basics implementation leads the global trend of zero-rating models. Hence, a thorough evaluation of how internet policies in different countries support the open Internet is recommended.

The Users’ Rights. As the zero-rating model becomes prevalent, the end users’ position remains unheard. The Internet service providers argue that a zero-rating scheme is provided to serve the customers’ preference and to attract prospective subscribers (Carew 8). On the contrary, Amba Kak suggests the trade-off the users are willing to make is how much they use the internet, not necessarily how much of the internet they can access (10). The internet, as it used to be, offers vast possibilities and resources which encourage people to participate. This study indicates that the arrangement of zero-rating practices often neglects the users’ rights. The users are the nodes in the network, recalling the potlatch illustration made by Zuckerberg. Understanding the users’ viewpoint and how they experience a zero-rating scheme, particularly among early adopters and prospective users would enrich the discussion. It may be interesting to locate the voice of potential users in remote areas and count them as the subjects in the arguments for overcoming the digital divide.

78 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abutaleb, Yasmeen, and Joseph Menn. ‘Exclusive: Egypt Blocked Facebook Internet Service over Surveillance - Sources’. Reuters. N.p., 1 Apr. 2016. Web. 21 May 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-egypt-idUSKCN0WY3JZ

Access Now. ‘Open Letter to Mark Zuckerberg Regarding Internet.org, Net Neutrality, Privacy, and Security’. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2016. https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-regarding- internetorg-net-neutrality-privacy-and-/935857379791271

Allot Communications. App-Centric Operators on The Rise. Allot Communications, 2014. Web. 21 Mar. 2016. http://www.allot.com/file-download-thank- you/?First_Name=afra&Last_Name=ramadhan&file-url=http://allot.wpengine.com/wp- content/uploads/RP_MobileTrends_Charging_Report_H1_2014_LR_Publish.pdf&file- name=MobileTrends

Anderson, John Nathan et al. Regulating the Web: Network Neutrality and the Fate of the Open Internet. Ed. Zack Stiegler. 1 edition. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012. Print.

Anderssen, Marc. ‘The Three Kinds of Platforms You Meet on the Internet’. CNET. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2016. http://www.cnet.com/news/the-three-kinds-of-platforms-you-meet-on- the-internet/

Arora, The author has posted comments on this articleKim et al. ‘Trai First Regulator in World to Focus Exclusively on Differential Pricing’. The Times of India. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Trai-first-regulator-in-world-to-focus- exclusively-on-differential-pricing/articleshow/51086877.cms

Baig, Hassan. ‘Reimagining Internet.org’. TechCrunch. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Feb. 2016. http://social.techcrunch.com/2016/01/10/reimagining-internet-org/

Bendrath, Ralf, and Milton Mueller. ‘The End of the Net as We Know It? Deep Packet Inspection and Internet Governance’. New Media & Society 13.7 (2011): 1142–1160.

Bogost, Ian, and Nick Montfort. ‘New Media as Material Constraint: An Introduction to Platform Studies’. 1st International HASTAC Conference.

---. ‘Platform Studies: Frequently Questioned Answers’. Digital Arts and Culture 2009 (2009): n. pag.

Brandom, Russell. ‘The Net Neutrality Fight Is Now about Data Collection’. The Verge. N.p., 16 Feb. 2016. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. < http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/16/11017934/net- neutrality-data-collection-fcc-title-ii>

Brennen, Bonnie. Qualitative Research Methods for Media Studies. Routledge, 2012.

Brown, Ian. Research Handbook on Governance of the Internet. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Pub, 2013.

79 Calamur, Krishnadev. ‘A Blow to Facebook in India’. The Atlantic 8 Feb. 2016. The Atlantic. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/02/trai-free-basics- facebook/460428/

Carew, Diana G. Zero-Rating: Kick-Starting Internet Ecosystems in Developing Countries. Progressive Policy Institute, 2015. Web. 17 Feb. 2016. http://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/economy/zero-rating-kick-starting-internet- ecosystems-developing-countries/

Carman, Ashley. ‘Egypt Reportedly Banned Facebook’s Free Basics Program Because It Couldn’t Spy on Users’. The Verge. N.p., 1 Apr. 2016. Web. 20 May 2016. http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/1/11347274/facebook-free-basics-egypt-government- surveilance-demand

Castells, Manuel. Communication Power. OUP Oxford, 2009.

---. Mobile Communication and Society: A Global Perspective. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press, 2009.

Constine, Josh. ‘Facebook And 6 Phone Companies Launch Internet.org To Bring Affordable Access To Everyone’. TechCrunch. N.p., n.d. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/12/27/gatekeeper-or-stepping-stone/

---. ‘Facebook Confronts The Free Internet Neutrality Dilemma’. TechCrunch. N.p., 27 Dec. 2015. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. http://social.techcrunch.com/2013/08/20/facebook-internet-org/

---. ‘Facebook Confronts The Free Internet Neutrality Dilemma’. TechCrunch. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/12/27/gatekeeper-or-stepping-stone/

---. ‘Facebook Lite Is A Stripped Down Android App For The Developing World’. TechCrunch. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2016. http://social.techcrunch.com/2015/06/04/download-facebook- lite/

Dailysocial. ‘Internet.org Di Indonesia Diklaim Telah Miliki Sejuta Pengguna’. DailySocial.id. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2016. https://dailysocial.id/post/internet-org-di-indonesia-diklaim- telah-miliki-sejuta-pengguna

Daubs, Michael S., and Vincent R. Manzerolle. ‘App-Centric Mobile Media and Commoditization: Implications for the Future of the Open Web’. Mobile Media & Communication 4.1 (2016): 52–68.

De Guzman, Noelle Francesca. ‘Zero Rating: Enabling or Restricting Internet Access? | Internet Society’. N.p., 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2016. https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/asia- pacific-bureau/2014/09/zero-rating-enabling-or-restricting-internet-access

Dixon-Thayer, Denelle. ‘Mozilla View on Zero-Rating’. Open Policy & Advocacy. N.p., 5 May 2015. Web. 20 May 2016. https://blog.mozilla.org/netpolicy/2015/05/05/mozilla-view-on- zero-rating/

Dua, Kunal. ‘Facebook’s Indian Free Basics Program Is Stuck in Limbo’. The Verge. N.p., 17 Jan. 2016. Web. 21 May 2016. http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/17/10772470/facebooks-indian- free-basics-program-is-stuck-in-limbo

80 eMarketer. ‘Facebook Users in Indonesia Have Highest Mobile Usage Rate Worldwide’. N.p., 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 27 May 2016. http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Facebook-Users-Indonesia- Have-Highest-Mobile-Usage-Rate-Worldwide/1011896

Facebook. ‘Cookies Policy’. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2016. https://www.facebook.com/policies/cookies/

---. ‘Data Policy’. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2016. https://www.facebook.com/policy.php

---. ‘Facebook Privacy Basics’. Facebook. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2016. https://www.facebook.com/about/basics/what-others-see-about-you/

---. Facebook Q4 2015 Results. Facebook. Web. http://investor.fb.com/results.cfm?Quarter=&Year=2015

---. ‘Platform Policy - Facebook for Developers’. Facebook Developers. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 June 2016. https://developers.facebook.com/policy/

Facebook Newsroom. ‘Announcing the Connectivity Lab at Facebook | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/03/announcing-the- connectivity-lab-at-facebook/

---. ‘Announcing the Internet.org Platform | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/05/announcing-the-internet-org-platform/

---. ‘Connecting the World from the Sky | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/03/connecting-the-world-from-the-sky/

---. ‘Internet.org App Available in Ghana | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/01/internet-org-app-available-in-ghana/

---. ‘Internet.org App Comes to Kenya | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/11/internet-org-app-comes-to-kenya/

---. ‘Internet.org App Launches in Colombia | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/01/internet-org-app-launches-in-colombia/

---. ‘Internet.org App Launches in Tanzania | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/10/internet-org-app-launches-in-tanzania/

---. ‘Internet.org App Now Available in India | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/02/internet-org-app-now-available-in-india/

---. ‘Introducing the Internet.org App | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/07/introducing-the-internet-org-app/

---. ‘Mark Zuckerberg: Is Connectivity a Human Right? | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2013/08/mark-zuckerberg-is-connectivity-a- human-right/

---. ‘Technology to Connect the World: F8 Day One Roundup | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 May 2016. http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2016/04/f8-2016-day-1/

81 ---. ‘Update to Internet.org Free Basic Services | Facebook Newsroom’. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2015/09/update-to-internet-org-free-basic-services/

Freischlad, Nadine. ‘Indonesian Telco Explains Why It Ditched Zuckerberg’s Internet.org’. Tech in Asia. N.p., 23 Apr. 2015. Web. 20 May 2016. https://www.techinasia.com/xl-ends- partnership-with-internet-org-indonesia

Galloway, Alexander, and Eugene Thacker. ‘Protocol, Control, and Networks’. Grey Room 17 (2004): 6–29.

Geere, Duncan. ‘How Deep Packet Inspection Works’. Wired UK. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Mar. 2016. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-04/27/how-deep-packet-inspection-works

Gerlitz, Carolin, and Anne Helmond. ‘The like Economy: Social Buttons and the Data-Intensive Web’. New Media & Society 15.8 (2013): 1348–1365.

Gillespie, T. ‘The Politics of “Platforms”’. New Media & Society 12.3 (2010): 347–364.

Gillespie, Tarleton. ‘Platforms Intervene’. Social Media + Society 1.1 (2015): 2056305115580479.

Global Business Guide. ‘Indonesia’s Mobile Phone Market and Telecommunication Sector’. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 May 2016. http://www.gbgindonesia.com/en/services/article/2012/an_overview_of_indonesia_s_telecom munication_sector.php

Goggin, Gerard. ‘Facebook’s Mobile Career’. New Media & Society 16.7 (2014): 1068–1086.

Haan, Marco. ‘The Economics of Free Internet Access’. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) 157.3 (2001): n. pag.

Hempel, Jessi. ‘Inside Facebook’s Ambitious Plan to Connect the Whole World’. WIRED. N.p., 20 Jan. 2016. Web. 18 Feb. 2016. http://www.wired.com/2016/01/facebook-zuckerberg-internet- org/

Internet.org. ‘Free Basics: Myths and Facts’. Internet.org. N.p., 19 Nov. 2015. Web. 23 May 2016. http://info.internet.org/en/2015/11/19/internet-org-myths-and-facts/

---. ‘Introducing New Tools for Free Basics Developers’. Internet.org. N.p., 12 Apr. 2016. Web. 20 May 2016. http://info.internet.org/en/2016/04/12/introducing-new-tools-for-free-basics- developers/

Internet Society. ‘Policy Brief: Network Neutrality’. 30 Oct. 2015. Web. 21 May 2016. http://www.internetsociety.org/policybriefs/networkneutrality

Isaac, Mike. ‘Facebook Reports Soaring Revenue, Buoyed by Mobile Ads’. The New York Times 27 Jan. 2016. NYTimes.com. Web. 9 Mar. 2016. < http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/28/technology/facebook-earnings-zuckerberg.>

Jana. ‘Why You Should Market Your Mobile App in Indonesia’. Jana Blog. N.p., 5 May 2016. Web. 20 May 2016. https://blog.jana.com/2016/05/05/why-you-should-market-your-mobile- app-indonesia

82 Kak, Amba. ‘The Internet Un-Bundled Locating the User’s Voice in the Debate on Zero-Rating’. Oxford University

Kirkpatrick, David. The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That Is Connecting the World. Simon and Schuster, 2010.

LaFrance, Adrienne. ‘Facebook and the New Colonialism’. The Atlantic 11 Feb. 2016. The Atlantic. Web. 18 Feb. 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/facebook-and-the-new- colonialism/462393/

Layton, Roslyn, and Silvia Monica Elaluf-Calderwood. Zero Rating: Do Hard Rules Protect or Harm Consumers and Competition? Evidence from Chile, Netherlands and Slovenia. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2015.

Lee, Daeho, and Yong-Hwa Kim. ‘Empirical Evidence of Network Neutrality – The Incentives for Discrimination’. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2016. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167624514000298

Lemley, Mark A., and Lawrence Lessig. The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2000.

Levy, Josh. ‘Opinion: Facebook’s Internet.org Isn’t the Internet, It’s Facebooknet’. WIRED. N.p., 5 May 2015. Web. 5 Feb. 2016. http://www.wired.com/2015/05/opinion-internet-org- facebooknet/

Marsden, Christopher. Comparative Case Studies in Implementing Net Neutrality: A Critical Analysis. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2015.

Marsden, Christopher T. ‘Zero Rating and Mobile Net Neutrality’. Net Neutrality Compendium. Ed. Luca Belli and Primavera De Filippi. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 241–260.

McDiarmid, Andrew, and Matthew Shears. ‘The Importance of Internet Neutrality to Protecting Human Rights Online’. Net Neutrality Compendium: Human Rights, Free Competition and the Future of the Internet. Ed. Luca Belli and Primavera De Filippi. Springer, 2015.

McLaughlin, Andrew. ‘The Hacker Way Forward: How Facebook Can Fix “Free Basics”’. Medium. N.p., 27 Mar. 2016. Web. 4 Apr. 2016. https://medium.com/@mcandrew/the- hacker-way-forward-how-facebook-can-fix-free-basics-in-two-simple-moves- 86392758058#.cssefdtak

Miles, Matthew B., and A. Michael Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. SAGE Publications, 1994.

Millward, Steven. ‘Facebook Ends 2015 with 540m Monthly Active Users across Asia’. Tech in Asia. N.p., 28 Jan. 2016. Web. 21 May 2016. https://www.techinasia.com/facebook-540- million-monthly-active-users-across-asia

Mims, Christopher. ‘Facebook’s Plan to Find Its next Billion Users: Convince Them the Internet and Facebook Are the Same’. Quartz. N.p., 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. http://qz.com/5180/facebooks-plan-to-find-its-next-billion-users-convince-them-the-internet- and-facebook-are-the-same/

83 Mirani, Leo. ‘Millions of Facebook Users Have No Idea They’re Using the Internet’. Quartz. N.p., 9 Feb. 2015. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile- just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/

---. ‘When Net Neutrality Backfires: Chile Just Killed Free Access to Wikipedia and Facebook’. Quartz. N.p., 30 May 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality- backfires-chile-just-killed-free-access-to-wikipedia-and-facebook/

Mollman, Steve. ‘Indonesia to Facebook, Google, and Twitter: Pay Local Taxes or We’ll Block You’. Quartz. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Mar. 2016. http://qz.com/629112/indonesia-to-facebook- google-and-twitter-pay-local-taxes-or-well-block-you/

Mueller, Milton L. Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance. Reprint edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2013.

Murthy, Mahesh. ‘Poor Internet for Poor People: Why Facebook’s Internet.org Amounts to Economic Racism’. Quartz. N.p., 17 Apr. 2015. Web. 7 Mar. 2016. http://qz.com/385821/poor-internet-for-poor-people-why-facebooks-internet-org-amounts-to- economic-racism/

Nistanto, Reska K. ‘Facebook Dan Indosat Boyong Program Internet Gratis Ke Indonesia’. KOMPAS.com. N.p., 17 Apr. 2015. Web. 21 May 2016. http://tekno.kompas.com/read/2015/04/17/15325627/Facebook.dan.Indosat.Boyong.Program. Internet.Gratis.ke.Indonesia

Noelle Francesca De Guzman, and Rajnesh Singh. ‘Network Neutrality – Let Those Packets Flow’. N.p., 30 Mar. 2015. Web. 21 May 2016. http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/asia-pacific- bureau/2015/03/network-neutrality-%E2%80%93-let-those-packets-flow

Noor, Achmad Rouzni. ‘Indosat Salip XL, Juaranya Masih Telkomsel’. Detikinet. N.p., 17 June 2015. Web. 27 May 2016. http://inet.detik.com/read/2015/06/17/110552/2944604/328/indosat-salip-xl-juaranya-masih- telkomsel

North, Dave Lee. ‘Protests Grow against Facebook’s Internet.org’. BBC News. N.p., 19 May 2015. Web. 8 Dec. 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32795270

Noviandari, Lina. ‘Penetrasi Pengguna Facebook Mobile Indonesia Tertinggi’. Tech in Asia Indonesia. N.p., 22 Jan. 2015. Web. 26 May 2016. https://id.techinasia.com/jumlah- pengguna-facebook-mobile-indonesia-tertinggi-dunia

---. ‘Statistik Pengguna Internet Dan Media Sosial Terbaru Di Indonesia’. Tech in Asia Indonesia. N.p., 25 Nov. 2015. Web. 26 May 2016. https://id.techinasia.com/jumlah-pengguna- facebook-mobile-indonesia-tertinggi-dunia

OECD. ‘Internet Infrastructure’. OECD Communications Outlook. Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development, 2013. 137–175.

Pahwa, Nikhil. ‘It’s a Battle for Internet Freedom’. Times Of India Blogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/its-a-battle-for-internet-freedom/

84 Prihadi, Susetyo Dwi. ‘Soal Internet “Gratis” Ala Zuck, Kenapa XL Disalip Indosat?’ CNN Indonesia. N.p., 24 Apr. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. http://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20150423160531-185-48801/soal-internet-gratis-ala- zuck-kenapa-xl-disalip-indosat/

Rossini, Carolina, and Taylor Moore. Exploring Zero-Rating Challenges: Views From Five Countries. Public Knowledge. Web. 5 Feb. 2016. https://www.publicknowledge.org/documents/exploring-zero-rating-challenges-views-from- five-countries

Silverman, David. Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. SAGE, 2006.

Stallman, Erik, and R. Stanley Adams. Zero Rating: A Framework for Assessing Benefits and Harms. Center for Democracy & Technology, 2015. Web. 21 May 2016. https://cdt.org/insight/zero-rating-a-framework-for-assessing-benefits-and-harms/

Star, Susan Leigh. ‘The Ethnography of Infrastructure’. American Behavioral Scientist 43.3 (1999): 377–391.

Statt, Nick. ‘Facebook’s Free Internet Service Has Been Shut down in Egypt’. The Verge. N.p., 30 Dec. 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2016. http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/30/10690714/faceboo- free-basics-internet-service-shut-down-egypt

Stiegler, Zack, ed. Regulating the Web: Network Neutrality and the Fate of the Open Internet. Lexington Books, 2014.

Styles, Kirsty. ‘Facebook Free Basics Has Only Reached 1% of 1.4BN Potential’. The Next Web. N.p., 13 Apr. 2016. Web. 20 May 2016. http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2016/04/13/facebooks-reached-just-1-potential-audience- developing-markets/

The Citizen Lab. Islands of Control, Islands of Resistance: Monitoring The 2013 Indonesian IGF. The Citizen Lab, 2014. Web. 20 May 2016. http://www.citizenlab.org/briefs/29-igf- indonesia/29-igf-indonesia.pdf

The Internet Governance Forum 2015. ‘2015 11 12 A Dialogue on “Zero Rating” and Network Neutrality Main Meeting Room FINISHED’. The Internet Governance Forum. N.p., 12 Nov. 2015. Web. 20 May 2016. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/187-igf-2015/transcripts-igf- 2015/2874-2015-11-12-a-dialogue-on-zero-rating-and-network-neutrality-main-meeting- room-finished

Velayanikal, Malavika. ‘India’s Protest against Facebook’s Internet.org Goes Global’. Tech in Asia. N.p., 19 May 2015. Web. 26 May 2016. https://www.techinasia.com/65-digital-rights- groups-echo-indian-protest-against-facebook-internetorg

Wadhwa, Vivek. ‘Seeing Beyond The Hubris Of Facebook’s Free Basics Fiasco’. TechCrunch. N.p., 13 Feb. 2015. Web. 18 Feb. 2016. http://social.techcrunch.com/2016/02/13/seeing- beyond-the-hubris-of-facebooks-free-basics-fiasco/

We Are Social. ‘2016 Digital Yearbook’. Singapore. 2016.

85 Weiss, Robert S. Learning From Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies. Simon and Schuster, 1995.

West, Darrell . ‘Digital Divide: Improving Internet Access in the Developing World through Affordable Services and Diverse Content’. The Brookings Institution. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2016. http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/02/13-digital-divide-developing- world-west

World Bank. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. Washington: World Bank, 2016.

Wu, Tim. Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network,

Yoo, Christopher S. Beyond Network Neutrality. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, 2005.

---. Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network,

Zhang, Zhiyong, Ovidiu Mara, and Katerina Argyraki. ‘Network Neutrality Inference’. Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on SIGCOMM. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 2014. 63–74.

Ziewitz, Malte, and Ian Brown. ‘A Prehistory of Internet Governance’. Research Handbook on Governance of the Internet. Ed. Ian Brown. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013. 3–26.

Zuckerberg, Mark. ‘Free Basics Protects Net Neutrality’. Times Of India Blogs. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Mar. 2016. http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/free-basics-protects-net- neutrality/

86 APPENDIX 1- Interview & Observation Questions

Questions Guideline for Digital Activists

No Topic Question 1 Zero-rating scheme What issue does your organization support and focus? Before the Free Basics, there are some mobile operators 2 that implement the zero-rating model, How do you respond to these arrangements?

What do you think about the Indonesian customer's view 3 about zero-rating service or the mobile operator services in general?

There are global movements to protest Internet.org's Free 4 Internet.org / Free Basics Basics,Do you involve in the protest? If so, How do you involve in the protest

If you involve in the protest or criticize Free Basics, which 6 aspects of Free Basics do you aim to address ? Do you have an opinion about the Free Basics' internet 7 protocol? Do you have an opinion about the privacy terms and 8 condition in Free Basics?

9 Net neutrality How do you define net neutrality? Is there any incident or legal case ever occurred in 10 Indonesia in relation to the net neutrality? What do you think about the mobile operators regarding this 11 principle? What do you think about the content provider regarding this 12 principle? What do you think about the government regarding this 13 principle? What would you expect from the government in terms of net 14 neutrality?

Questions Guideline for The Govenrment (Ministry of Communication and Information)

No Topic Question (Eng) Zero-rating schemes have existed in Indonesia (Facebook 1 Zero-rating scheme unlimited, Facebook Zero, Free Social Media, etc), how does the ministry acknowldge such practice?

Is there any specific regulation for zero-rating scheme 2 implementation? And do you plan to implement some?

87 The ministry has undertaken generous effort to provide universal service including the internet to the remote areas, 3 how does the ministry acknowledge the zero-rating's role in this context?

How does the ministry's upcoming OTT regulation affect 5 zero-rating arrangement between the OTTs and the local mobile operators?

Internet.org / Free How did Indosat arrange a permit from the ministry before 6 Basics implementing Free Basics application? Does the ministry have a particular partnership with the 7 Internet.org ? And if so, what sort? Is it publicly accessible?

In the ministry latest announcement letter, the Over The Top service requires to comply with the Indonesian government 8 guideline, including the utlization of Indonesian internet protocol, How does the ministry respond to Free Basics app that uses Facebook's proxy and protocol instead?

Free Basics keeps the traffic information in the system, How 9 does the ministry react to this practice?

Ther are net neutrality global debates, how does the 10 Net neutrality Indonesia government situate its policy in the debate? How does the ministry define Net neutrality? are there any

relevant documents?

The Zero-rating schemes like Free Basics provide competitive advantage to certain ISPs and content providers 11 (In India, the governement just banned the service), How does the Indonesian government view this matter?

Have any mobile operators reported the competitive 12 advantage in zero-rating practices to the ministry?

Questions Guideline for Studying Platform No Layer Question 1 Operation How does the app work? 2 How does the user experience the app? 3 What does the terms and condition include and exclude? 4 What does the privacy terms apply to the user? How does the app transform the user experience to access the online 5 content or application?

1 Interface What kind of menu does available in the app? 2 How does the flow of the app work? 3 What is limited in the app's interface? 4 How does the flow fit with the user's normal experience with the app?

88 How does the user control the direction and pace of the interaction until the 5 point at which the user's goal has been met? Is there any setting for individualization or to modify specific menu with the 6 user's need? 7 How does the app present the information dialogue? How does the app construct the interface to hook the user ? (walled- 8 garden)

Form/ 1 How does the app function? Function What function does the app restrict and allow the user experience to access 2 content and application? 3 What function does the app serve (e.g. email, instant messaging, etc)? 4 How many content and application does the app facilitate? 5 Is there any content or application with similar capacity? 6 What kind of embedded media do perform within the app's content? 7 How does the app perform in 2G and 3G connection?

1 Code What kind of programming language does the app use? 2 How does the programming language configure the app? 3 What is different or similar comparte to other apps? 4 What protocol does the app apply in the system? What specification does Internet.org make to integrate the external content 5 and service? Does the app apply the deep packet inspection or any technique to retrieve 6 data from the traffic? 7 Does the app allow https within the system?

1 Platform What makes the app different from other zero-rating platform available? 2 How does the app build its ecosystem of content and application? 3 How do the contents and applications place side by side within the app ? Do the technical requirements of Free Basics incline to limit the developer's 4 innovation? 5 In what part does the app interrupt the data packet delivery on the network?

89 APPENDIX 2- Matrix to Analyze the Interview

The data from the interviews are coded and summarized into a checklist matrix. The matrix helps the data analysis process and identifies the position of the information sources.

Checklist Matrix Main Topic Sub-Topic ICT Watch SAFENET Marketing/Promotion - "Plausible and fine, if the Business competition- "The Reason/argument operators want to give free operators use the strategy to Zero-rating to implement access to certain services as survive in the tough zero-rating long as no blocking or speed competition" preference for certain services" Universal Access- "The quality of access has to be good. The Marketing/promotion- "It is a customer should have ability strategy to attract new to choose any services & consumer". contents regardless the data cost they pay.

Mobile operator & Content Mobile operator initiated- provider initiated - "This practice has been Arrangement "Internet.org was supposed to relatively common among initiative be conducted by Facebook and mobile operators' promotion. XL but then it shifted to It's their initiative." Indosat Ooredoo." Mobile operator & Content provider initiated - "Now there is a tendency that big companies initiate zero rating

and work with the operators like Facebook with Facebook Zero, Google with Google Zone and Spotify."

Agree with conditions- "It is Agree with conditions - "as reasonable if the operators long as it gives good quality want to use Zero rating as Position/Opinion and equal access, without part of their promotion, but content, services and speed they should preserve the limitation'' open internet.'

Universal Access & Customer Rights- "If zero-rating mechanism wants to address the population who never Reason of the access internet before and live position in remote areas, it should be promoted in that areas and non restricted for the customer to access."

90

Involved - " We are part of the Best Bits, a global network of Civil Society Organizations and Involved- "We were informed Free Basics Involvement in many of them concern with by ACCESS NOW to join the (Internet.org) Global Protest internet.org. And because we movement." know Internet.org would launch in Indonesia."

Labeled as Free Internet- "It Labeled as Free Internet- was a mistake and deceitful to "Internet.org said it was a free offer the platform as an entry Concern access but it turns out only to the 'Internet'. In reality, access to several contents & what Internet.org offer is not services." a genuine internet."

Privacy- "Facebook imposes Partnership arrangement - its privacy terms. FB would be "Facebook & the mobile the owner of the information operators should be more that are collected in the focused to deliver the services platform. While the targeted in remote areas, like eastern users are not well-informed part of Indonesia for instance." with privacy issue."

Lack Support for Local Content Providers- "Instead of picking content providers to be Security- "The traffic needs to included in the platform, pass the Facebook server. Facebook could open Facebook has the authority to opportunity and encourage decrypt the traffic. It is very more local small and medium vulnerable." scale content providers to provide their services through Free Basics. " The customer's awareness- "Most of Indonesian love Business interest- "No need to freebies, who doesn't promote Internet.org as a anyway? But the customers nonprofit initiative when it's would likely not think critically merely just a marketing why they cannot access more gimmick for a particular contents than Facebook has carrier." provided. They prefer to stay in Facebook."

Joint Statement- "We drafted Joint Statement- "Participated the statemet in an online Action to protest in the global protest letter collaboration with ACCESS Free Basics along with other Best Bits NOW. Then we distributed organization members." the information nationally."

91 Media Publicity- "We informed the Indonesian mass media about our objection towards Internet.org and they reported the critiques. We also shared the letter and supporting documents publicly."

Meeting with Facebook- "After the protest letter, a representative from Facebook for Southeast Asia (Head of Public Policy for SEA) invited us to discuss about the issue. We criticized Internet.org for misusing "Internet" to label the platform in its promotion and for limiting the selection of contents."

Privacy- "This is SAFENET's main concern is privacy. This Privacy- "It's so naïve to talk platform implies that to about privacy, because most access a bunch of free Response to Free people in Indonesia do not services, the users have to Basics Terms & aware about this aspect. We sacrifice their privacy. Even Conditions focused more on the net after protest, Facebook does neutrality." not change this aspect. Facebook can use the information for its interest." Free Data Limit- "20 or 25 Mb Security- "Before the protest, is insufficient. There is no it does not support ssl/https. added value anymore for the They improved this aspect but customers to use still can decrypt the traffic to Internet.org." some extent."

No Discrimination- "Net No Discrimination- "ISPs or neutrality means no mobile operators have serve Net Definition discrimination applied to all contents equally. They Neutrality content that is delivered by should let other contents to the network provider." run on their network." Infrastructure- "Rarely User Rights- "Every user touched in net neutrality deserves equal access to the debate, but it is very internet and all contents or important to look who rules

services in it, regardless the infrastructure. In Indonesia, user's economic status and Telkomsel is now the biggest dwelling" ISP and the most established infrastructure in Indonesia."

92 ISP*- "Net neutrality violation is evident when ISPs reduce ISP- "Telkom blocks Netflix speed and block certain because it has authority to do Intervention services or contents. Like what so and solid infratructure to Telkom does to Netflix in challenge Netflix burden." Indonesia (blocking) for instance."

Government- "Government doesn't have specific regulation implying net neutrality principle.But there is an opportunity for ISP to block certain contents because of a government's regulation on negative contents filtering and blocking. And the framework of what is 'negative' is unclear which leaves a room for ISPs to tweak according to their interests."

ISP intervention- "ISPs have their own regulation which Privacy- "Currently, there is states that they have authority no regulation to protect the to regulate the network. If user's privacy. If there's any customers do not like the infringement made by ISP or Concerns service, they can switch to content provider collecting other ISPs. But the problem is information without when the customers do not permission, it would be have another option in their difficult to process." area." Customer rights- "However Customer Rights- "The ISPs are often not transparent netizens or customers are to the customer about their harmed with the unequal regulation. And not many access to internet. They are customers who is educated or victims of the debates aware with the ISPs' provision between content providers and regulation." and ISPs."

Disagree- "Here, ISPs are Disagree- "If an ISP feels like it reluctant to net neutrality has a solid authority to govern principle, because they learn its network and the from the global players like government support that ISP standpoint Facebook or Google lobbying idea, no wonder Telkom or for net neutrality. They do not other ISPs can block any want this happen in service or content as they Indonesia." want."

93 Competitive Advantage- "Telkomsel dominates telecommunication infrastructure in Indonesia

and almost hard to beat if we're talking about competition. Even if there is a Zero Rating practice."

Unclear- "Government just Unclear- "Government only aims to create equal playing cares about e-commerce and Government field for the ISPs, global e-governance, without paying standpoint content providers and local attention to protect privacy of content providers." the citizens and other rights."

NA- "Only few actors in Indonesia understand the net NA- "In Indonesia, only digital neutrality debates, maybe only rights activists deal with this a small number of CSOs matter. Even among CSOs, Civil Society supporting it. The notable many of them do not have a Organization companies have obfuscated clue how an open internet standpoint the net neutrality. We want to should be. So, it's uneasy bring up the customer rights distinguishing the 'genuine' but now it is dificult to frame it internet and pseudo one." that way."

ISP Block- "The biggest ISP, Telkom, is blocking Netflix in ISP Finfisher- "There is defense of protecting its Net Neutrality Finsfisher found in some ISPs network from Netflix's burden. related Incident in Indonesia, but it is unclear But in public Telkom use who installed it there." pornographic content as a reason to block Netflix."

ISP DPI**- "In reality there are evidences that shows some

ISPs employed deep packet inspection in their traffic."

OTT Regulation- "This OTT*** Regulation- regulation does not derive "Government encourage from the user rights' point of global content providers to Government view. Rather, the clauses comply with local regulation Regulation indicate business interest and cooperate with local from Telco companies, players (ISPs and local content especially Telkom (state providers). " owned)."

94 Not always- "Not all zero- rating practices violate net Not Always- "There are some neutrality principle. Zero- ideal zero rating practices, Zero rating & Net rating should not perceive as a which do not cheat and neutrality negative scheme. The mislead the customers. It's implementation should give just a matter of choice." clear information and not deceptive to the users." *ISP: Internet

Service Provider

**DPI: Deep

Packet Inspection

*** OTT: Over

the Top

95 APPENDIX 3 – Transcript Sample

Interviewee : Donny BU Institution : ICT Watch Date : April 13th, 2016 Duration : 80 min

T: Sebenarnya kan aku wawancara mas Donny dari sisi praktisi dan analisis digital di Indonesia. Aplikasi Free basic ini juga zero rated kan, karena dia ngatur dengan si operator ponselnya untuk kasi data gratis. Tapi, sebenernya itu juga praktek yang sebelum free basic ini juga udah ada di Indonesia. Kayak ada kan paket “Facebook Unlimited”, atau dulu three (3) juga ada “always on”. Jadi, orang bisa beli paket data, tapi kalo dia paket datanya habis tetep bisa akses facebook, google

Q: Actually, I am interviewing Mas Donny as a practicioneer and digital analysis in Indonesia. This Free Basic application is zero rated, because with the phone operater, they set to give free data. But, this is the practice that already been there before the free basic exist. For instance, there was a “Facebook Unlimited” package, or thewe was “always on provided by three (3). So, people can buy data package, but if they run out their data, they still able to have access to facebook, google, etc.

J: oh gitu ya.. baru tau juga sih kayak gitu

A: Oh really.. I just know that there was programs like that.

Iya, sebelumnya facebook itu juga facebook zero sama XL. Karena awalnya aku juga baca berita di arsip beritanya gitu. Jadi tadinya Facebook itu mau ngebawa free basic sama XL, tapi XL-nya gak jadi. Akhirnya jadinya sama Indosat. Tapi sebelumnya kira-kira mas Doni sendiri kalo udah mengetahui ada praktek-praktek zero rating kayak gini responnya kayak gimana mas?

Yes, previously facebook also facebook zero with XL. Because initially I read also news in the archive and it was like that. Facebook was planning to have a free basic with XL, but XL was cancelled. Finally they were done it with Indosat. But if you knew there was this zero rating practices, what could be your responses?

Hmm.. apa ya.. saya sendiri gak pake sih. Jadi gini, saya gak pake yang gratisan karena kan mampu bayar hahaha. Tapi, kalau liat konteks hukumnya kan gini, dia masuk ke Indonesia, kemudian.. ini mau Praktek Zero Ratednya dulu atau internet.org nya dulu?

Hmm.. I don’t use it. So, I don’t use free basic because I am able to pay hahaha. But, if we see in the context of the law, they enter Indonesia, then.. they want to have Zero Rated practices or internet.org as the first?

Zero Ratednya dulu

Zero Rated first

Sebenernya sih oke-oke aja. Toh pengguna seluler kita.. Saya lupa angkanya sekitar 80 persen atau berapa gitu kan prabayar. Jadi bukan maksudnya mereka semua miskin atau gimana, tapi kan emang caranya mereka beli kan beli nyicil, orang Indonesia kan emang gitu untuk telekomunikasi. Sehingga, ya kalau ada layanan yang kontennya bisa bermanfaat buat mereka dan mereka bisa effort, atau bisa memiliki dengan biaya yang lebih murah, ataupun gratis ya bagus dong, kenapa engga.. gitu.. justru itu yang harus banyak didorong. Jadi kalau sebatas ada layanan bagus bermanfaat dan murah, apalagi gratis, masyarakat bisa akses ya bagus. Sampai disitu, selesai, gitu.. cuman kan kemudian menjadi lain soalannya kalau kemudian konten tersebut, Zero Rated dilihat dari kepentingan bisnis.

Saya tidak akan bicara banyak deh soal bisnis. Orang bisa aja dong memilih layanan A atau misal Telkom B karena memberikan akses layanan gratis. Ya gapapa, sah-sah aja, kan bisa saja itu trik marketing. Tetapi, yang menjadi soalan adalah ketika persaingan ini mengkerucut menjadi lebih tajam

96 sehingga nanti akan begini, “Oke, kalo gitu pake A yang Telkomsel misalnya, Facebook udah gratis trus kenceng. Trus XL bilang, wah gabisa begitu tuh. Sekarang orang pake apa? Instagram? Oke kita kasih Instagram, kita kencengin, biarin yang sana lambat”. Jadi orang akhirnya jadi kena kan masuk kesitu. Kalau orang udah kena dan bilang bahwa: “Oh, kalo pake A lebih kenceng, kalo mau konten ini lebih kenceng pake yang ini dan segala macem”. Kalau promosinya sampai ke arah situ, “Pake gue lebih kenceng, sana lebih lambat. Atau pake gue gratis, sana lebih mahal” atau “Sana kayaknya dilambatin tuh internetnya, atau sana kayaknya diblokir tuh netflixnya” Terus nanti ada “Pake my republic, tidak ada blokir Netflix” nah, kalau sampai kayak gitu kan masyarakatnya yang jadi kena. Masyarakatnya yang mau mendapatkan akses yang beragam kan jadi terganggu, menjadi tidak equal. Kenapa? Karena kalau masyarakatnya mampu bayar, kayak saya ini ya mampu bayar, ya kan mau pilih apa aja. Orang yang cuma mampu beli im3 prabayar yang pulsanya dikit, Cuma mampu akses konten yang sudah dipilih oleh operatornya. Kalau mau yang lain, dia harus bayar lebih mahal, atau konten yang lain jadi lebih lambat.. nah, mulailah disitu ini sudah bukan bisnis lagi nih, ini adalah kepentingan masyarakat. Ya gitu sih.. konteksnya masuknya di situ.

Actuallly it’s fine. Because cellular phone user in Indonesia.. I forgot the number, approximately 80 percent using prepaid. It doesn’t mean they are poor, but the way they pay is by installment, that’s ussualy Indonesian way of paying for telecommunication. So, if there is a service with a useful content for them and they can effort for that, or they can have it with cheaper price, or even free, that’s very good, why not.. that’s need to be encouraged. So if there is only good, useful, and cheap services, especially free, so people can access, that’s good. Until that point. But then become another things when those contents, Zero Rated, seen ad a business interest.

I’m not gonna speak about the bussines matter. People could choose for service A or for example Telkom B because gives the free access. That’s no problem, that’s ok, because it could be marketing strategy. But, the problem is when this competition becomes more detail so it would be like this, “Ok, using A the Telkomsel for instance, free facebook and fast connection. Then, XL said, it couldn’t be like that. What is people using now? Instagram, ok we will give instagram, we make it faster, lets another one become slower.” So then people will going there. If people using it then they will say: “Oh, if using A is faster, if this content will be faster using this one, et cetera.” If the promotion going to that direction, “Using my service will be faster, and the rest are slower. Or, mine is free and the others are more expensive.” Or “That one is slowing down their internet service, or that one was blocking the Netflix.” Then will be “Using republic, Netflix is not blocked” so, if it is like that, the people will get the impact. People who want to have more access will be disturbed, and inequal. Why? Because if they can pay, as like me, we are free to choose. People who only afford to user im3 with limited credit, only can access the chosen content by its operator. If they want anything else, they need to pay more or another content will be slower. In that point not only business but there is public interest. So, the context is there..

Tapi kalau di ICT Watch sendiri pernah gak memberikan informasi tentang zero rated yang tadi menurut mas Doni ini udah kelewat dari kepentingan bisnis dan kena ke customer.

But, has the ICT itself given information about zero rated as you stated already beyond business interest and has an impact to the customer?

Kita kan ikut itu yang aliansi globalnya cso, dan data dokumen itu kita terjemahkan dalam Bahasa Indonesia ada di slide share. Lalu, kita share terjemahan itu ke banyak temen-temen, kita dorong juga ke pemerintah, ke pak menteri, untuk menjadi salah satu rekomendasi. Dan sebenernya disini juga kan kurang happy terhadap ini. Tapi juga kan oleh temen-temen media ditulis kan. Oleh temen-temen media ditulis, temen-temen media di luar negri juga ditulis, bahwa keberatan ini juga terjadi pada banyak negara. Seperti di India juga, di Indonesia juga, jadi ya kita memberikan informasinya dengan cara seperti itu. Dan Facebook juga kan ngajak ketemuan kita.

We are join global CSO alliance called and we translated the document’s data in to Bahasa Indonesia, there is in the slide share. Then, we share the translation to many friends; we encourage also the government, the ministry, to be one of recommendation. And actually here we are not happy with this. But media also wrote about it. The local media wrote the issues, also foreign media do it as well, this objection also happened in many countries. Like in India, in Indonesia, so we gave the information by that way. And facebook did ask for meeting with us.

97 Jadi Facebook ngajak ketemuannya setelah statement protes itu?

So Facebook asked for meeting after the protest statement?

Iya dia ajak ketemuannya setelah ada protes. Tapi Facebook tahu sekali. Jadi, ketika kita ngomong sama temen-temen Facebook, yang waktu itu ada acara makan malam gitu. Dia tau kalau ada surat, dan itukan cso Global, diceritain: “ya elu dagangannya begitu..”

Yes they were asking for a meeting after they were protested. But facebook understood our points. So, when we spoke to Facebook, in one dinner. They know that there was a letter, and it was Global CSO, told: “Your action to deliver your initiative is unacceptable.”

Ini orang Facebooknya orang Indonesia atau orang mana?

Do the Facebook representatives from Indonesia or where do they come from?

Jadi ada orang Singapore dan ada orang Indonesianya juga. Kita ngomong “Lu bilang internet network akan membangun internet di kawasan yang ada ribuan orang segala macem. Itu si Indosat masang baliho yang tulisannya mau internet gratis, mau facebook gratis gitu gitu”

There are Indonesians and Singaporean. We told “You said internet network will develop internet in the area of thousands people. You can see on the Indosat billboard written about free internet, free facebook, etc. But those claims are bogus”

Ini waktu itu kapan ya ketemuannya mas?

When was the meeting happened?

Lupa waktu itu, kapan ya.. pokoknya waktu itu makan malam bareng.

I forgot when was it happened.

Sebelum bulan September ya, berarti belum ganti nama waktu itu ya?

Is it before September, so it hasn’t change the name? Iya belum, belum ganti nama. Saya bilang internet apaan tuh batesin kayak gitu. Yang kayak dari Perludem, dia bilang “Kita termasuk yang dirangkul sama Facebook nih, untuk menjadi aliansi mereka untuk gratis”. Aku lupa juga, pokoknya ada lima situs di Indonesia yang udah dirangkul sama Facebook. Jadi gengnya mereka juga. Jadi kalau geng mereka kan jadi gratis juga, gak kena data gitu kan. Terus aku bilang di FDD, “Ya iyalah, sekarang mereka kalau ga memberikan value added tambahan” jadi mereka itu make temen-temen ini untuk menjustifikasikan bahwa ternyata gue kan bermanfaat buat orang-orang Indonesia. Tapi, tetep aja dibatasin. Jadi, jangan naif kalau elu digandeng Facebook terus lu bilang bahwa facebook adalah orang yang baik.

Yes it hasn’t changed the name. I said what is that limited internet. It is like in the Perludem, the said “We are part of embraced by facebook, for become their alliance to be a free content in the platform”. I forget, there are five sites in Indonesia that have embraced by facebook. That’s their gang. So their gang will be free too, and will not have a data charge. Then I told in FDD.” No wonder they now have more value added” so they use their gang to justified that this is useful for Indoensian people. So, don’t be so naïve if you embrace by facebook and you said that facebook is a good person.

Waktu itu awalnya mas Donny ikut juga dalam protes itu tuh gimana mas? Kalo ga salah kan pernah di share juga di Id- Config gitu, apa dari awal udah terlibat atau gimana?

At that time mas Donny also part of the protest, how was it? If I’m correct, you shared also in Id- Config alliance mailing list, have you been involved since the beginning?

Jadi di Global ini ada kan namanya Bestbits. Tapi kemudian yang bertebaran adalah tentang itu, tentang internet.org. Karena pada saat itu sudah atau akan tau bahwa Facebook akan masuk internet

98 org-nya ke Indonesia. Jadi kalau ga masuk ke Indonesia juga barangkali kita belum tentu akan terlibat dalam aliansi itu. Setelah kita liat atau sudah yakin tau bahwa mereka sudah masuk ke Indonesia dan melihat ada dot internet yang memihak dia, atau soal sekuriti, ya udah kita dorong juga. Kita harus menyatakan surat tidak sepakat. Dan waktu masuk ke Indonesia juga ternyata emang dodol. Ya artinya kan, “Ya elu kalo dagang ya dagang aja, gapapa. Bilang aja jujur, jangan bilang akan ini akan itu”. Pak menteri juga keberatan dan ngeluarin statement.

There is called Bestbits coalition as part of this Global movement. Then they spread about that, about internet.org. Because at that time they have already known that facebook will have its internet.org in Indonesia. So if they were not going to Indonesia, maybe we couldn’t be part of that alliance. After we have seen and knew that they are already in Indonesia and there is dot internet who takes a side, or about security, we also pushed. And when entering Indonesia it was not good, apparently. It does mean, “If you want to sell out, it’s no problem. You can be honest with you plan.” The ministry complained and made a statement.

Tapi kalo aku baca dari sumber berita bukan dari menterinya sih mas. Itu kan kayak dari SDPPI, dia bilangnya mendukung ya gitu-gitu..

But I read from the news sources, it was not from the ministry. It was from SDPPI, they said that they’re supporting the initiative to give the free access.

Ada si pak Rudiantara ngomong tidak secara spesifik bilang gak setuju. Karena kan dia bahasanya politis banget. Gatau sih apa ada pemberitahuan secara jelas ke public. Tapi, XL juga kan akhirnya ngelepas itu karena dia juga ngeh kan..

There is Mr. Rudiantara (the minister) who said that he didn’t agree but to not so specific. Because his words were too political. I don’t know was there any clear public announcement or not. But. XL also released their cancellation too because they realized it.

Kalau di media sih bilangnya kan karena kesepakatan bisnisnya XL gak nemu, katanya.

If you read in the media, it was because there was no agreement found for the business side, XL said. Ya, itu kan sama aja kayak kalau orang pacaran terus alasan yang paling klasiknya gitu, ya intinya gitu. Udah jelas-jelas pokoknya kayak pemerintah sendiri pun udah nggak happy. Ditambah lagi dengan bos nya si indosat tuh, CEOnya indosat si alexander, terus si net.org. pokoknya dia bilang ini adalah marketing. Ya mana? Coba kalo lu bikinnya di daerah Ambon, terus juga bukan gengnya Facebook doang, ada seratus website UKM misalnya, dan gratis diakses tanpa bayar data, disponsori oleh Facebook gratis 100 UKM, berani deh bukalapak. Lah ini Cuma akses Facebook, ya gitu deh.

That was a classic reason, but that’s the point. It was clear that the government itself was not quite happy with that intention. Then CEO of indosat and net.org said that this is marketing. Which one is marketing? If you launch the service in Ambon, and not only for the facebook gang, there are 100 UKM (Small and Medium Scale Enterprises) for instance, free access without pay data charge, sponsored by facebook. It is ok to open the platform. But this is only for access to the facebook gang.

Kalo waktu mas Doni nyusun bareng sama global soal aksi protes internet.org, terus setelah itu di bulan September mereka udah ganti namanya jadi freebasic, kan diprotes soal sekuritinya juga, akhirnya mereka katanya mengadopsi https juga, dan mereka juga belum mulai terbuka kalau layanan anda mau masuk silakan submit. Nah kan mereka udah mulai terbuka, mereka juga katanya ga Cuma ngajak kerjasama ke satu operator, tapi ke seluruh operator udah terbuka. Nah setelah perubahan itu dibikin oleh si Facebook, menurut mas Doni gimana? Aku juga kan harus nyoba aplikasinya, itu ternyata 20 mega per-hari. Ternyata itu juga dibatesin. Dan Indosat juga ngasi taunya kayak ada bintang kecil gitu, gimana mas?

When you arrange together with global about the protest of internet.otg, then after that in September they have changed their name to freebasic, it was protested about its security as well, then finally they said adopted https, and they also haven’t open if your service want to enter just submit it. They started to be open, they also not only open to one operator, but to all the operators were already opened. What do you think after those changes by facebook? I need to try this application, and it is 20MB per day apparently. It is limited. And Indosat also give the information with small start, what do you think?

99

Ya kalau udah kaya gitu ya yowes. Udah gak ada value addednya lagi kalau dibatesin Cuma 20 mega sehari. Itusih kecil banget kalo menurut aku. Itu udah bagian dari value added yang ga signifikan buat banyak orang ya.. Ya harus diliat dulu, datanya harus diimbangin dengan berapa mega sih orang pake untuk sehari. Ya intinya sih ini udah kaya “so what?” udah gapenting lagi gitu dengan semangat awal dia untuk mengembangkan internet udah ga relevan. Karena kan akses bukan hanya sekedar akses sekarang, tapi akses yang berkualitas. Kalau berkualitas kan harusnya gak dibatasin ya, baik dengan speednya, atau seberapa banyak yang dia akses. Saya gak tau juga kalau ternyata jadinya Cuma 20 mega ya itu sih Cuma jadi aliansi kayak yang penting ada aja dah gitu, ga terlalu guna buat Indonesia sih gitu. Pada awalnya juga emang udah gak guna sih. Kalau aku sih intinya tidak ada value added atau internet luar biasa yang diberikan oleh internet.org atau free basicnya ini kepada pengguna internetnya secara umum. Kalaupun ada ya Cuma bagi mereka yang pengguna awal atau pengguna pemula yang menggunakan indosat. Jadi, sudah kecil segmennya, kemudian mengkerucut lagi yaitu adalah pengguna awal yang menggunakan prabayarnya Indosat.

It doesn’t have any value added if its only limited to 20MB. That’s very small I would say. It is not a significant value added for many people. It needs to assess how many data that people need in one day. It is not relevant anymore to their initial idea to develop internet. Because access is not only current access, but also the quality of access itself. If they have a good quality, it needs to be unlimited, for the speed also how much access they can have. I didn’t realize apparently it has only limited to 20MB. That means the alliance is there only because it needs to be there, but not useful for Indonesian people. It was useless since the beginning. I think it is no great value added given by internet.org or its free basics to the consumer in general. If there is s purpose, it is only for earlier consumer of Indosat. So, it is already limited segment, then restricted to the consumer who use Indosat service.

Kalau menurut mas Doni, menurut asumsi mas Donny, Customer Indosat sendiri yang menggunakan Free Basics ini gimana?

What is your opinion and assumption about how those Indosat consumers use the free basics?

Ya coba aja kalau ditanya ke customer Indosat, “lo happy ga?” atau “terasa ga enaknya dimana sih”. Gue sih ngomong sama si orang facebooknya “lo kalo marketing ya marketing aja, tagline lo salah kalo mau mengembangkan internet dan lain-lain, gitu”.

You can try to ask the customers “Are you happy?” or “what is the inconvenience part”. I talked to Facebook guy “if you want to marketing, just do it. Don’t use tagline to develop internet and so forth.”

Tapi mas Doni waktu ketemu sama si orang Facebooknya ini sampe ngomongin soal privacy dan security di internet.org nya gak? Soalnya sempet di protes juga karena semua akses data dari free basic ini akan melalui proxynya si Facebook kan, katanya dia akan ngeretain data si pengguna setelah 90 hari

Did you talked about privacy and security in the internet.og when you had a meeting with this Facebook person? Because it has already protested for all the data will go through Facebook’s proxy, and they said they will delete all the data after 90 days.

Gak sih, terlalu naif kayaknya kalo kita sampe ngomongin soal itu. Soalnya kan masih banyak orang Indonesia yang juga sebenernya belum sadar soal itu. Jadi yang lebih kita fokusin ya lebih ke topik yang satunya lagi aja yang net neutrality. Jadi kita ada titik poin mana yang lebih kita beratkan, gitu. Tapi di koalisi global tetep ada poin-poin yang kayak keamanan gitu.

No, it was too naïve if we talked about that issue (privacy and security). Because there are still many Indonesian people do not aware of this issue. So we focus more into another topic that has to do with net neutrality. We emphasize in one topic. But in the global coalition there are points about the security.

Kalo pandangan soal net neutralitynya gimana mas? Soalnya kan kayak Facebook juga punya kayak interpretasi sendiri tentang net neutrality menurut mereka gitu.

What do you think about net neutrality? Because facebook also has their own understanding and

100 interpretation about net neutrality.

Ya neutrality ya sebenernya tidak boleh ada diskriminasi atas konten yang dideliver oleh pengelola atau jaringan telekomunikasi internet. Tidak boleh misalnya kalau ada konten yang dateng dari situs A, atau provider B, atau negara C, maka yang ini harus dilambatin, atau mungkin dicepatin, atau harus di belok-kan, kayak gitu. Kenapa? Karena semua pengguna internet itu berhak mendapatkan keseteraan dalam memanfaatkan akses dan konten dalam internet. Tidak perduli apakah karna dia miskin maka dia hanya bisa mendapatkan informasi sepenggal, atau karena dia di daerah yang mana, maka ia mendapatkan internet yang ribet, gitu kan. Kalau bicara soal infrastruktur tentu pemenuhan haknya kan harus ada development yang ada stagingnya yang ada tahapnya, dan itu dimungkinkan. Misalnya, “bagaimana dengan di daerah lain? Kan di Ambon mahal atau lebih lambat” tapi kan itu bukan regulasi yang mengatakan bahwa di Ambon harus lambat, tapi kan ada proses yang sedang dibangun. Yang salah adalah kalau pemerintah mengatakan bahwa: “biarin aja ya di Ambon, karena itu di daerah jauh maka lebih lambat” tapi kan gak gitu. Yang salah adalah kalau ada regulasi atau kebijakan yang membuat: “ya udah kalo gitu yang ini dilambatin aja, yang ini di blokir aja, atau segala macem”. Kayak yang dilakukan oleh Telkom kepada Netflix, itu udah jelas

Net neutrality is actually not discriminating the content that delivered through internet service providers. It’s should not be like this, if there is a content comes from site A, or provider B, or country C then it will be slower or faster, or to be redirected. Why? Because all the internet users have their own rights to have an equality in using the internet content. If we talk about the infrastructure indeed it needs a staged development, and it should be doable. For instance, “what about in another area? In Ambon it is expensive or slower” but that doesn’t mean that there is a regulation that said that in Ambon is slower, it is because there is a developing process. This is a problem if the government says like this: “we can keep Ambon slower because they are far away l city so it is slower” you can’t say that. The wrong thing is if there is a regulation like: “this needs to be slower, this one needs to be block, etc.” Like what Telkom and Netflix did, that’s clear.

Sampe sekarang masih diblokir ya Netflix?

Is Netflix still being blocked at the moment by Telkom?

Sampai sekarang sih masih. Tapi kalau disini kita pake dua. Ada speedy, dan ada first media. Jadi kalau buat yang mampu-mampu gini kita pake dua. Jadi, kalau yang satu gagal buka yang dikarenakan di block, kita bisa pake yang lain. Jadi sebenernya kayak gini kan gak boleh. Kalo misalnya Cuma ada daerah yang Cuma mampu bayar Telkom, atau emang Cuma adanya Telkom jadi gabisa dapat informasi yang bebas. Mungkin kalo dia bilang dia ga bekerja sama dengan ini, oke itu bisnis dan bisnis, selesai. Tapi regulasi dari perspektif usernya gimana?. Saya itu kalau nonton Netflix banyak sekali film-film dokumenter yang bagus-bagus, dan itu cuma ada di Netflix. Terus gimana? Saya mampu untuk mengakses dan itu bikin saya jadi lebih pinter , terus gimana buat yang ga mengakses? Itu baru contoh ya misalnya gitu..

Yes it is. But here we use two, Speedy (Telkom) and First Media. For people who can afford it, they subscribe two ISPs. If the one is blocked, we can use the other one. So actually it could to be like that. But if in the area that only can afford Telkom, or can only access Telkom, they don’t have free information. Maybe if they said they don’t have cooperation with this, okay that is business and business, that’s it. But how about the regulation from the user’s perspective? If I watch Netflix, I can watch very good documentary movies, and you can only watch it in Netflix. Then how? I can access it and it gives me more knowledge, then how about the people who can’t have an access? That’s only one example.

Tapi, kalo dari pemerintah sendiri kan kemarin mereka baru ngeluarin surat pemberitahuan yang OTT itu, pemerintah sendiri sebetulnya punya peraturan sendiri atau mungkin mengadopsi aturan dari net neutrality dari peraturannya Kominfo?

The government just announced a regulation to govern Over The Top (OTT) services, does the ministry of communication and information have their own regulation or just interpret the net neutrality regulation?

Pokoknya kalo dari pemerintah sendiri ya cuma ada peraturan yang dilarang melakukan tapping, atau

101 dilarang melakukan intersepsi, kecuali mungkin untuk alasan pengadilan. Itu ada di undang-undang telekomunikasi. Tapi, kalau ini diterjemahkan, intersepsi kan sebenarnya adalah melihat isi traffic kan, nah apakah yang dilakukan Telkom ini melihat isi traffic? Bisa jadi iya, bisa jadi tidak. Bisa jadi kan dia hanya melihat headernya saja, kayak misalnya dia liat header Netflix terus langsung di blok, gitu. Nah, kalo itu ya dia bukan melihat isi traffic. Ya buktinya sekarang ada atau tidak adanya aturan seperti itu, sudah terjadi dari yang bisa kita lihat dari Telkom kepada Netflix dong. Dan itu bukan berdasarkan pemerintah ya, ya itu kan pertanyaan ya, melanggar hukum gak itu. Di peraturan menteri tentang pengamanan konten negatif, seluruh ISP itu wajib untuk mematuhi seluruh blacklist yang ada di internet positif, plus mereka boleh menambahkan sendiri. Jadi, ya mereka boleh menambahkan sendiri, kalau ditanya alesannya ya banyaklah tinggal dikarang. Ada konten pornonya mungkin. Jadi kalo mungkin menurut Telkom misalnya ada yang mengganggu, Telkom berhak untuk memutuskan. Kayak Netflix diputus karena mungkin belum ada sertifikasi dari LSF, dan ada statement lain yang bilang mungkin karena bisnis. Dan ini mungkin memang kelihatannya karena bisnis, tapi bungkusannya kan bisa aja dengan alasan lain seperti belum di sensor, dan lain-lain. Kalau peraturan dari menterinya pun tidak ada, mereka sudah punya aturan sendiri, mereka pasti bilang: “Lah ini kan network gue sendiri, kan sudah ada tulisannya, kalau ini merugikan buat gue y ague tutup”, “user kalo gasuka pake gue, ya cari yang lain, pake yang lain” ya sudah begitu

From the government itself, there is only one regulation about restriction to do a tapping, or interception, unless that’s for judiciary reason. It is on telekomunication regulation. But, if this translated, interception actually looking at the traffic content, so is it what Telkom does is looking at the traffic? It could be Yes or No. They could be just looking at the header, like for example they look at Netflix’s header and they block it. So that’s not looking at the traffic content. It doesn’t matter about the there is or there isn’t regulation here, because we can see what is Telkom doing to Netflix. And that’s not based or regulation, do the question is does Telkom break the law? In the regulation from the ministry about the negative content security, every ISP must be obeys all the blacklists in the Internet Positif, plus they could also add it their self. They can add it and they can just made up the reason why. Maybe there is porn. So maybe if Telkom feels there is a disruption, Telkom can decide. Like Netflix just disconnected because they don’t have a sertification from LSF (censorship bureau), and there is another statement maybe because business matter. Maybe it is business matter, but they just cover it with cencorship issue, etc. If there is no regulation from the ministry, they have their own regulation, and they will say: “ This is our own network, and we say that if it’s not profitable for us, so we close it. If the users don’t like like it, they can use another network.”

Berarti seharusnya kan customer tau kalau telkomsel tuh punya aturan kayak gitu ya?

Actually costumers need to know that Telkomsel has that kind of regulation and intention, right?

Ya betul. Berarti kan customernya tidak cukup educated kan.. karena lagipula Bahasa-bahasa disclaimer dan policy gini siapasih yang mau baca gitu, dan itu kan lawyer yang baca doang. Di YLKI) juga seharusnya punya kepentingan disitu.

Yes. So it means costumers are not well educated. Because who wants to read this kind of disclaimer and policy, it is only lawyer who read it. YLKI (Consumers’ Rights Advocates) should have interest in there.

Tapi kalau dari YLKI nya sendiri pernah ga sih ada pembahasan yang tentang Free Basicnya sendiri?

Has YLKI discusses about their own Free Basic?

Kita pernah ngobrol sama temen-temen di YLKI, nah mereka itu fokusnya masih pada fokus yang konvensional, kayak pembayaran sms, atau pembayaran yang tiba-tiba melonjak, jadi kalau tentang net neutrality ya jauh. Mereka ya gabisa, mereka baru bisa yang general dulu. Dan mungkin faktanya ya yang general inilah yang paling banyak melayani rakyat Indonesia kan, bukan tentang fokus aksesnya. Mungkin masih pada ngurus yang bayarnya kemahalan mungkin, atau yang ketipu pulsa, dan lain-lain.

We have been discuss with YLKI, their focus still into the conventional, like SMS payment, or highly increase payment, so still very far if we discuss about Free Basic. They cannot, they only able do the general things. In fact, maybe those general things are the most things that serve Indonesian users, not

102 about the focus of the access. Maybe they still deal with unaffordable payment or credit fraudulence, etc.

Kalo mas Doni sendiri, dalam melihat prospek untuk menggunakan konsep net neutrality ini gimana? Mungkin ict watch pernah ada rekomendasi juga ke kominfo atau mungkin kemana gitu

How do you see the prospect of using this net neutrality concept? Has ICT Watch recommended the ministry about it?

Kita sih, kita gak cuma ke Kominfo. Kita juga sering ngobrol ke temen-temen di international provider. Net neutrality ini kan disatu sisi adalah ketika kita membicarakan tentang hak seseorang ketika mengakses internet tidak mendapatkan diskriminasi. Tapi, ternyata ini digunakan oleh global player yang semacam Facebook, Twitter, Google, terus juga perusahaan yang gede-gede itu menggunakan istilah yang sama untuk me-lobby pemerintah untuk mengatakan bahwa ya konten gua, jangan lu macem-macemin, jangan lu jadiin charge, jangan di charge tambahan, jangan lu lambatin, jangan kalo gue mau cepet lu kasihin biaya, gitu ya lu harus netral ya. Nah isp dan telko di Indonesia begitu mendengar kata Net Neutrality itu mereka langsung sangat tertutup.

We did not only to the ministry. We often discuss with international provider. In one hand, net neutrality is about how people not discriminated when the access the internet. But, this term aslo used by global player like Facebook, Twitter, Google, to do lobby the government and said tat their contents cannot be change, without any more charge, and need to be neutral. When ISP and Telkom heard about the net neutrality, they become not open at all.

Iya kayak kemarin kan XL juga langsung keluarin statement

It is like lately XL just made a statement

Iya makanya kan kita liat. Pertama, orang yang memahami net neutrality belum banyak.

Yes, we can see it. First, not so many people understand Net Nutrality.

Selain ict watch siapa yang focus ke isu ini?

Apart from ICT, is there any organization focus on this issue?

Ya. gatau ya. Kalo tau coba kasih tau saya. ya mungkin beberapa pegiat digital di FDD atau barangkali siapa gitu. Ya itu, ga banyak, atau mungkin belum terlalu banyak. Dan banyak perusahaan global yang me-lobby dengan istilah itu, sehingga Indonesia sekarang jadi berat untuk me-Net neutrality, dalam perspektif rights. Sehingga kalau mau dilakukan adalah sudah tidak lagi menggunakan jadwal net neutrality. Belum kepikiran, karena ini perlu dibawa isu-nya ke global. Gara- gara Whole Player, di Indonesia net neutrality jadi bringsek.

I don’t know. If you know other organizations, please let me know. Maybe mostly people from FDD (Digital Democracy Forum). Maybe not that much. Also a lot of global company lobbying with this term, so it is hard to so net neutrality in the Rights perspective. So that if it will be done, it shoud not using net neutrality schedule. This issue needs to be brough globally. Because of global player, in Indonesia net neutrality become useless.

Jadinya isp juga jadi nolak duluan?

So ISPs reject the principle in the beginning?

Iya jadi nolak. Kita ngomong neutrality yang dalam konteks consumer rights jadi gak bisa. Bagi mereka, net neutrality adalah kepentingan global yang tidak lain adalah kepentingan mereka sendiri. Supaya mereka ga keganggu, gaperlu bayar pajak, dan lain-lain. Itukan kayak pertarungan wacana yang belum selesai, tuturan wacana yang belum kelar antara banyak pihak. Jadi intinya masih banyak yang belum ngerti kan, tapi tetep inget kalau ini adalah pr yang belum kelar nih.

103

Yes, they reject. We discuss neutrality in the context of users rights, that’s why we can’t do that. For them, net neutrality is a global interest and also their own interest. In order to undisturbed, avoid the tax, etc. That’s like fighting for unfinished discourses. The thing is still a lot of people doesn’t understand, but still remember this is our unfinished homework.

Kalo dari pemerintah sendiri gimana?

What about the government?

Pemerintah sendiri sebenarnya kalau dilihat dari statementnya pak menteri kan equal playing field.

If we see from their statement, the ministry wants an equal playing field.

Itu untuk operator atau untuk siapa?

Is that for the operator or whom?

Untuk semua. Sebenarnya kan itu agak-agak mirip sebenarnya kan itu bukan net neutrality tapi teknologi netral. Tau gak bedanya net neutrality dengan teknologi netral? Jadi sebenarnya ada yang kesaru antara net neutrality dan teknologi neutrality. Ini coba tolong silahkan dibaca dulu. Jadi hati- hati, itu agak-agak nyaru.

For all. Actually it is not Net Neutrality but neutral technology. Do you know the different between net neutrality and neutral technology? Actually this is still vague. Please read it first. Be aware, it is a bit vague. Iya jadi mungkin misalnya si ISP nya bisa menginterfensikan ke trafficnya juga diperlukan gitu kan. Dengan alasan untuk menyelamatkan kontennya sendiri juga. Kalau diterjemahin ke ISP gimana soal teknologi neutrality? Maksudnya, ini kan regulasinya seperti universal gitu kan?

Maybe for example it needed when ISP intervene to the traffic. In order to protect their content. If translated to ISP, how about net neutrality? I mean, the regulation is universal, isn’t it?

Iya jadi tidak boleh dikunci pada satu teknologi tertentu. Dan diperbolehkan ada Technical standart jika diperlukan untuk membatasi hal-hal tertentu. Tapi tetep harus netral, tidak boleh mengacu pada hal-hal tertentu. Kayak dulu contohnya pas ada tinder kan juga ada teknologi netral untuk membatasi hal-hal tertentu, itu mungkin kan yang dimaksud menyangkut juga dengan net neutrality. Tapi kalau yang di ISP ini bagi mereka, ISP atau Telkom sebenarnya operator ini ya mereka Cuma keganggu aja dengan net neutrality. Ya mereka kayak “enak aja gue gaboleh ngapa-ngapain”

Yes the tehcnology shoud not be locked in one specific technology. And technical standart should be allowed for limiting some stuff. But it needs to be neutral, should not reffering to any specific thing. For example when there was tinder, there was neutral technologi to limiting some things, maybe it menat to be net neutrality. But for ISP and Telkom, they just feel disturbed by net neutrality. The feel like “I can’t do anything”

Iya kayak mereka nggak dapet untung gitu ya

It looks that they do not gain the profit

104

Ya gitu dan mereka pasti seakan “ya gue gak mau dong disuruh netral, gue aja terus duitnya dan trafficnya disedot terus lari kesana”. Itu kalo perspektifnya mereka, nah kalo government kepada ISP kayak “ya elo jangan batesin layanan” kayak misalnya grab gitu. Jangan di cut, atau blokir, intinya kan gitu. Tapi, mari kita buat, mereka yang dateng itu dari luar untuk mengikuti hukum Indonesia. Kayak bayar pajak dan segala macem. Sementara, gue akan dorong nih, kata pemerintah. Untuk diberikan insentif, di promosiin, dan segala macem. Sehingga equal. Jadi, lu jangan nge-blok sana sini, kan mereka juga ga bodoh. Nanti kalo konten yang dari kita di blok juga disana gimana? Net neutrality jadi kacau kan. Akhirnya bukan traffic dari satu layanan berbeda dengan traffic di tempat lain, tapi bisa jadi satu negara bakal di blok dan tersegmented. Dampak besarnya akan seperti itu kalau yang masalah kecil-kecil ini gak diurusin.

They like “ I don’t want to be neutral, I do nothing and the traffic used by them and they got the profit”. That is their perspective, and government to ISP like “you shouldn’t make service limited” like grab. Don’t cut, don’t block. But lets we make they who come from abroad follow Indonesian regulation. Like paying taxes etc. Meanwhile, I will pudh this, government says. To be indentified, to be promoted. In order to be equal. So, you should not be blocked everywhere, because thye are not stupid. How id our content also blocked there? Net neutrality will be messy. In the end not about the different between traffic to another, rather one country could be blocked and be segmented. This cloud be a big impact if you ignore small things.

Tapi implikasinya gimana, tapi belum keluar kan ya OTT atau udah keluar?

But how it will affect the industry? Is the OTT regulation official or not yet?

Sudah keluar kayaknya ya. Karena itu kan yang paling cepet, itu kan yang berlaku. Paling cepet, karena bikin PerMen kan peraturan Menteri gak butuh proses. Surat edaran juga sebenarnya kan tidak membuat aturan baru, itu hanya menegaskan bahwa jangan lupa kalau di Indonesia ada aturan tentang apa misalnya, pajak, atau apa gitu. Itu kan mereka hanya menjelaskan dan menegaskan, kalau ga salah kan sudah ada itu surat-surat edarannya. Itu kan sebenarnya ada di undang-undang dan di peraturan-peraturan lain. Itu kan hanya menujukan satu tujuan kepada misalnya grab bike atau Netflix. Ini adalah acuan-nya.

I think it’s already there. Because it is the fastest one, that’s what applied. Fatest because make a Ministry Regulation doesn’t need process. Circulated letter actually doesn’t make a new regulation, it just underline that Indonesia has several regulation, like taxes, etc. They just describe and underline, and I think there is circulated letter already. I think it is on the constitutions and another regulations. That olny mean for one target like Grab Bike or Netflix. This is the reference.

Maksudnya tuh bahwa suatu traffic harus melalui Indonesia, yang dimaksud pemerintah tuh kayak gimana? Apa dengan ISP di Indonesia?

Does it mean that one traffic need to via Indonesia, what does the government mean? Is that with ISP in Indonesia or else?

Kayaknya sih dia sebenarnya mendorong untuk mengadakan kerjasama dengan operator di Indonesia. Dengan telekomunikasi di Indonesia. Kalau sudah kerja sama konteksnya, bekerja sama dalam arti bukan Cuma lewat ya, kan harus ada agreement atau kesepakatan. Jadi kayak “oh lu mau lewat tempat gua? Oke nih lewat deh, tapi gua cas sepuluh ribu per kilobytes, atau segala macem”. Tapi, misalnya okedeh Netflix lo mau bayar berapa, misal “tiga puluh ribu sebulan, oke gue minta lima ribu” yang penting kan ada kerja sama. Sehingga pemerintah tidak harus mengatur antara bisnis- bisnis itu. “terserah lo, yang penting lo udah kerja sama, jangan ribut lagi ya” gitu.

I think they actually push the OTT services to make cooperation with the operator in Indonesia. With the telecommunication in Indonesia. If there is cooperation, that mean there is also an agreement. So they can also charge. But for example Netflix wants to negotiate the settlement, as long there is an agreement. Then the government doesn’t need to control this bussines. “It is up to you, the most important is you have an agreement”

105 Tapi kalo pemerintahnya sendiri sebenarnya bisa menjadi pelaku yang melanggar Net neutralitynya juga ga?

Does it mean the government also violates their Net Neutrality?

Pemerintah melanggar net neutrality ya engga juga. Pemerintah bisa dikatakan melanggar net neutrality kalau pemerintah mengatakan bahwa harus ada diskriminasi pada sebuah konten tertentu. Pemerintah produknya kan hanya regulasi. Pemerintah kan bukan pelaku di lapangan. Jadi tidak melanggar, sepanjang tidak mengeluarkan aturan yang dianggap melanggar.

I don’t think so. Govenrment violates Net Neutrality if they discriminate the content. Goventment product is just the regulation. They are not the player. So they don’t violate as long as they don’t make any regulation who violates.

Kan banyak juga pembahasan tentang net neutrality yang membahas tentang Blocking,

But there are discussions about blocking act in Net Neutrality.

Emang sudah ada DPI nya di Indonesia?

Is there any DPI in Indonesia?

Ya ga tau, makanya saya mau tanya

I don’t know, that’s why I ask

Ya saya ga tau. Kalo secara prakteknya sih gaada. Secara prakteknya saya gatau dan secara regulasinya gak ada. Secara prakteknya misalnya ISP bisa melakukan DPI.

I don’t know. Pranctically there isn’t. Practically I don’t know and there is no regulation. Practically, for example ISP can do DPI.

Kalo soal yang privacy tuh misalnya, pemerintah sendiri gimana tuh posisi-nya?

How is government position regarding privacy issue?

Masih jauh lah pemerintah kalau soal Privacy. Tapi, kalau tadi soal regulasi, regulasi itu tidak serta merta melanggar net neutrality. Tapi regulasi tersebut dapat memfasilitasikan terjadinya pelanggaran net neutrality. Ya itu, peraturan menteri yang tentang tidak memperbolehkan konten negatif jadi dimanfaatkan ISP untuk dapat menambahkan mana yang boleh diblokir.

Still too far in regards to privacy. But if It’s about regulation, this regulation is not violates Net Neutrality. But this regulation could facilitate Net Neutrality violation. That’s why Ministry Regulation about negative content used by ISP to block more contents.

Tapi ketika itu ada kriteria gak? Ketika peraturan menteri ngeluarin, ada kriteria apa saja yang boleh di blokir gitu. Ada pembahasan lebih lanjutnya gak, kayak konten apa gitu?

Were there the criteria? When Ministry Regulation was announced, what was the criteria for blocking? Was there any more discussion about the content?

Konten yang melanggar undang-undang. Jadi bisa apa saja. Jadi itu kan sudah jelas memberikan kesempatan walaupun peraturannya sendiri tidak melanggar. Ini kayak ada celah yang bisa dipake dan dimanfaatkan.

The content that violate the constitutions. It could be anything. It gives chance eventhough the regulation itself doen’t violate. There is an opportunity to be used.

Ada tambahan lagi gak gitu dari mas Donny sendiri, apa gitu mungkin

106 Do you have any more things to say?

Zero rated ini kan Cuma satu hal. Kalau net neutrality ini kan sebetulnya hal lain yang teknis. Jadi sebenarnya zero rated itu tidak selalu melanggar net neutrality. Jadi zero rated tuh boleh-boleh aja, sepanjang masih ada batas dan zero rated itu coba jangan dianggap negatif gitu. Setidaknya dikatakan secara clear, secara terbatas, durasinya..

This Zero Rated is only one thing, and Net Neutrality is another thing, technical thing. So zero rated not always violating net neutrality. Zero Rated is okay, as along as there is a limit, and we should not see it as a negative thing. At least said clearly, limited, the duration.

Atau Mozilla juga dia mengeluarkan dan menawarkan solusi. Kan dia lagi praktekin di negara Afrika, aku lupa negaranya Zambia atau apa. Jadi, dia dari browser, orang boleh akses apa aja secara gratis, tapi nanti dia kayak ada pesan-pesan sponsor gitu

Mozilla offering a solution. They do it in Africa, I forget maybe Zambia. They from browser, people can access it free, but it will be sponsor messages appear.

Ya itu bisa juga. Jadi zero rated ini bisa juga memunculkan seperti misal “traffic ini disponsori oleh ict watch. Anda digratiskan selama satu minggu. Anda diijinkan untuk akses kemana saja” itu kan juga praktek zero rated kan. Itu gapapa. Tapi, kalau net neutrality itu kan bahasan-nya sudah jelas. Intinya kalau dari yang pertemuan dengan Facebook itu juga hanya menemukan kesepakatan dalam beberapa hal aja. Intinya tetep belum ada value added nya.

That aslo could be a solution. So the Zero Rated can show that “this traffic is sponsored by ICT Watch. You have free access for a week and you can go anywhere” that’s a Zero Rated practice. But Net Neutrality is clear. After meeting with facebook, only some items discussed. There is no value added yet.

Tapi kalau indosat sendiri dia di daerah kuat ga?

Is Indosat’s connection also strong in local area?

Tetep kuatan telkomsel sih, kuatan Telkom. Secara infrastruktur juga engga. Kecuali kalau misalnya Facebook mau bikin infrastruktur sendiri. Tapi disini kan peraturannya juga gak memungkinkan.

Telkomsel is stronger still. Also in infrastructure. Unless Facebook wants to make its own infrastructure. But the regulation here makes it impossible, Facebook should work with other ISPs.

107

108