ANS: The regulatory framework should be established now. Internet/OTT services providers are going to be experimenting with different business models as they continue to grow. It is important to give them clarity of regulatory framework before they plan the business models. This will also help shape the future of internet in India.
Question 2: Should the Internet/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.
ANS: Messaging is now a feature more than a service and is offered by applications as diverse as Twitter to LinkedIn to Olx to a lot of games. Attempts to license these applications will not only break the sprit of net-neutrality, it will create a discriminatory system where only the popular messaging applications are required to have a license. Either that or you will have headlines like “GoI blocks Twitter/Olx/XYZ because it has a messaging feature without a license.”
Question 3: Is the growth of Internet/OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of Telecom operators/Telecom operators? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the Telecom Operators sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with reasons.
ANS: Any attempts to hold India back to protect “traditional” revenue streams instead of encouraging innovation should be condemned. If “traditional” revenue streams a so important then we would be stuck with landlines as mobile phones affect the “traditional” revenue streams of BSNL land line network.
Question 4: Should the Internet/OTT players pay for use of the Telecom Operators 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 of product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: No. Any payment that might be done by Internet/OTT players would just be barriers to entry for future entrepreneurs. For e.g., WeChat, a well funded Chinese messaging application might be able to pay to operators for network use to target Indian users but an Indian startup wanting to compete might not be able to pay as much and will thus not be able to provide the same QoS.
Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of Internet/OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to Internet/OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: The imbalance if any should be eliminated by treating telecom operators more like ISPs and modifying their licensing requirements accordingly. Not by adding impediments to a new class of players.
Question 6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to Internet/OTT players providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data records, logs etc. need to be mandated for such Internet/OTT players? And, how can compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such Internet/OTT players reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: This is an important consideration. The solution for this lies in joint action across the world for setting standards for such services. All countries in the world face the problem where their security services may not be able to legitimately access some of the communications that they might want to. An India-only solution will be difficult to enforce effectively.
Question 7: How should the Internet/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
ANS: This is an important consideration. The solution for this lies in joint action across the world for setting standards for such services. An India-only solution will be difficult to enforce effectively.
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 or the best practices? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: EU market is not comparable to India. There the market penetration is higher. The competition is stronger. In all a more mature market giving users plenty of choices.
Question 9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the various principles be dealt with? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: Net-neutrality is vital for innovation in the digital economy. There should be a law protecting net-neutrality as part of the digital rights of a person. The GoI should reduce the regulatory and licensing burden of telecom operators.
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.
ANS: The only traffic management practices that should be allowed are bandwidth limits and speed limits of the connection to the end user. Though TRAI should work to enhance these limits which are probably amongst the costliest in the world today.
The only exception could be that the Telecom operators are allowed to cache websites on servers that they maintain and potentially charge the website owners for this service. But then the end user should have the option to bypass the caches and access the internet unhindered. This can be done through DNS settings potentially or through different packages offered by the operators for the same cost, bandwidth, etc. but with one accessing the caches and the other the normal internet.
Question 11: Should the Telecom Operators 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?
ANS: Transparency is always welcome.
Question 12: How should the conducive and balanced environment be created such that Telecom Operators 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.
ANS: The telecom operators should be encouraged to compete based on quality of service which will lead to investment in infrastructure. Raising revenue by discriminatory traffic practices is just lazy and has noting to do with innovation and growth.
Question 13: Should Telecom Operators 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.
ANS: Currently there are packages available in India where the Telecom Operator provides free access to certain websites like Facebook and Flipkart for users who do not take up internet services. Allowing VCs and stakeholders of the websites to subsidise Indian users may be allowed only if it is at no cost to customer. I do realise that this would be violating the principle of net-neutrality.
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.
ANS: There is no justification for allowing differential pricing. It is just a lazy and greedy attempt to raise revenues that is akin to blackmail as the user is held hostage. It is akin to highway toll operators saying that they will charge more toll for TATA trucks unless TATA pay them a money. It is anti-competitive and does not benefit the consumer or the market.
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.
ANS: The OTT communication service player is just another internet company. They don’t need to be treated differently.
Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: Provide funding to Indian entrepreneurs who want to build such apps. Nothing else needed.
Question 17: If the App based/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.
ANS: They should not be licensed.
Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for App based/OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: No. Net-neutrality will provide a competitive market that will provide best value for money for users. No need for anyone to intervene.
Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication App based/OTT players? Please comment with justifications.
ANS: No steps. Remain net-neutral.
Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?
ANS: India has one of the lowest internet speeds and least amount of internet-penetration in the G20 countries. I think TRAI should work to change that and not get sucked into excuses by service providers.