Subject: India wants NET Neutrality! Net Neutrality is DEMOCRATIC. |
From: Anant Arora |
Date: 10-Apr-15 1:31 AM |
To: "advqos@trai.gov.in" <advqos@trai.gov.in> |
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: There is
no reason to believe that OTT players need a regulatory framework, and, doing
so would result in killing net neutrality. Also, if such a thing is done, it
will kill growth of mobile penetration. To say that internet penetration in
india is �evolving� in India is nothing short of a joke because India just has
internet connectivity. The speeds provided by TSP�s and ISP�s are simply not
enough, and by going after apps, we will do the following things:
1. Damage Start
ups who want to innovate and make new apps, since making a framework means all
TSP�s have a weapon to target literally any company which makes apps
2. We will
violate the principle of net neutrality, which has been embraced by the entire
world. Recently, even the USA�s watchdog FCC has approved a net neutrality
policy, and I believe that the only framework we need is one establishing net
neutrality in our country.
3. We have
already witnessed a case where AirTel, which has a streaming service known as
wynk attacked others. Link. I place no
trust of mine on either of these corporate entities or future governments,
which will only limit content as per their whims. Another violation by another
TSP: Link.
In this
context, the only framework that I recommend, is to introduce a framework know
as: Protection Of Net Neutrality Framerwork. A draft written by me and users
from Reddit India has been attached below.
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: The
simple answer to this question will be a NO. If we go into specifics, we will
find that getting OTT providers outside the country under a licensing system,
is having no logic because:
1. Indian law
does not apply outside India
2. Indian
companies will simply shift base outside India, killing indian revenues. For
example, major E-commerce companies like Flipkart and SnapDeal are based
outside India because of laws in India that simply do not allow businesses to
run properly in a profitable way. Bringing another �licensing regime� (and to
think of it, will TSP�s issue licenses? So, is TRAI asking if an oligarchy is
okay or not?) will simply erode the already thin business opportunities in
India.
3. By bringing
in India, another set of policy will have to be done by App developers who are
often individuals with very less financial backing. This is certainly NOT in
line with the Central govt. wishes to promoting ease of doing business in
India.
TRAI has not even gone to the depths of
explaining what licensing it wants, and what does licensing even mean? Are we
the ones to decide who can make an application in India or not? Does TRAI simply
want to pull the plug on app development and IT sector in India? This is a
dangerous development, to put lightly. Therefore my request to TRAI will be to
instead enforce Net Neutrality. Internet is simply a resource like electricity.
A more detailed concept has been put in below along with the framework for Net
neutrality.
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: The
growth of OTT is impacting the traditional revenue stream of TSP�s in a
POSITIVE way. Lets for a second think assume that OTT services were hitting
revenues of TSP�s hard. Then how can we find such headlines:
1. Bharti
Airtel Q4 net profit surges by 89% to Rs 962 crore, meets estimates
2. Vodafone India service
revenue up 11.7% in first half of FY15
3. Idea Cellular posts 64
pct profit rise as subscriber numbers grow
These are the top3 TSP�s in India. Similar can be said about other
TSP�s doing business in India. The whole �perceived loss� argument will then
become same as the argument behind the 2G and coal scams. There is no loss due
to OTT�s. The entire theory is myth and it has been debunked several times over
by experts. However, for the layman: growth of OTT = growth of data usage =
growth in revenue.
However, as I have said above, the way the TSPs have been marking
up data costs is irrational, irregular and that needs to be controlled
immediately, or regulated. The rise in no of subscribers + rise in usage OTT
apps + rise in data revenue is directly proportional to each other. TSP�s are
getting paid for Data, therefore to say that OTT is taking away their revenues,
while every bit has been paid for, to be honest, is a lie. Why should a
consumer pay for the same service twice over?
Say we introduce pricing for OTT services. Then here is what will
happen: User will pay:
One for data pack, one for whatsapp pack, one skype pack, and then
we will start having a thousand packs and no apps will be used. People will go
on and on or will simply move over to WiFi which will then give loss to TSP�s.
Does that make any business sense at all? I don�t think so. But then again this
is simple business minding by me.
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: Trai
is being repetitive with this question, which I just answered above. Here is it
me saying in bold this time : NO.
Telecom operators/ISPs are access services providers, and can
control either how much you access, what you access, how fast you access and
how much you pay to access content and services on the Internet. It�s important
for access to knowledge, services and free speech, as well as freedom and ease
of doing business online, for this access to be neutral:
-
All sites must be equally
accessible
-
The same access speed at the
telco/ISP level for each (independent of telco selection)
-
The same data cost for access
to each site (per KB/MB). (includes OTT apps)
-
No telecom-style licensing of Internet
companies (see this and this)
-
No gateways (Internet.org,
Airtel OneTouch Internet, Data VAS), censorship or selection;
-
No speeding up of specific websites (that may
or may not pay telcos)
-
No �zero rating� or making
some sites free over others (and that goes for you too, Wikipedia and twitter).
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: Yes
there indeed exists an imbalance in the system since TSP�s are repeatedly
getting away with violation of basic principles of open access to all services
as mentioned above. And as I have said, OTT players do not need more
regulations, more regulations are just a recipe for a disaster. What we need is
a regulation to make sure TSP�s are not exploiting customers via exorbitant
data prices and uninformed policy changes. Also, to put simply, there will be
negative impact on economy if such idiotic policies are put into place. You
will simply drive out all �indie developers� and all start ups from our
country. I commend TRAI/TSP Legal teams on coming up with such a great idea,
really. Can TRAI explain why no action was taken in the following instances?
1. http://www.medianama.com/2014/10/223-zuckerberg-india-internet-org/
2. http://www.medianama.com/2014/11/223-airtel-onetouch-internet/
3. http://www.medianama.com/2014/03/223-uninor-facebook-whatsapp/
4. http://www.medianama.com/2014/11/223-ndtv-com-blocked-on-mtnl-delhi/
5. http://www.medianama.com/2010/04/223-mts-mblaze-net-neutrality-mobile-internet/
6. http://www.medianama.com/2013/07/223-wikipedia-partners-aircel-to-offer-free-access/
7. http://www.medianama.com/2013/07/223-twitter-vodafone-india/
It is simply
because we need a regulatory policy to prevent larger companies to encroach on
smaller ones. This is the only policy India needs right now when it comes to
OTT apps.
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:
Firstly, Security concerns are all under the purview of the home ministry,
therefore it is illogical for TRAI to even come up with such a question. When
asked about such things, it pains me to remind TRAI that we already have a
policy in place which was drafted after 26/11 terror attack to prevent misuse
of OTT voice communication by terror groups. Indian intelligence agencies such
as IB and RAW coordinate on a regular basis with other organizations outside
india to assess and classify threats, and it has so far worked. Therefore,
using �terror� as a scare tactic to break net neutrality is CONDEMNABLE. Most
OTT apps have a legal policy on their use, and therefore, it is something which
is self managed. India, has, in instances, blocked internet in areas where
terror attacks were imminent or suspected. Therefore it is best of TRAI to not
use security as an excuse. Use and purchase of SIM cards is now also monitored,
therefore we can verify the identity of each person using internet. If he/she
is a threat, such things will automatically be flagged by the IB and
information coordination between all stake holders is the key.
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: All
app developers have a privacy policy as well as run a support email regarding
questions. In order to maintain safety, privacy, and security, I recommend the
following:
1.
Encryption : The internet, like any network, can be monitored by
criminals and hackers at any number of points. This is one of the reasons why
email and many internet chat programs are not secure. As there are so many ways
for unknown persons to monitor your communications, you must take positive
steps to protect yourself from these malicious third parties.Encryption is the
process of converting information, using principles of mathematics, in such a
way that it is readable only by the intended recipient after they have
converted the information back. Many kinds of encryption techniques have been
developed over the centuries. This process is called encryption and decryption
and forms part of the security discipline called cryptography. As far back as
1900 BC the Egyptians utilized non standard hieroglyphs to protect a message;
whilst the Greeks in 490 BC used strips of leather wrapped around a specific
length and width of staff. This process of disguising a message is called
cryptography. Julius Caesar possibly created and used the world�s first
substitution cipher. Through shifting each letter a fixed amount, for example
'a' becoming 'e', 'b' becoming 'f' and so on, resulted in unintelligible words
and messages. The approach of applying rules to a message and the result of a
separate encoded message is called a cipher. The key to unlocking the hidden
message was knowing the offset of which to shift the letters; forward to encode
and backwards to decode. These ciphers, whilst primitive now, were at the
forefront of cryptography at their time but as with any advancement greater
technological resources and knowledge can be used both to further a subject but
also to work against it. As past ciphers can now be defeated trivially, modern
ciphers must also continue to evolve. All OTT apps must encrypt data
transferred over the internet.
2.
Use of digital certificates: A digital certificate is an electronic
credential that can be used to establish the identity of a user, wherever that
user may be located. Just like a physical identity document, such as a driving
license, a digital certificate must have certain properties in order to be used
as a form of identification. In particular, it must: Name the specific account
being identified, Be issued by an authority that can revoke the certificate at
any time, Be difficult to counterfeit. OTT apps should use digital
certificates
3.
A privacy policy � All apps must have a privacy policy where they
tell us what they do with our data
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: It
is awesome to note that TRAI lists a majority of laws where net neutrality is
upheld, and asks the person answering questions to draw from ETNO? How biased
it is, indeed. But anyhow, India should not drive any policy from the EU
directly, since the market in EU and india are completely different. India
barely has 20% internet penetration whereas the EU has is 100%. Therefore,
saying it short, India does not need a regulatory framework to boss over OTT
providers. A sample policy is attached with this answer sheet.
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: Net
neutrality is the need of the hour in India. Net Neutrality is a founding
principle of the Internet which guarantees that telecoms operators remain mere
transmitters of information and do not discriminate between different users,
their communications or content accessed. It ensures that all users, whatever
their resources, access the same and whole network. But this principle is being
undermined as operators develop business models that restrict access by
throttling or blocking specific online content, services or applications
(protocols, websites, etc.), or their users' freedom to publish information.
In the face
of these attempts to undermine the decentralized architecture of the Internet,
and the freedom of communication and innovation it represents, lawmakers must
guarantee Net Neutrality. Internet access providers must be sanctioned if they
discriminate Internet communications, be it according to the source, the
recipient, or the nature of the information being transmitted. It this does not
happen, we will create an Internet where only users able to pay for privileged
access enjoy the network's full capabilities. It should be a must, given that
the entire developed world: which includes USA, EU and many many more countries
has already passed laws confirming internet as a resource similar to the
internet and thus STOPPING any discrimination done by companies over services
derived from the internet. A draft net neutrality framework made in tandem with
users of reddit India is attached below. I have personally written a net
neutrality draft which I believe TRAI / GoI should enact. ATTACHED BELOW.
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: Of
course, the principle of Net neutrality does not prevent an operator to engage
in traffic management practices a consistent and enforceable framework
to assess whether traffic management practices are reasonable � i.e. whether
they actually seek to protect the freedom of communication of end-users � and
when they are not. In the view of many stakeholders, there are two situations
in which such practices are legitimate:
Unforeseeable and temporary
congestion: When a wireless or land-line
network goes through a period of unforeseen congestion (e.g. in the case of
equipment failure), network operators are entitled to temporarily implement
discriminatory traffic management practices in order to ensure to fluidity of
data streams. But every time, operators must be able to prove to the regulatory
authority that such congestion of its network was not foreseeable and that it
took necessary steps to correct it. If the deployment of very high broadband
networks takes longer than expected and operators face a durable saturation of
their network, then the available bandwidth should be shared equally between
all the subscribers and all service providers, until operators invest to
upgrade their infrastructure.
Security threat on the
network: In case of an sudden attack
or all other event undermining the proper operation of the network,
discriminatory practices are also legitimate. But they should be circumscribed
to temporary traffic hazards. Malicious actions aiming at altering the global
operation of the network, whether intentional or accidental, should be
considered as attacks. Traffic hazards needs to be addressed through temporary
measures, either manually � when irregular traffic is detected � or
automatically � when such traffic hazards are already well-known. The duration
of these measures should not exceed that of the attack. They should be made
transparent in order to foster collaboration among the community of network
operators and allow for both a sound diagnosis of security threats and for the adoption
of the most adequate methods to deal with them.
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:
There is no transparency or fair pricing regime in India. Therefore to impose
trust on a corporate entity would be to put you face inside a cannon about to
fire. I don�t trust our TSP�s therefore I oppose the traffic management techniques
for OTT apps.
TRANSPARENCY WON'T
FOSTER NEUTRALITY: transparency does not prevent all the ISPs in a given market
to adopt anti-network neutrality practices, and there are many markets where no
neutral Internet access is available, particularly in the wireless market. In
such cases, competition provides no solution for consumers, who have the right
to access a neutral Internet. When for geographical or technical reasons, only
one offer is available in a given market (often subsidized), regulators should have
already imposed strong requirements of network neutrality. In addition, the
record of past policies in fighting market fixing agreements between mobile
operators is very weak, which also suggests that the wait-and-see approach is
bound to fail. Second, even if neutral Internet access offers were to subsist
in the absence of regulation, the transactions costs of switching ISP in a
quadruple-play world where fixed Internet, TV, land-line and mobile phone are
concentrated in one service remain so high that many users would feel
discouraged to do so. Thirdly, while it has profound political and economic
implications, traffic management practices remain a technical topic, and
average users may not properly understand the implications of their ISP
restricting their Internet access.
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:
Firstly, TSP�s must leave OTT apps alone. They are not eating into their
revenues, but are aiding them in growth. What is the need of the hour is, to
make their business model viable. People switch over to different forms of communication
for the following reason:
-
The service is too costly
-
A better service is available
-
The support side is not good enough
OTT app
providers have aced TSP�s in these 3 regions, and therefore telecom providers
are lagging behind. However, saying that TSP
The
stupidest part of the Telco's contention is this
- We invest
on the networks and the apps ride on this without paying anything.
This is as
stupid as saying that the electricity company invest a lot on the electricity
networks and power generation and the fan and light manufacturers get a free
ride on it. The people who use fans and lights pay the electricity companies
for the electricity, just like the people who use Whatsapp and Skype pay the
Telcos for data.
Network
neutrality spurs investment infrastructure. Net neutrality is also essential to
stimulate growth in network capacities, which is driven by the development of
services and applications. This is worth recalling, at a time when some ISPs
are seeking to monetize the under-capacity of their infrastructure. In the
United Kingdom, British Telecom throttles all peer-to-peer traffic but sells
premium subscriptions allowing customers to avoid such discrimination by paying
a higher fee . This way, operators are in position to benefit from the scarcity
of their network's bandwidth, as consumers are compelled to pay a higher price
to communicate certain classes of data in normal conditions. Such practices,
which consist in maintaining and managing an artificial scarcity,
disincentivise investments in more network capacity, even though the price of
bandwidth is rapidly decreasing. They cause a mid-term loss for the overall
economy, whose growth depends on the development of an open online
infrastructure.
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 : No,
TSPs cant be allowed to discriminate. This question is the same as ones above
and is simply reframed. Under no reasonable conditions can be discrimination be
allowed. In the absence of net neutrality, the Tata company can pay money
legally to the telco to give a faster pipe for it's app. If the startup cannot
afford to do this, the startup gets killed. Normally, this would be OK, because
customers would switch to another ISP which provides same speed for all their
apps. But 2G/3G is not a real free market because of spectrum allocations.
There are very limited players. If something like non-customer friendly like
this happened in a free market, then free market takes care of it. i.e. there
are 4 shoe companies & all decide that they will only sell only shoes above
2500Rs. Then very soon a new company will come up and sell cheaper shoes. In
the telco world, it's not really a free market. There are just 4-5 players
anywhere and there is a barrier to a new player entering the market because of
the spectrum allocation. Ergo, it's not a free market. They have been given
protection from competition by the Govt. So government needs to regulate the
telcos. The app space is pretty much a free market, there is no need to
regulate them.
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: The
only justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT
communication services is corporate greed. There is NO JUSTIFICATION in
discrimination. This is the same god damn question over and over again in
different forms. Non price based discrimination would mean they block the
services entirely. So no, this should NOT be allowed in any way. No such
practice is justifiable/acceptable. Save for those implemented for
security issues or for unforeseen and temporary congestion, Net neutrality
violations have an immediate �impact� on fundamental rights, the digital
economy and broadband investment.
1. Fundamental
rights. Contrary to older traditional means of communications such as radio or
television, producing and circulating information on the Internet does not
require significant money. Thus, the ability to produce information and
knowledge on the Internet is much more equally distributed in society, and
results in positive effects on democracy as a whole. Net neutrality ensures
that the ability to voice opinions on the Internet does not depend on your
financial capacities or social status. It gives people the freedom to express
themselves as they wish, and to access the information they want without
risking to be put at disadvantage by the few actors who operate the network. If
Net neutrality was abandoned or even durably weakened in India, the control of
the new, networked public sphere would be handed out to private actors, who
could use discriminatory traffic management as a way of achieving control on
the Internet ecosystem. It could turn the Internet into yet another
predominantly commercial media.
2. Digital
economy and innovation. Net neutrality facilitates innovation and competition,
as economic actors take advantage of the level-playing field in communication
networks to launch new services. The concept of �innovation without a permit�,
where new entrants compete fairly with the incumbent giants is at the root of the
development of the Internet as we know it. Entrepreneurs of the Internet have
become the linchpin of the emergent knowledge economy. Beyond prominent
examples of companies that became huge thanks to the possibility to innovate
and grow on a neutral Internet such as Google, Skype, eBay, or Twitter, there
are thousands of smaller companies and services that represent an even bigger
contribution to growth and social welfare. Free/open source software or open
contents services such as Wikipedia or WordPress count among the most-used
services in the world, and only exist thanks to the neutral and decentralized
nature of the Internet. Many other essential parts of the Internet took
advantage of an open network, and became widely used all over the world only a
few months after being created, because it was relatively cheap to produce and
distribute their innovative services.
This is a
stretch : To make sure that corporations do not discriminate, random checks
should be done by a Govt. entity like pinging the service timely and setting up
a portal if necessary to register consumer complaints whenever they see such
discrimination like say blocking at night peak time. Many would be spam and
useless, but that�s that.
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:
There is no need for treating OTT as anything. They are just services found on
the internet. All that TSP�s need to concentrate on is to provide better data
packs and suitable tariffs in order to earn money. For example, the data packs
in India still start at 50 MB while the world has moved on. TSP�s need to
innovate to survive. However, when a service provider breaks the neutrality of
the network, new entrants become vulnerable to unfair competition, given that
their access to the Internet infrastructure can be restricted. Obviously,
powerful actors in the telecom industries have an interest in imposing their
control over information and communication networks. They do so by, for
instance, banning innovative VOIP applications from mobile telecommunications
services. Anti-Net neutrality practices are thus fundamentally
anti-competitive and harm consumers as well as economic growth. They discourage
innovation and result in rent-seeking behaviors from established players. They
put barriers to entry which prevent the emergence of the "next Skype"
or "next Google". It follows that an open and equitable access to the
communications infrastructure is the foundation of social and economic benefits
and needs to be preserved.
Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage
India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
Answer:
Already, there are quite a few number of indian OTT apps, however, to help
them, a �NET NEUTRALITY� framework is a must. There should be no discrimination
or favouritism in apps done by TSP�s because their company owns the OTT app,
that way a conducive competition enabled environment can be created.
Define the
principle of network neutrality. First, the specific architectural principles
of the Internet should be recognized in the regulatory framework through the
definition of the Internet as a public electronic communications network
abiding by the principle of Net neutrality. This principle would rule out any
discrimination based on the source, destination or actual content of the data
transmitted over the network. ISPs would be compelled to respect this principle
by giving an equal treatment to all data flows and guaranteeing final users the
freedom to 1) send and receive the content, services and applications of their
choice; 2) use or run the application and services of their choice; 3) connect
to the network and run any program of their choice, as long as they do not harm
the network.
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:
Please DO NOT license OTT players. There is no need for it as of today. Please
uphold the principle of net neutrality and leave OTT players alone. It is an obvious breach of
Net neutrality is the blocking of certain protocols or applications by IAPs as
a way to undermine competition. In some instances, the use of these services is
subject to extra fees. The most oft-cited example of such discriminatory
practices is that of the voice-over-IP (VOIP) application Skype. Although the
blocking of VOIP on wireless networks has been abandoned by a few IAPs in
recent months, many of them still engage in this kind of anti-competitive
behaviors and will continue to do so in the future for other innovative
services in the absence of Net neutrality regulation.
To preserve the
attractiveness of Internet access, managed services should also respect
specific conditions. In particular, it seems that any managed service should
only give access to one specific type of application or a limited package of
services (whether these are HD video, videoconferencing, e-Health, etc).
Otherwise, one managed service could absorb most of the applications that the
Internet has to offer and unfairly compete with this open and neutral
communications architecture. In the U.S, law scholar John Palfrey also proposed
that regulators should ban managed services that a) could be offered over the
public Internet; b) show clear characteristics of anticompetitive motivation;
c) draw down bandwidth otherwise allocated for Internet access service; and d)
if not handled as a Managed Service, might otherwise result in discriminatory
consumer harm� Link
Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges
for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.
Answer:
There is NO NEED to regulate any services offered over the internet. Please do
not kill the idea of a free and fair internet. All telcos are protected by the
govt, and OTT players are not. Therefore to say that TSP�s are making losses
and thus asking to control OTT players is wrong. A category of anti-Net neutrality practices
not actually put in practice but increasingly contemplated by some IAPs is the
establishment of "tolls", whereby online service providers would have
to pay IAPs in order to benefit from a normal quality of service on their
networks. In early-2010, the CEO of Telefonica declared that "Internet
search engines use our Net without paying anything at all, which is good for
them but bad for us. It is obvious that this situation must change, our
strategy is to change this". Link. Such language indicates that some IAPs are
considering developing new business models by monetizing online service
provider's access to their subscribers, which would profoundly undermine the
Internet ecosystem. Competition
alone will not safeguard the Internet's open architecture. Even
though ex ante regulation has allowed for sufficient levels of competition,
many of the positive externalities resulting for network neutrality would be
lost. In the view of such risks, it would be a great mistake on the part of
Indian institutions to adopt a "laissez-faire" policy letting ISPs
free to develop new business models based on traffic discrimination.
Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for
regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with
justifications.
Answer: The govt must enact
legislation to establish net neutrality in order to promote business in OTT
apps. Even TSP�s can offer their own OTT apps and use advertising as a means to
generate revenue. There is no need for regulation of OTT players. Both the Internet and
managed services should be defined in the regulatory framework and steps taken
to ensure that the development
of managed services will not occur at the expense of the Internet.
According to the French national regulatory authority (Arcep), managed services
are acceptable as long as they "respect competition laws and sector-
specific regulation, and provided that the managed service does not degrade the
quality of Internet access". Such degradation would occur if, for
instance, an operator decided to allocate the vast majority of its bandwidth to
managed services, thereby depriving the Internet access from sufficient network
capacities.
To ensure that managed services will not undermine the
attractiveness of Internet access offers, Arcep proposes that the quality
of service requirements included
in the Telecoms Package be construed in the context of the neutral Internet to
protect the latter against degradation "Given the shared social interest
in having an Internet connectivity that operates in a satisfactory way for the
maximum number of users, it seems necessary to encourage the service to be of
satisfactory quality. An ISP's responsibility in this matter is naturally
central"
India Risks
Lagging Behind if it Fails to Protect Net Neutrality: �India is at risk of
losing its competitive edge when it comes to new, innovative developments�. It
also notes that India is lagging behind the United States and the EU in the
development of innovative services and applications. Yet, if the anti-Net
Neutrality provisions currently contained in the Telecoms package were passed,
the situation could dangerously aggravate.
Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing
on the subject discussed?
Answer :
1. Pricing of
packs sold by TSP�s : the pricing of the plans sold by TSP�s is arbitrary and
not controlled, therefore it is quite clear that rates across the board remain
same and therefore it is hampering the customers experience. Prices are
unnecessarily inflated.
2. No net
neutrality law : A draft has been attached with this reply.
3. TRAI has not
interfered or made a statement on past violations of policies by TSP�s. TRAI
must respond to such things and enforce policies more effectively.
4. The digital
india vision issued by the GoI and what TRAI is proposing to do are complete
opposites. There is no explanation on this. (insert link to pic of net
neutrality post of GoI on reddit here)
5. TRAI has no
plan on upgrading internet speeds and quality in india. India has the worst
internet speeds in India, according to this AKAMAI report(Page 25
onwards). Instead of focusing on OTT players, TRAI needs to drive policy in
such a way so as to improve customer experience in India because in the last 10
years we have not improved in this sector, and we rank worse in Asia, even
below the growth of countries such as phillipines, Vietnam and china are moving
far ahead us.
6. One related
key aspect is to recognize that site or domain-wide filtering is an extremely
serious measure impacting freedom of information and communication. Obviously,
any attempt to mandate such measures without a prior judiciary decision under a
fair and equitable trial is in contradiction to fundamental rights. Even
judicially ordered filtering raises serious issues as it unavoidably risks to
prevent access to other contents than the offending one. As it is also an
inefficient measure, it should be discouraged.
7. Create
sanctions to punish any illegal violation of network neutrality. A third
important component of a regulatory framework aimed at protecting network
neutrality is the creation of appropriate sanctions National regulatory
authorities must be able to sanction ISPs when they violate Net neutrality
rules, for instance through monetary fines (which should be persuasive enough).
In the event of very serious and/or deliberate interferences with the freedom
of communications of end-users, the judiciary authority should be competent to
sanction ISPs .