 Welcome back. Now this one is quite like the David and Gulath favour. On one side was Facebook, a company whose market cap is greater than the GDPs of 144 countries, allied with a bunch of big telcos and together they were offering free internet to a billion Indians who could not afford it otherwise. But then it came with a cap yard. Facebook would decide which websites could be accessed on this platform. They even had a massive ad campaign that estimates put at 400 crore rupees. On the other side of course there was a motley group of internet activists, there were entrepreneurs involved in it as well and very often individual voices. Early last week telecom regulator TRAI ruled that no company is going to offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data on the basis of content. That ruling, firmly in favour of net neutrality, has subsequently forced Facebook to make a total retreat and shut down free basics in India. So what went wrong for Facebook over here? Can the brand really recover from this debacle? We ask the experts in this story. Once the poster boy of a new, free and fearless world of social media, Facebook has been facing flak in India over the past year over its free basics platform. Formerly known as internet.org, the platform would provide free but restricted internet access to almost a billion Indians with the help of a few telecom giants. This later became the centre of a heated battle over net neutrality with internet activists, politicians and the general public all in the fray. But early last week telecom regulator TRAI ruled against differential pricing by telecom companies, effectively putting the brakes on zero rating platforms like free basics. Packets on internet, the pipes should not sort of decide, pipes should be agnostic to the packets. The move has been generally welcomed, especially for internet based services, which could have faced a great struggle for existence otherwise. I think we are one of the leading app players over here in this market with 100 million plus users. And the very reason that I am sitting here and talking to you, and the very reason where 100 million plus users are utilising true colour, is because of one single genesis called net neutrality. So we assume that net neutrality in whatever Abda, it has to be free, it has to be equal and the right of usage and the right to utilise internet should lie in the hands of the users. And I think better sense has prevailed and we are really thankful to TRAI to have taken a very robust stand on this subject, giving equal opportunity to all sets of parties involved in this discussion or the debate and coming to a very good conclusion. Facebook subsequently had to shut down free basics in India, but with 130 million Facebook users, 375 million people online and additionally almost a billion who aren't, India is the biggest growth market for the social network which remains blocked in China. So how badly could this debacle hurt the brand's image in this key market? Well obviously Facebook has put so much effort behind free basics in India. I mean and this is the second time you know the internet or was the first one and now this I think clearly there's for them this takes it's a knock because it was such a public campaign and there was so much investment from you know Zuckaberg downward that obviously there is loss of face involved there is there is a sense of having tried really hard and very visibly having failed. So to that extent Facebook as a brand will today be a little less confident and a little more vulnerable than it was in the past. I think it it's a really strongly entrenched brand it has a relationship it has a very kind of a significant relationship with its Indian users. So I don't think it's in any imminent danger of any kind beyond the fact that it now is a little more vulnerable to its public face I think has become is face's challenges I think today more than it has in the past. What stands out in the debate over net neutrality is the fact that Facebook was being opposed by a motley crew of individuals who took to social media and even Facebook itself to protest against free basics. Facebook in turn launched a massive 360 degree campaign across media one that cost it almost 400 crores. But the move seems to have backfired. So where did Facebook go wrong? Even the digital brands which you know come from a different world which is more democratic where you know the brute you would imagine that you know the brute force of money is not employed but the instinct of large corporations is that when pushed when in doubt you know you eventually throw big advertising at the problem and which is what Facebook did that they threw big money and conventional advertising at a problem that you know whereas they are they are the preeminent digital player in India and in spite of that when it came to the crunch like any other large corporation they threw money at the problem in this case it did. But given that India is a country that has been struggling with connectivity for well over a decade now some feel that the vehement opposition to Facebook free basics was premature and an overreaction while others believe that a wait and watch approach could have cost India dearly. It's quite possible that Facebook would spend a lot of money on free basics and get not much. Companies do stupid things too maybe consumers benefit from the stupid things companies do but instead the debate in India has turned into all knowing evil Facebook is going to control the internet. We have no evidence for that. I've heard that I've heard it said that well you know what's wrong let's try we could have tried it for one year or five years my point is you're sure you know it's poison we could have tried it for one year or five years then we could have figured out how many died and it's a dead few died or did a lot died then we decided that they should keep it going I mean we know clearly it's poison every experience of the free basics experience around the world has been shown to that it is poisonous and you know the poor 36 countries that are around the world I hope they now change the mind taking the lead from India in terms of banning free basics Egypt has already done so I hope the others follow suit soon that's the first part. The second part that's brought up is you know what it's all the people with internet who have now determined that the poor should not get free internet that's also nonsense it's ridiculous this move is not an anti-poor move it's an you know unless you call Zuckerberg poor and Sunil Bhatti middle poor it's not anti-poor it's basically anti-colonial it's stopping the colonization moves that Ayrton and Zuckerberg were trying it's saying go back with your own legitimate business we're perfectly cool with what you are.