Critics argue that Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org initiative isn't a charity, but rather a method of control. Zuckerberg can turn that around and prove his global connectivity project is truly good, but only by allowing the places he's connecting to eventually make his service irrelevant.  

When Facebook joined Google and others in the race to connect the rest of the world to the Internet -- "the next 5 billion" as Facebook's global connectivity project, Internet.org, puts it -- CEO Mark Zuckerberg set the tone for his initiative from the very start with this video:


With the virtue-drenched title "Every one of us. #ConnectTheWorld," images of people from all walks of life ready to join the global Internet community, and an aspirational JFK speech (edited for impact) as its soundtrack, Internet.org's debut seemed so purposeful and high-minded, one could mistake it for one of Aaron Sorkin's tear-jerker West Wing speeches.

Now having launched in India and drawing criticism from advocates of Net Neutrality in the country, Internet.org's virtue may turn out to be just as fictional as Jeb Bartlett's presidency. But it doesn't have to be.

Zero Rating and the Conflict Between Access and Openness 

Of course, Internet.org was always more than just a charitable cause. It was also about expanding Facebook's empire beyond the current boarders.

As we commented last year, the bottom-line appeal of getting the first crack at an untouched market of new Internet users -- an overall population roughly twice the size of those already connected -- was about as obvious from the jump as it was comically unacknowledged by Zuckerberg. But generally speaking, that's an understandable drive, and one that's not unique only to Facebook's connectivity project.

Also not unique to Internet.org is the widening clash between two basic Utopian Internet principals -- universal connectivity and Internet openness -- that Zuckerberg's project has become the flashpoint for in India.

Now that Indians are pushing for the same Open Internet principals that Net Neutrality advocates in the U.S. (Zuckerberg ostensibly included) recently achieved through the Federal Communications Commission, Internet.org's not-uncommon practice of providing "Zero-rated" apps and services has advocates treating the project as big brother, not a helping hand.

"Zero Rating" is the practice of offering some apps and services free of data charges for the customer, through partnerships with network operators and Internet services. Internet.org's bundle of Zero-rated services generally includes some obviously valuable resources like Wikipedia, a weather app and local apps, like Go Zambia Jobs and Zambia uReport, in the case of Internet.org's first launch in Zambia. Of course, Facebook and Messenger were part of that free bouquet as well.

The benefits of providing these services for free, or "100 times more affordable," as Zuckerberg put it to CNET in an interview when Internet.org first launched, is undoubtedly great -- if difficult to measure in the short term. Though one could argue that weather forecasts, job apps and a world encyclopedia are more immediate and practical advantages in developing countries than access to a social network.

But the problem with "Zero Rating" is more about what's not offered than what is. For example, unlike the Zambia launch, Internet.org in India doesn't include Google Search, and instead offers only Microsoft Bing. Whether that's because of sound business strategy or purely by fiat, the bottom line is that the newest Internet users in India don't get to use Google. And that decision was never up to them.

Ultimately, critics argue, if the service providing zero-rated apps is prevalent enough, it creates a limited, lopsided market that favors the few apps chosen by the zero-raters and not users' preferences. It's been part of the Net Neutrality argument in the U.S., where the FCC now forbids the practice of pay-for-play zero-rating ("sponsored" data/apps, as it's known here) and is even keeping a skeptical eye on companies like AT&T and T-Mobile when they zero-rate apps without compensation deals in place.

In the developing world, zero-rating is even more of a problem, since the entire reason for spreading the Internet -- both benevolent and self-interested -- is to jumpstart new digital economies. If those new markets are unbalanced from the start, they'll arguably only grow into more maladjusted digital economies, and the Internet for the "next 5 billion" will become an inherently unfair, closed system manipulated by the partnerships and whims of the world's Zuckerbergs.

It's even worse if those innately undemocratic on-ramps to the Internet become enshrined in law, thus solidifying them as the status quo. It's why many pushing for Net Neutrality in India -- and Open Internet advocates in developing digital economies like in Latin America -- don't see Internet.org as a fundamentally good thing.

But it doesn't have to be that way.

Internet.org, Google Zero and the rest of the Internet's evangelists to the unconnected can still spread connectivity and even use zero-rating as a tool to jumpstart new markets. As long as those Silicon Valley powers then allow those developing markets to mature into dynamic, thriving, self-supporting digital economies that eventually, happily and freely, abandon them.

Why We Remember AOL Fondly

The key is to try to emulate America Online -- and that's not a joke.

Those born before the 90's will remember AOL's few years of utter dominance over the average newly connected dial-up Internet consumer. Even Hollywood was under AOL's spell at the time (remember "You've Got Mail"?). And AOL was great for a time, but I'm glad my kids will grow up wondering what the deal is with that romantic comedy.

Similar to AOL, Facebook offers a controlled environment -- similarly for many users, it's their primary destination for a curated version of the web -- and thus has been aptly compared to AOL for that.

Internet.org is like that too, but importantly without the option to affordably choose anything else but the portion of the web that's been pre-bundled. And that's a permissible shortcoming, for a time -- if it helps start the Internet's worldwide adoption and momentum in the same way AOL's controlled, but ultra consumer-friendly introduction to the web helped launch the first generation of digital natives in the U.S.

But those early users grew tired of the safety and limitations of AOL, and set out to explore for the wider web. Meanwhile, innovation and competition introduced alternative ISPs, lower prices, faster connectivity, and eventually led to the broadband-powered, open first-world Internet we enjoy today.

AOL is a joke because it's so limited and obsolete compared to what we have now. But the fact that the country's once number one dial-up ISP couldn't control the forces gradually making it irrelevant, through political means or just by sheer force of manipulation and capital, is why we have a much better Internet now.

And it's why we can all laugh at AOL's silly, almost adorable, attempts at relevance nowadays -- instead of hating it for holding on to a totalitarian grip on the Internet ever since Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan were America's most lovable couple.

If It's Truly Good, Internet.org Should Be Designed to Go Extinct

Basically, that's what can redeem Internet.org and other initiatives that are spreading access using the inherently flawed method of zero-rating:

If Internet.org is a good thing for the world, then its lifespan must be temporary by design.

To try to secure permanent dominance through law or capital -- or by writing Op-Eds insisting that open networks and zero-rating services aren't fundamentally incompatible, as Mark Zuckerberg recently argued in one of India's top newspapers -- is to reveal Internet.org as just another subsidiary of Facebook. Or even worse: an arrogant and dishonest 21st century form of colonialism.

Zuckerberg, against his entrepreneurial nature, must allow Internet.org to eventually become obsolete, which means not fighting against local political forces seeking to establish Open Internet principals that work against it. (He'd also stop being a hypocrite, which is a bonus.)

In other words, when a previously unconnected economy -- bootstrapped by accessibility projects like Internet.org through the necessary evil of zero-rating -- develops into a thriving digital economy, it doesn't need the half-dozen data-free apps handpicked by a Silicon Valley CEO. And that should be the ultimate goal.

Indeed if Internet.org is a truly Utopian Internet project, Zuckerberg should plan for its obsolescence -- even celebrate it -- once the job is done and the Internet can grow under its own power, beyond being "100 times more affordable" and instead into the real definition of "free."