The Socioeconomics Of The Digital Divide and Net Neutrality

Digital divide is modern society's failure in realizing net neutrality. There is an oligopoly over American media with only six companies owning 90% of the market, compared to fifty companies in 1983. Not only does this mean that the majority of our information comes from the same six companies, but also that there's not enough competition, causing unaffordable prices for most. Only the well-off have good internet, which is, according to Crawford, mostly "white, middle-class, urban" (2011). While 72% of white Americans have wired internet access, only 55% of African-American and 57% of Hispanic Americans have it. The invisible divide deepens even further with income disparities. At the income level of $75,000 per year, more than 90% of people has wired high-speed internet at home (Federal Communications Commission, 2011), while only 40% of the houses at an income level of $25,000 have any kind of internet access at home (Department Of Commerce, 2011).

Some people think smartphones have somehow abridged the gap, but even the incredibly fast adaptation of people to smartphones will not suffice. Smartphone software is not enough. The possibility of not everyone being able to watch Netflix might not make you shudder, but having low-speed internet or just a smartphone as means of internet access almost always means that the owner will receive lower quality health, education, and career opportunities. Even if smartphones were enough, users would be overcharged if they tried to utilize them for all of those needs (Crawford, 2011). It all comes down to whether the household can afford high-speed internet access or not, which determines the vastness of the possibilities available to the members of it. As technology advances, a lot of people are at risk of being left behind and this contributes to the racial and economic divide.

But how are things overseas? It does not look good for countries other than the United States either, including India which is one of the three countries with lowest connectivity as mentioned in the NY Times Article. Facebook's Free Basics initiative was aiming to make parts of the internet available for free to some of the 1 billion offline Indians, but TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) questioned the differential data pricing for context. Free Basics is serving 15 million people worldwide already, enabling them to access platforms such as Wikipedia, AccuWeather and the Facebook app for free by persuading local telecom operators to cover the cost. As philanthropic as all of this appears to be, a lot of people have voiced their concerns about the violation of net neutrality and that Facebook might have ulterior motives. Through Free Basics, Facebook would have ultimate power over what a large number of users could see, as well as gaining leverage over big competitors in the field such as Google or Twitter. Since India is a poor country, not having to pay for such services will attract a large number of citizens thus giving Facebook a lot of control. "The problem is affording unregulated high-speed service," as Crawford says, and it's basically a universal problem.

Coming up with a solution to this dilemma seems almost impossible. It is true that Facebook might violate net neutrality with the content they choose to offer. But the fact that so many people do not have access to something that is seen almost as a fundamental right in other parts of the world also fails to comply with net neutrality.

In my humble opinion, Free Basics is a good first step. It still does need some kind of regulation. Equal efforts from other companies other than Facebook towards this cause would not only create much-needed competition and thus better service for people but it would also make the creation of a monopoly harder. Instead of offering every person the same group of sites, Free Basics could let the users choose which sites they can access by providing a broader list of websites to choose from than they have now.

SOURCES:
• John, T. Connecting The Planet. from http://time.com/4188336/connecting-the-planet/
• Crabtree, J. (n.d.). ‘Free Basics’ row presents India dilemma for Facebook - FT.com. from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ee3ec02-b840-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.html#axzz3ysW57b94
• Crawford, S. P. (2011). The New Digital Divide. from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/opinion/sunday/internet-access-and-the-new-divide.html?_r=0
• John, T. (n.d.). Connecting the Planet. from http://time.com/4188336/connecting-the-planet/
• Lutz, A. (2012). These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America. from http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
• Tech Desk. (2015). Facebook Free Basics and Net Neutrality debate: All that has happened so far. from http://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/facebook-free-basics-ban-net-neutrality-all-you-need-to-know/