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: A regulatory framework for the so called OTT services is not required and against the favour of the common person. The low access speeds and limited availability is an added point to ponder, in such circumstances introducing a regulatory framework would render the common person partially paralysed and might also lead them to pay an unfairly high sum for the services which can be made available at a regular cost, or through a single data pack.

 

Also, 'OTT services' is a misleading term. Separately charging for them would be like a pipe company charging the water distributary body for the constant flow of water it is maintaining in the pipes.

 

Profitability is function of innovation, it should not be made a function of being in control.

 

 

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: Data regulation for the VoIP calls and internet messaging to keep in check terrorist activities and misuse by the masses is justified within logical limits and by the limits as held by the Constitution of India.

 

To hamper consumer choice and make the existing services costlier for the common person just so as to facilitate the obsolete business model of telecom giants is unfair. Once again, profitability should be and is a function of innovation, not a function of being in control.

 

By hampering net neutrality, you will also hamper the freedom of choice of the consumer, and with it the growth of new products and services and in turn impede India's economic growth in an era where internet is an important, rather essential resource.

 

 

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: Beginning with a few facts

 

Vodafone generated a profit of £59.42 billion (GBP) in 2014. [Source: Wikipedia]

 

Airtel generated a profit of Rs. 32.66 billion (INR) during 2013-14. [Source: Wikipedia]

 

The CEOs of both the companies are earning lavish salaries as can be seen in the following speculation by Rediff [ http://rediff.com/money/2007/apr/30bspec.htm ]

 

The telecom giants are not doing a favour by offering internet services.

And just because their current service model has introduced a threat to their own profit generation, they should try to innovate and bring better services that are also cost effective instead of modifying the rules of the game to harness profit and hinder the economic and social growth of India.

 

Internet has a huge role in the progress our country is making, and it should be kept as unregulated as it is right now for the growth to not be shackled.

 

Ironically, without unrestricted and unregulated internet access i would have not been able to deliver you this message after the little research i conducted on my internet connection, through the comfort of my home.

 

Please also refer to the following article on the benefits of rather free unregulated internet on the United Nations' website [ http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/july-2006/harnessing-internet-development ]

 

Just like radio channels cannot tax television channels for reduction in their revenue, there is no justified reason behind taxing or specially pricing the so called OTT services.

 

It should also be raised that the TSPs need to invest more time in furnishing the quality and in expansion of their existing products and services; also exploring outside their traditional revenue streams in ways that are justified all to the TSPs, the government and the common person.

 

I have already thrown some light over the immense profit made by these TSPs, and they have only benefitted over the year having near monopoly or limited competition in their operating circles. These TSPs should have provided cheaper and more secure VoIP service to the consumers and messaging when they had the chance, and not when their revenue is being shared by these OTT services.

 

 

 

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: As a consumer, I am already paying for the internet data i am using, in many cases only because i want to use one of these OTT services. Why should the TSP charge the consumer as well as the OTT player?

 

The oil companies cannot tax the electric car manufacturer should the electric cars become more popular among the consumer!

 

It is not to be forgotten that telcos are benefitting from these apps already; more app usage is more data consumed and that is more money inflow.

 

Should the OTT pay the TSP it will only entail the violation of the principles of net neutrality.

 

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: Imbalances are non-existent between the OTT players and the telecom companies. They are both functioning in different business leagues.

 

OTT services offer applications that function over the bandwidth provided by the TSPs.

 

OTT players compete with each other, not with telecom giants who are working on an entirely different environment.

 

OTT players compliance issues should be with respect to privacy rights of the consumers, not the profitability of the telecom giants.

 

The internet is a levelled playing field for everybody. In today's era, OTT players do not operate solely in the virtual world but, on the contrary, they interact with the real world products and services, and they result in the planting of innumerable job opportunities. Any regulation that disturbs this neutral nature of the internet is a harm to economic growth.

 

Just like the toll does not differentiate among the car brand that crosses it, and the electricity is priced same to all the domestic consumers; and same to all the commercial consumers and like calls are metered the same be they for bidding good byes to the loved ones or for planning a business meeting the following morning.

 

The absence of net neutrality will give a biased benefit to the telcos while harming the market by unleashing a monopolistic environment.

 

 

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: This question requires an entirely separate debate, but for the need of it, following are a few comments.

 

a) Government and companies should respect and uphold the consumers Right to Privacy.

 

b) Losing Privacy would mean losing freedom itself as it will render the common person feel trapped and unable to express what he thinks.

 

c) Is it really necessary to tap into every OTT service which a consumer accesses?

 

 

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: All OTT services should adopt security standards in online communication about which they keep the consumers informed, and also guide them in right security and privacy choices. The government should also have a proactive role in making the companies aware of such practices.

 

An ombudsmen to redress consumer issues with the OTTs can be formed, instead of curbing the unrestricted internet. Again, it should rather promote it.

 

 

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 prescribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.

Answer 8: No regulatory framework is required that violates net neutrality, as explained in above answers.

 

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: Net neutrality should be enforced strictly with bright line rules as advocated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

 

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: Traffic management should not be permitted. Discrimination would like providing the people the platform to speak but snatching away their voices; while providing some people the platform as well as the voice and amplification to let their messages be heard.

 

 

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: The TSPs should not be allowed to adopt any traffic management techniques.

 

 

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: Like any other business, it's not the consumers' problem that how do these telcos generate profit. The consumer is already paying them the cost that is entitled for the bandwidth that he consumes, and it is not in any way unjustified.

 

 

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: Regulation will make TSPs laidback and lazy that will stifle innovation as well as our countries growth. Moreover, it will target the common person, the consumer and charge the more than what he is supposed to pay and result into a de-growth in the use of internet.

 

Restrictions undertaken in response to legal obligations are obviously okay. However, restricting specific types of traffic should not be allowed nor should differentiating between providers of types of content or applications.

 

Congestion management, network security and integrity can be legitimate reasons for TSPs to implement temporary restrictions but these should not be long term and TSPs should be legally bound to disclose these temporary measures to customers and the TRAI as well as detailing what steps they are planning to take to ensure there is no network congestion.

 

Providing a congestion-free network is the TSP’s responsibility — if it promises 10 GB data plans or ‘unlimited’ data plans, then it should come up with a network where it is able to standby that promise without resorting to choking, throttling and so on.

 

Zero-rating is acceptable as long as no competitors are complaining about collusion or predatory business practices. If Flipkart gets together with some TSP, it should not lead to problems when the TSP’s customers try to access Amazon or SnapDeal.

 

Application-agnostic congestion management, prioritization, and differentiated throttling as non-price based discrimination of services can all be allowed with adequate regulatory oversight and when TSPs resort to these, all this should be fully disclosed to consumers on their websites.

 

A technique like differentiated throttling should not mean the consumer suffering on an ongoing basis for a prolonged period of time. Hence, terms such as ‘unlimited’ should be clearly defined by the TSPs if they choose to offer them. The ‘Fair Usage Limits’ should be well defined and every TSP usually has them and that is only ‘fair.’

 

TSPs should never have the option to block anything. They should only be allowed to block sites after the appropriate courts issue an order to that effect.

 

In summary, the TSPs should only have access to these discrimination of services for limited periods of time. If these measures are made routine, they will be abused. So, the TRAI should spell out the narrow set of circumstances when such practices are acceptable.

 

If TSPs choose to abuse the limited power they have to go for discrimination of services, their licenses should be liable for cancellation.

 

 

 

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 justification in this case can be offered. The TSPs are charging the consumers for the internet services already. They should then under no circumstances charge the OTT communication service; keeping in mind that it is a fundamental part of the internet.

Double taxation by the TSPs would result into a triple taxation on the end consumer- charge for internet, charge for OTT, charged by OTT (for the OTT provider to recover the tax they levy); ultimately making the user lose the freedom of choice and with it a heavy part of his income.

 

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: Well, all the data on internet is equal and must be treated so. Why discriminate the OTT players because users prefer to use their services?

 

If the users prefer using the OTT services over the existing, rather say conventional system of communication and file sharing, doesn't it hint that the TSPs have failed to innovate and provide cost effective services?

 

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

Answer 16:  We should let the market and the services they provide decide all this. OTT apps are not critical defence hardware such missiles that their indigenization should be a topic of worry.

 

 

 

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: As the medium of data transfer is internet, it automatically renders this question as Not Applicable (N/A)

 

 

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

Answer 18: One set of regulations leading to another and yet another. Does it clear how the end users' pocket will adversely be affected?

 

You start with asking whether the OTT services should be licensed and then ask if there is a need to regulate the subscription charges.

 

 

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

Answer 19: Even the idea of the regulation of any kind of OTT service is inconceivable. Does the government regulate that the Indian household cooks more rice as compared to wheat? Or cook green vegetables instead of pulses?

 

Protection of life and personal liberty vide Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it clearly states that a person has the right to personal liberty unless it poses a threat to the encroachment upon the personal liberty or deprivation of life to his own self OR another individual.

 

 

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

Answer 20: Unregulated and open internet, it fuels innovation and promotes freedom and progress.

Uphold net neutrality and open internet. Uphold the citizens' Right to Freedom of Speech vide Article 19 of Constitution of India.

Regards