Facebook’s Internet.org initiative, in principle, is a promising idea. It aims to give mobile users in developing countries free access to selected online services that help people stay in touch, run small businesses, find information and receive critical alerts such as natural disaster warnings.
However, several Indian web and media companies — Cleartrip, NDTV, Newshunt and the Times Group — have announced they are withdrawing from Facebook’s program, citing their support for net neutrality as the reason.
Internet.org was first launched in India through a partnership with Reliance Communications in August 2013. Since then, Facebook’s scheme and similar proposals such as Airtel Zero have attracted criticism because they offer exclusive access to certain services, creating an uneven playing field for competing online providers.
Net neutrality has been a highly debated topic around the world. In recent news from the United States, internet service providers have been granted the ability to challenge the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules in court, and trade groups representing ISPs have already signaled legal action. Meanwhile in India, campaigns supporting net neutrality succeeded in generating a massive public response: citizens sent more than 600,000 emails to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to express support or concerns as the regulator prepares recommendations for policymakers.
Airtel issued a statement defending its approach, saying, “Airtel fully supports the concept of Net Neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll‑free data platform — Airtel Zero. It is not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform.” Critics, however, argue that any arrangement that allows certain services to be accessed for free while charging for others undermines the principle of an open and nondiscriminatory internet.
Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, has spoken frequently about Internet.org and its potential benefits. He used sections of his keynote addresses at Mobile World Congress in consecutive years to highlight how the initiative can extend internet access and, not incidentally, bring new users to Facebook’s social network.
Services that advertise “free” access inevitably face close public and regulatory scrutiny. The same questions apply to any large-scale connectivity project: who controls the data, how it is used for advertising or analytics, and whether the provider favors certain apps or partners. For example, projects such as Google’s Project Loon, which proposes delivering internet connectivity via high-altitude balloons, would also be examined to ensure they do not advantage specific services or compromise user privacy.
Public debate around Internet.org and similar offerings highlights broader tensions between expanding connectivity and preserving an open internet. Proponents argue that subsidized access can help bridge the digital divide and provide immediate benefits to underserved populations. Opponents warn that selectively free access creates walled gardens that limit competition, innovation and user choice.
As regulators, industry players and civil society continue to weigh these trade-offs, the decisions made in markets such as India will influence global discussions about how best to extend internet access while protecting principles of neutrality, competition and privacy.
Do you think telcos should opt out of Internet.org? Let us know in the comments.