This is in reference to this new article (Titled, "Future of Internet in India: TRAI invites citizens to speak up on Net Neutrality" dated Mar 28, 2015) inviting comments from common public on the topic of net neutrality.

I am 28 now and have been a regular user of the mobile net for a good half-a-decade a decade longer of broadband. It has contributed in large parts in helping me learn and contribute to the nation. I am a strong believer and supporter of the underlying philosophy of the internet - that the packet of data being transmitted should be treated equally, whether it is arising out of Google, Facebook, Skype, Whatsapp, or any of the million other ways it might originate.

By allowing the telcos to pick and choose what data to prioritise - in terms of speed - or subsidise - monetarily, I believe it would be hugely undercutting the core philosophy of the internet, stated above. It would also be a hugely discriminatory and against the spirit of competition that currently encourages many Indian internet start-ups competing globally - currently on more equal footing by virtue of the consumers choosing what sort of content or content platform they'd want to use. Not only will it be hurting competition in the industry but will also take away from the consumers' experience of what they make of the internet.

The commonly proposed analogy of how it isn't dissimilar from, say, airlines charging different for different customers is fallacious at multiple levels. One logical fallacy being that at the cost of transportation of packet data level, it costs the same. Further, while in the case of airlines, there are huge costs associated with underutilised capacity, there is no such thing that occurs when the bandwidth of data isn't completely utilised. The proposed argument that a Skype utilises much more bandwidth and cuts away from the bandwidth that a cheaper mobile user could've better utilised is the logical equivalent of someone picking a bucket full of water from a flowing river and an observer commenting on how this person is consuming the water from the poor laundry-washer's quota. The internet packet streaming works in ways not too dissimilar from the flowing river - large in capacity, where even thousands of people using skype simultaneously would not impact the bandwidth appreciably for a stray consumer of 'more important data', whatever that would mean.

I'll leave the argument about how Airtel, Idea, Vodafone and other telcos have invested in mobile towers and would want to protect their revenues from what might be lost due to Skype/Whatsapp. I can give you numbers countering this - which can prove my point about how the telcos have been making profit years after years, with the revenue from mobile data growing the fastest for them, but I'd instead present the philosophical point about how companies need to continuously innovate to provide the best services to the customers.

I am sure, sir, you will be aware of the net neutrality debate that occurred only recently in the United States. You'd also be aware that it stood cancelled there. The other proposed argument of how that's a 1st world country with substantially higher mobile internet penetration and we need to ensure, say, Google searches or Wikipedia articles coming for free in our country. While that might seem a good idea, it would also be opening the floodgates of something we would not be able to go back from - a scenario where, say, Airtel promotes it's own media sharing platform over the much more content rich YouTube or the Idea promoting it's IIN over a child that would otherwise have equal access to MIT's Open Course material or Coursera.

I am a common consumer of the internet and assure that I have no 'hidden interests' apart from as a consumer. I'd also leave you with a video which covers the same point - though in a humorous but extremely insightful and cogently argued way. I hope you reconsider the publicly indicated stance of TRAI against net neutrality in public interest.