Hello,
I am not a scholar , neither a great writer. I do not own a JOB. The
only source of income for me is my small website. If Telecom operators
will charge extra money for visiting sites, I and thousands others
like me are going to die due to poverty because my website is regional
and is for Indians only. Nobody is going to purchase a Plan to visit
my website. Please stop this, you are only harming Indians.
I would like to say before answering your questions :-
There are thousands of people like me earning from internet and
bringing the foreign currency to our country. We work as Freelancer's
, We earn , We pay taxes. If this happens it will make a very
disastrous effect on may of us. Lack of visitors will kill our sites.
And one more suggestion from one of my friend in his own words :- "I
suggest we let the US govt regulate our internet here too. They can’t
do worse than our govt and then they can also claim some ownership as
computers and internet were born out of decades long US govt research.
I also propose that the US govt levy royalties on the use of their
research over here from our IT companies. Just imagine their revenue
loss from giving away public research for free. Biggest scam in the
world, worse than the coal scam. Millions of lakhs of crores of lakhs
revenue loss…."
Answers to questions -
Some answers are from other friends as we have something i common
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:- Road builders build roads, and you are free to do as you
please when you use that infrastructure. They don’t charge you for the
photos you take on the way, for the coconuts you drink while on the
highway and only take a toll fee when you enter. That’s how Telcos
are, they build infrastructure on public property, they share revenue
with the government, they charge you a fee (only a usage fee) for the
infra and that’s it. What you do using the infrastructure is not their
prerogative, and that’s how it should be. OTT services is a misleading
term. Should a pipe manufacturer be charging the cola company for
using the water that flows through the water pipeline network in the
city? It is preposterous of telecos to think it as their right to have
a profitable business. Profitability should be a function of their own
innovation- it should not be handed over to them by changing the rules
of the game.
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:- If you want to regulate the data as in the content of the
calls for checking possible misuse by terrorists etc.,that regulation
is justified but within some logical limits and the limits upheld by
the constitution of India. If you want to make the existing services
pricier for the consumer so that the existing but obsolete business
model of certain telecom giants starts to work, then no. Definitely
not. NEVER because it will hamper consumer choice, stifle growth of
new kinds of products and services, and impede India’s economic
progress. For example, if airline companies decide to offer online
customer service through voice chat, an already heavily taxed and
loss-making industry should not have to take another license.
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:- Profit of Vodafone in 2014 was £59.42 billion.
Airtel operating profit (INR Cr.) is as follows:
Mar ’14- 16,298.80
Mar ’13- 13,470.70
Mar ’12- 13,643.70
Mar ’11- 13,340.30
Mar ’10- 13,966.3
(source: http://www.moneycontrol.com/financials/bhartiairtel/profit-loss/BA08)
A new-story on CEOs and their salaries highlights
“And it is not just the CEO whose salary has crossed the Rs 1 crore
(Rs 10 million) barrier. In 2005-06, Bharti Airtel had no less than 13
employees drawing a crore or more.
In fact, with a salary cheque of Rs 3.21 crore (Rs 32 million) per
annum, joint managing director Akhil Gupta was paid better than the
other joint managing director and a promoter of the company, Rajan
Bharti Mittal (Rs 2.48 crore)“
(Source: http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/apr/30bspec.htm)
These companies are not doing anybody a favor by offering internet
services. Just because their current model is not working like before,
they should now innovate, not modify the rules of the game and punish
a whole country of a billion people who are now progressing in which
internet has a huge role to play. (As an example, refer the following
story on UN website on the benefits of free internet:
http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/july-2006/harnessing-internet-development)
Radio channels cannot tax television channels for reduction in
revenue. Even if OTT players are impacting the traditional revenue
streams of TSPs, the TSPs cannot tax OTT services. Market forces
should allow TSPs to reach a profitable price-point. TSPs need to
invest in the quality and expansion of their existing products. TSPs
need to explore outside their traditional revenue streams. India’s
economy needs to favour innovative companies’ not outdated incumbents
with vested interests.
Licensed TSPs have immensely benefited over the years by having a near
monopoly or limited competition in the circles they operate. It also
did not take into consideration the inability of these players to
anticipate disruption and provide cheaper and more secure VoIP
services to their customers when they had the opportunity.
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:- I, as a consumer, am already paying for the internet pack,
only because I want to use the OTT service. Why should TSP charge the
consumer as well as the OTT player??
What’s not to be forgotten is that the telcos do benefit from the apps
that piggyback on them. More app usage means more data consumed and
more money inflow.
Should the electric car manufacturers pay oil companies if electric
cars become more attractive to consumers? The telecos have bought the
spectrum which belongs to the people of India, sold by Indian people’s
elected representatives in the government.
OTT players should NEVER pay TSPs for anything that can entail the
violation of 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:- No imbalance exists between the OTT players and the telecom
companies. They are both in different businesses. OTT players offer
applications while the telecom operator offer bandwidth for offering
those services.
OTT players compete with each other, for eg,Viber competes with
Whatsapp, but not with Vodafone. The rules for Whatsapp and Viber
should be the same, but Vodafone, Airtel, Uninor etc. are telecom
companies which are working in an entirely different environment.
OTT players compliance issues should be with respect to privacy rights
of the consumers, not the profitability “right” of the telecom
players.
Should the toll charged by an expressway be higher for a Beetle than
for a Santro? Should a power utility charge higher rates for the power
used by a merchant banking office, where high-value deals are shaped,
than for the power consumed by a sarkari office? Should a telecom
service provider charge a stock broker taking an order from a client
more than a call that exchanges gossip? All cars pay the same toll.
Commercial power costs the same per unit whether used in a fancy
restaurant or a barber shop. Calls are metered and charged per minute,
whether they commiserate over the dear departed or exchange sweet
nothings.
The Internet IS a levelled playing field for everybody. In today’s
world, OTT players do not operate solely in the virtual world but, on
the contrary, interact with “REAL” world products and services, and
result in creation of innumerable jobs. In an ever more connected
world, any law or regulation which breaks this ‘FLAT’ and ‘NEUTRAL’
nature of the Internet would harm economic growth.
By rejecting net neutrality, which will enable telcos to play the
gatekeeper to a valuable resource, we will be shutting the door on the
entrepreneurial aspirations of millions. That’s because the only way
for them to compete with the big moneyed Internet players would be to
match their spends to make the Internet work for them. The absence of
net neutrality will definitely benefit the telcos while at the same
time harming the market by unleashing monopolistic tendencies
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:- This question requires a completely separate debate in
itself. First and foremost, governments and all companies should
respect and uphold the consumer’s Right to Privacy. If we lose
privacy, we lose freedom itself because we no longer feel free to
express what we think. India cannot be allowed to become a complete
surveillance state which taps every OTT service which a consumer
accesses. Second, OTT services should be allowed to freely combine and
bundle online communication services within applications, and
shouldn’t be forced to keep data records. For example, an online
vegetable ordering service should not be forced to save online
communications between a buyer and seller.
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:- A consumer ombudsmen to redress consumer issues related to
OTT players can be formed. Again, it should not stifle the free
internet, but promote it.
All OTT services should adopt security standards in online
communication. And they should keep consumers informed about the right
privacy and security choices. In fact, the government should be
proactive in making companies aware of such practices.
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:- As already answered, NO regulatory framework is required
which violates Net Neutrality.
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 should be strictly enforced with the bright
line rules as mentioned above and as proposed by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). There is no need to fear surgeries
getting affected because some users are hogging all the bandwidth.
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:- No form of traffic management should ever be permitted.
Internet is where people speak like they speak in real life. If you
start discriminating, it would be like putting a cello-tape on some
people’s mouth while providing a mic and loudspeaker to other people.
It would be, like you mentioned, “DISCRIMINATION” and non-justifiable
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:- No traffic management should happen. The TSPs should not be
allowed to adopt “traffic management techniques.” That should be
defined as illegal and should lead to the cancellation of licenses of
said TSPs.
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:- TSPs are businesses. It’s not the consumer’s headache to
worry about how to make any business profitable. Nobody asks an
airline user: “who should bear new airplane purchase costs?” Let the
TSPs worry about how to “invest in network 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:- CAPs will innovate and grow without the TRAI having to worry
about them.
Regulation will make the TSPs lazy and stifle innovation. Handing them
a plate of profit based on punishing the consumer (by double charging
him as well as regulating what he sees and hears on the internet) will
only lead to de-growth in the use of internet as it is today.
Taking the various non-price based discrimination of services options
available to TSPs, here’s a more detailed response.
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:- No justification. The TSPs are charging the consumer for
internet services already. They should then in no case charge the OTT
communication service.
We do not allow for double taxation. Differential pricing would be
like triple taxation of the consumer- charge for internet service,
charge for OTT service (as OTT player will at least someway pass on
the cost to consumer, and then the charge for the loss of freedom
choice on the internet)
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:- ALL data on the Internet is EQUAL. ALL bits are bits, NO need
to segregate OTT players. TSPs need to focus on improving their
existing products and quality of service.
Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage
India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
Answer:- Let the market decide. It’s not the regulator’s domain.
OTT apps are not critical defense hardware such as nuclear weapons or
missiles. Hence, no need to worry about their ‘indigenization.
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:- Not Applicable (N/A).
Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT
communication services? Please comment with justifications.
Answer:- Do Not go down the road of the License Raj. You start with
asking whether the OTT communication service players should be
licensed and then ask if there is a need to regulate subscription
charges for OTT communication services.
One set of regulations leading to another set and yet another
Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for
regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with
justification
Government need not bother itself with the regulation of
non-communication OTT players. “Let the buyer beware” should be the
governing philosophy.
Answer:- If people choose to opine to the world or share ideas or keep
up with friends and do a million other things with millions of apps,
it’s not the government’s business to tell people what to do with
their lives. It’s inconceivable that the government can even think of
‘regulation of non-communication OTT players.’
What is the government proposing to do — “regulate” whether and how
much people use Twitter or Facebook or Google or how much time they
spend/waste playing FarmVille and Candy Crush or World of Warcraft?
Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the
subject discussed?
Answer:- Free internet is the best thing to happen to humanity since
ages. It fuels innovation, promotes freedom and aids progress. It
should be saved.
Uphold Net Neutrality. Uphold an Open Internet. Uphold the citizens’
Right to Freedom of Speech.