This is why I don't like to use metaphors when discussing net neutrality. The current regulatory question in India is very specific: whether telecom services should be able to differentially price data. The internet is in a class of its own, and arguing net neutrality as an abstract principle applied to other contexts blurs the issue.

Free Basics just happens to depend on differential pricing, and Facebook is running a campaign to preserve Free Basics, hence it has become lightening rod for the debate.

The basic assumption here is state looks after matters of social welfare and private organizations look after maximizing profit. Free Basics is being touted as a service for public good, but is coming from a private organization - that makes it a non-starter. This would have been more trustworthy had this been an initiative of the Indian government. There would still be concerns of furthering Government's agenda (blind obedience), but in that case there is a bigger problem and elections every 5 years facilitates corrective action. FB cannot be voted out.

I agree with you in that the state is better placed to handle services for the public good, however private organisations can still offer services for the public good, the issue here is really down to what is proposed.

Let's put it like this, Facebook could be pushing for a net neutral version of free Internet access, the cost to them is exactly the same as the Free Basics plan, as the real cost is in the Internet bandwidth/infrastructure. The fact that they're not pushing for a net neutral Internet says volumes about their true intentions.

private organizations do not necessarily maximize profit. There are plenty of nonprofits (archive.org, e.g.), benefit organizations (rotary, lion, etc), research institutes/funders (HHMI, ACS, AHS, UL), NGOs (MSF, HRW, JWB, etc.) Each of these organizations would arguably be in a worse position if the things they were doing were attached to state functions.

Mozilla is another example, and then there are standards boards, IEEE, e.g., which are very closely tied to industry. So why not internet.org?

Speaking of Mozilla, they have weighed in by making a submission to the regulator, siding with net neutrality http://blog.mozillaindia.org/1558

Putting Facebook in the same category as Rotary, NGOs, research institutes and the remaining long list you mention cannot be a more flawed analogy.

In any case, you seem to be missing the bigger point here - it's not about whether FB is promoting this today for maximizing profit or not, it's about promoting the re-modelling of the internet where information flow is controlled by FB.

> We do indeed allow private organizations to create libraries.

Are those for-profit and not readily regulated?

> Moreover, the conflict of interest exists even when the state

But in this case the state is a democracy. Ideally conflict of interest is non-existent.

Sure. Typically they are specialized in a single type of content. For example, JSTOR is a self-described "digital library" which provides journal access. Your local movie rental store (or its competitor Netflix) provide entertainment or educational content (movies and shows).

Of course they can be regulated just like any business or service. So could this service, in fact. Forcing net neutrality for all service providers would cut out a lot of crap and I'm convinced it's a long-term boon.

In Cincinnati there is a general purpose, private library: http://www.mercantilelibrary.com/

It's not regulated - not sure about the profit part. It is hugely dwarfed by the public library, but it is still quite popular. They have a smaller collection, but the percentage of the items that circulate is supposedly astronomical.

It only has a 10,000 year lease though, so I suppose it's only temporary.