That quarter and a half billion cannot afford a smartphone yet. So mobile data scheme for apps is not a conversation about them. It is peanuts for people who can afford a smartphone.
I wouldn't call $3 per gigabyte "peanuts" to someone buying the ~$30 extreme low-end Android phones, or indeed a much poorer person that possesses a battered second-hand feature phone with a Facebook app, which could at least theoretically be covered with this sort of program.
As I said before, we already have plans that give access to basic websites for $0.5 a month. Facebook-only access is like $0.1 a month. But with these plans, I can still access the rest of the web if I choose to, I just have to pay. $0.5 is what a poor person pays for lunch on job site, just to put the price in perspective.
I'm not arguing the free part, I'm arguing the fact that as soon as you opt-in for the new Zero plan, the regular web just cannot be had, even for price. The only web that will work on the phone is apps by Zero Rent providers. No websites, even if you wish to pay for them.
And this is bad for poor people to boot. What if they want e-governance features, no sir, wait in line and be treated poorly. What if they want to access healthcare information, no sir, wait in private hospitals and be treated poorly. But wait, get this, you can shop on Flipkart for no cost. Yay!
If they want e-governance and healthcare information, why did they subscribe to a service that didn't have them? Is there any argument that justifies this besides "they're too stupid to know better"?