If Google and Facebook get their way, the world's poor will get subsidized "basic internet" that only delivers sponsored content. Only the competitively wealthy will be able to pay for the real internet and break out of the walled garden. This is opposed to giving everybody access to the same internet and having governments/charity subsidize the cost for those who can't afford it. Do we really want to create second class netizens?
> Why is the Indian government banning Google from providing free Internet, yet not providing such themselves?
The Indian government is not "banning" Google from doing anything.
> You are saying that he world's poor should become rich enough to pay for Internet, before they can get access to Internet?
In several ways, India has arguably more widespread and affordable internet infrastructure than Europe or the US. And it is getting cheaper all the time.
So the motivation of zero-rating is NOT about helping the poor. It is about the huge market that India represents and the boost in market share that companies with subsidised traffic get.
I think that charity with strings attached isn't charity, especially when it just disincentivizes (or makes more difficult) legitimate forms of charity. Or worse, when it makes legitimate forms of sustained enterprise more difficult.
So these western juggernauts are going to start injecting ads into vital communication infrastructure from day zero, and then when India decides it wants its own infra, do you think Google and FB will just step away? This is just the modern version of oil imperialism.
Just so we are clear, everyone is aware of the case of Nestle freely giving enough of the formula to new mothers to use so that by the time they ran out their natural production of milk had declined to be insufficient to feed the baby. This combined with many mothers being too poor to either afford the formula or clean water to mix the formula with resulted in babies dying. A pretty clear example of when giving something out for free is a horrible thing.