Arms race to provide Wi-Fi to the poor

Large tech organizations are acting like it is their job to make sure everyone is connected. Google is providing free Wifi spots at 400 train stations in India. Google’s CEO – Sundar Pichai – travelled to India to meet Prime Minister Modi. Goal of the program is to build the biggest free Wi-Fi network in India, so the entire population can profit from ‘the worldwide web, its information and all its possibilities’.

Pichai and Google aren’t the first to go to India and promise to set up a free Wi-Fi network. In the same week Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook and Satya Nadella from Microsoft were there as well. They also promised their help by setting up a Wi-Fi network. Microsoft pledged to provide cheap and affordable Internet connections for half a million small and remote villages in India.

It is known that Facebook and Mark Zuckerberg already are involved in a big project concerning free Internet in developing countries, called Internet.org. Besides Facebook six other companies are involved in this project, for example Opera Software, Ericsson and Nokia. Via flying balloons with the technique to establish a Wi-Fi connection they are trying to create a Wi-Fi network in remote places. Their goal is to bring free or cheap Internet access to developing countries and “facilitating the development of new business models around the provision of Internet access.”

What is their motive?

The question is whether the companies and their CEO’s are really into charity or that it is a way to create a new market for them selves? It is impossible to figure out the real motives of the organizations.

                                                                                       

But the motives for initiatives like these are questionable. Internet.org for example received a lot of criticism. Several advocacy groups immediately jumped in claiming that the initiative "threatening freedom of expression." Critics also claimed that Internet.org was for favoring the products of the companies involved over competitors. Finally critics claimed that users could only use products selected by Facebook. The critic led to changes in the initial proposal. Overall the critics – like the Hindustan Times – stated “the decisions are made by big telcos in partnership with large Internet companies.” They really doubt the motives of the initiative and thereby the reputation of the project was also damaged before it was actually executed.

Nowadays approximately 78 per cent of the people in Europe and 84 per cent of the people in the US are connected with the Internet. Users spend more then 20 hours a week online. It is incorporated in their daily routines. Because of that those numbers the margins for growth in developed countries are slim. Therefore it could be a strategic choice to focus on the population of (fast) developing countries and continents like India, Brazil and Africa. Only India has a population of 1.2 billion people and is expected to overtake China as most populous country in the world. This offers a huge market, which can be created by offering users a way to the Internet.

The investments could be easily paying of if a percentage of the population starts using products of Microsoft, Facebook and Google. The sentence “facilitating the development of new business models around the provision of Internet access” sounds suspicious enough, because of its elements of economical opportunities. Also concerning Facebook’s, Microsoft’s and Google’s history with buying young and potential start-ups.

As mentioned before, motives could be economical but there is a chance that the companies are committed with the fate of people in developing countries. It is possible that the see the benefits attached to Internet access. The Internet can facilitate talented youngsters from underdeveloped regions to gain knowledge and spark their intellectual development. Maybe the background of both the CEO of Google and Microsoft were an inspiration for projects like these. They were born in India – in the sixties and seventies – and made it to top functions in Silicon Valley. 

Either way, it is important that the benefits and the social involvement of companies are being communicated correctly. Corporate social responsibility is still a hot topic and organizations can improve their image. But when publics and critics sense that the initiative isn’t sincere organizations are facing negative publicity and possible reputational damage. Charity could function as a Public Relation tool and a cover up for their economic motives, but as long as it done properly.

- Sebastiaan de Vos -