The 20 questions:

Question 1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for OTT services, since internet penetration is still evolving, access speeds are generally low and there is limited coverage of high-speed broadband in the country? Or, should some beginning be made now with a regulatory framework that could be adapted to changes in the future? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 1: There should be no regulation on OTT services or operators, now or later. By trying to establish a regulatory framework, TRAI is indulging in protectionism on behalf of the telecom industry.

Question 2: Should the OTT players offering communication services (voice, messaging and video call services) through applications (resident either in the country or outside) be brought under the licensing regime? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 2: OTT content should be free and uninhibited, as one country or one government will not be able to impose their laws or beliefs on OTT service providers from around the world. And if it tries to, it will fail. Which will mean that TRAI or the ISPs or the government will end up blocking/banning different OTT providers. Which will only be a loss and a disadvantage to the people of the country.

Question 3: Is the growth of OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of TSPs? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the TSPs sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with reasons.

Answer 3: Yes, it will impact the traditional revenue stream. And the increase in data revenues might or might not be enough to compensate for this impact. However, you should know that protecting the traditional revenue stream of TSPs is not meant to be the objective of TRAI. Some industries will rise and others industries will fall - some companies will make a bucketloads of cash and some will file for bankruptcy. The spirit of the objective that the people of India entrust TRAI with, is to ensure that regulation is put in place that keeps people's interests in mind, not anyone else's.

Question 4: Should the OTT players pay for use of the TSPs network over and above data charges paid by consumers? If yes, what pricing options can be adopted? Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption? Can prices be used as a means product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 4: No. OTT players around the world do not fall under the ambit of TRAI, and those who might (Indian OTT players, for example), will suffer in India. Trying to charge OTT players is just a futile exercise and any attempt will eventually fail.

Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 5: Imbalance exists if you think that OTT players need to pay money for providing a free service instead of TSPs who are providing the same service at a price. In actuality, there is no imbalance - except in the expectations of the TSPs that regulatory authorities need to step in to protect their revenue streams.

Question 6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to OTT players providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data records, logs etc. need to be mandated for such OTT players? And, how can compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such OTT players reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 6: Again, TRAI needs to realize that any mandates they try to impose will only be partially implemented, simply because we are not dealing with one country here - the Internet opens up access to the entire world. And globally, there will be OTT players who cross the line in terms of what information is ethical to be saved, or not. There will be mistakes, when privacy is breached. Those OTT players will be punished by its users - reputations will be lost, and people will move en masse to better OTT services.

The free market should be allowed to take its course.

Question 7: How should the OTT players offering app services ensure security, safety and privacy of the consumer? How should they ensure protection of consumer interest? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 7: Let the free market take its course. Refer to Answer 6 above.

Question 8: In what manner can the proposals for a regulatory framework for OTTs in India draw from those of ETNO, referred to in para 4.23 or the best practices summarised in para 4.29? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 8: There should not be a regulatory framework drawn up for OTTs.

Question 9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the various principles discussed in para 5.47 be dealt with? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 9: Instead of allowing TSPs to discriminate but state publicly how they are treating different types of traffic, and by trying to ensure competition between TSPs, and by looking to ensure that switching costs are reasonable, one can simplify the problem by just ensuring there is no discrimination that is allowed by TSPs. The competition will take care of itself, as the market will attract more players to service areas and customers who are under-served.

Question 10: What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach? What should or can be permitted? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 10: No type of discrimination is reasonable.

The only pragmatic approach is this -

1, do not allow TSPs to discriminate data or traffic based on usage quantity, quality or speed, i.e.

a) No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

b) No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

c) No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration of any kind—in other words, no "fast lanes." This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates. 

2, ensure competition between TSPs across the country

Question 11: Should the TSPs be mandated to publish various traffic management techniques used for different OTT applications? Is this a sufficient condition to ensure transparency and a fair regulatory regime?

Answer 11: No, traffic management techniques that involve discrimination against some types of traffic are not acceptable.

Question 12: How should a conducive and balanced environment be created such that TSPs are able to invest in network infrastructure and CAPs are able to innovate and grow? Who should bear the network upgradation costs? Please comment with justifications

Answer 12: TSPs need to bear the network upgradation costs, if they believe that the costs are recoverable over time through expansion of its customer base. If they do not have a business case for expansion, let them not expand or upgrade their network.

Again, the free market will take care of expansion - TSPs around the world have expanded, and done so willingly, without any promise or assurances by either the government or the people that they will be able to extract a certain RoI from the market. The decision is like any other decision - it is associated with a certain amount of risk, and TRAI should not be looking to derisk decision-making for TSPs, or give them permission to discriminate against certain types of usage/users to make more money.

Question 13: Should TSPs be allowed to implement non-price based discrimination of services? If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? What restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are not abused? What measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 13: TSPs should not be allowed to implement any discrimination of services, price based or non-price based.

Question 14: Is there a justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services? If so, what changes need to be brought about in the present tariff and regulatory framework for telecommunication services in the country? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 14: No, there is no justification.

Question 15: Should OTT communication service players be treated as Bulk User of Telecom Services (BuTS)? How should the framework be structured to prevent any discrimination and protect stakeholder interest? Please comment with justification.

Answer 15: OTT communication players should not be treated as Bulk User of Telecom Services (BuTS). If by stakeholders, you are referring to TSPs who are worried about loss of revenue, then your priorities are incorrectly aligned.

Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 16: Again, your responsibility is not to encourage or discourage India-specific OTT industry. Leave them be.

Question 17: If the OTT communication service players are to be licensed, should they be categorised as ASP or CSP? If so, what should be the framework? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 17: Again, please realize that OTT communication service players do not need to be licensed.

Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 18: No, there is no need to regulate subscription charges.

Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 19: No steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of OTT players, whether their service is communication-related or not.

Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?

Answer 20: Access to the Internet is now recognized as a utility, similar to access to clean water and electricity. If the service providers for those utilities do not get the right to charge me differently, depending on whether I use my electricity to run a fan or an AC or to recharge my phone, then why should TSPs get the right to charge me differently if my 1 MB of usage is for voice, or video chat or pictures?