Dear Sir,

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.

Response: The use of OTTs is common across various countries. In the USA, use of calling card services for international calls is pretty common. Most of these calling card service providers are VoIP based. E.g. while AT&T charges 32 cents per min. for international calls to India, many VoIP providers provide such services at around 2 cents per min. However, the user pays AT&T for the local call charges (assuming the user is an AT&T customer). The VoIP provider pays for the data it uses to complete the call. Furthermore, if the user is using a data-based OTTs, like Skype or WhatsApp, (s)he is paying for the data charges, which use the same spectrum that carries other data, including voice. The TSPs should provide a comparison of 2G and 3G users and provide a breakdown of revenue earned (fixed cost + usage costs). They definitely earn more from 3G users, far more than that of 2G users. If they cannot do it, have an independent consumer agency to come out with fair statistics analogous to the ARPU, where comparison can be made between the revenue earned via 2G customers and 3G customers for both, pre-paid as well as post-paid connections. The difference of costs of 2G and 3G spectrum should also be factored into this calculation for a fair assessment. Overtime, the TRAI should work on phasing out 2G and upgrade the entire network to either 3G or 4G.

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.

Response: No, OTT players should not pay charges over and above the data charges paid by the consumer. When a voice call is made, the person who originates the voice call, pays for it. However, when an OTT application is used over a data connection, both the originator and receiver of the OTT application pay data charges. For example, when I use a data connection to send an image to my friend over WhatsApp, I pay for the data that gets used in uploading the image and associated message and routing it to the WhatsAPP server. When my friend downloads it over a data or internet connection, (s)he pays for the data that gets used in downloading that image and the associated message. This is in contrast to a voice call between two telephones , in which the receiver pays nothing as usage fees. Thus, TSPs are already receiving revenue for both, uploading as well as downloading of the content. The same bandwidth gets counted twice when being charged to the customer. TSPs do not differentiate between data that is being downloaded on to a device and data that is being uploaded from the device, thereby negating the need for charging a premium for OTT applications.

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.

Response: Net-neutrality is important in the Indian concept, especially when it comes to implementing the Prime Minister's vision of digital India. This implies that users should have equal access to content originating from all sources. With content converging like never before, it will be technologically impossible to even
separate their source of origin. For example, TSPs talk of charging a premium for use of YouTube. So, if YouTube has a premium deal, but Facebook does not, how will they separate a YouTube video that is being accessed from someone's Facebook timeline? Furthermore, most TSPs in India either directly or their parent companies have lots of cross interests. For example, Reliance Jio's parent company Reliance Industries Ltd., has investments in media companies such as CNN-IBN and Firstpost. If ISPs and telecom companies are allowed to charge for preferential data delivery, such companies can promote their parent company's interests. So Reliance Jio may be able to throttle the competitors of CNN-IBN and Firstpost. The parent companies of telecom companies and ISPs like Reliance Industries, Reliance Telecom and Airtel have cross interests in retail as well. Down the line, they can use the ISPs to throttle competitors' business by slowing down their traffic to consumers. This can be dangerous. So, if preferential access on the internet highway has to be created then these cross interests should have to cease to exist. For a regulator and legislature, it is impossible to create laws and regulations necessary to enforce the stand alone nature of the TSPs required for such preferred access lanes.

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.

Response: Traffic management practices should only be allowed in case of violation of a fair data usage policy. So, those consumers who have unusually high internet traffic should definitely be penalised. But, discrimination based on application or content should not be provided. The success of the internet is based on the fact that everybody has an equal opportunity to access everything. The standards on which the internet protocols are based, have been made available for free, without discrimination. For example, the CERN lab, where the http protocol was successfully developed made it available for free. The HTML, Java and other language standards are open source and made available to everyone without any preference. Most of these have be invented or established through tax payer funding (many of foreign countries). Slowly, the content generator tools are moving towards open source, freely available standards of web content generation. So, if the standards and language, which have created the content are available without any discrimination, why should their delivery or access be discriminated against?

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.

Response: No, there is no justification in allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services. The OTTs use the same channel of sending and receiving data that other data applications use. In case of allowing differential pricing, TSPs can push for their own OTT communication services by making it difficult or expensive or both to access any other OTT communication service. Or, TSPs can sign monetary agreements with OTT communication developing companies for preferential delivery, thereby denying or slowing down innovations, because the newer or smaller comapnies may not have the resources to sign such preferential deals, which severely handicaps their access to the market. Moreover, by levying a separate charge on OTT communication services, how are the TSPs going to guarantee the time-bound delivery of the content? How will this time limit be set? Who will monitor it? What does the consumer get if the service quality isn't met? Today, TSPs charge for sending SMS or text messages. But it is well known across the entire country that there is no guarantee that the SMS will be received instantenously. Delays involving receipt of one-time password sent by credit card companies over SMS are well known and intensely frustrating for the consumers who many times are forcibly timed-out from their transaction. TSPs who have been operating the SMS network for so many years have not been able to guarantee timely delivery of an SMS. How can they be trusted to ensure timely delivery of OTT communications if they charge for such services separately. Without any service guarantees, the differential pricing is a lop-sided, monopolistic practice.

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

Response: If "subscription charges" means the amount that is charged by an OTT communication service developer, then there is absolutely no need to regulate it. The developer will modify the charges based on market forces. However, if "subscription charges" means the one charged by the TSPs, these charges should ideally be nil. TSPs can decide on the data rates in a manner similar to existing mechanism used for SMS rates.