1. All sites must be equally accessible
   ISPs and telecom operators shouldn't block certain or apps just because they don't pay them. They should also not create gateways which influence discovery of sites, giving preference to some sites over others. Therefore,Internet.org is bad (explained @Zuckerberg’s sucker punch: Would you want free internet if it wasn’t really free?), and in India, Airtel OneTouch is bad (explained @Move over Internet.org: Airtel launches its own gateway to the Internet ), and there shouldn't be licensing of Internet companies (see @TRAI Chairman: Telco’s & Internet co’s need to find models of working together without destroying value). You don't want you Internet access to become as limited as your Cable TV service
2. All sites must be accessible at the same speed.  
   This means no speeding up of certain sites because of business deals (see @YouTube Caught in Net Neutrality Flap in India). More importantly, it means no slowing down some sites. (see @This hilarious graph of Netflix speeds shows the importance of net neutrality)
3. The cost of access must be the same for all sites (per Kb/Mb or as per data plan). 
   This means no "Zero Rating". This applies to Wikipedia (see @Wikipedia Partners Aircel To Offer Free Access ) and Twitter (see @Vodafone’s Free Twitter Partnership In India Blows Up In Its Face ). In countries like India, Net Neutrality is more about cost of access than speed of access, because, well, we don't have fast and slow lanes. Given the paucity of 3G spectrum and a very poor, sparse wireline network, we have only slow lanes.

• Allowing consumers to pick winners, not Telecom operators and ISPs. 
  Consumers are likely to pick services that are likely to pick services that are accessible (obviously), faster, and/or free. Making services available, fast and free/paid must be in the hands of the Internet business, and not telecom operators or ISPs. In India, we've seen corruption fester in case of Mobile VAS businesses, where green-lighting access was in the hands of VAS managers at telecom operators. Smaller businesses will eventually need to negotiate with access providers to make their service available or free. In case of the telecom operator controlled Mobile VAS business in India, telecom operators would tell smaller VAS companies to tie up with larger ones, since they only wanted to deal with them. They would also refuse some of the larger companies contracts, because they didn't want them to become too big.
• Preventing a bait-and-switch from ISPs and telecom operators.
  It's easy for Internet businesses to think shorter term, and create situations where they will partner with ISPs/Telcos to get preferential treatment over their competition, say, by allowing gateways. Once these business models are established and precedence is created, ISPs will eventually begin charging Internet companies for inclusion in these gateways.
• Allowing businesses to compete on a level playing field: 
  While it's more Formula 1 (the driver and the car matter) than a 100m dash (only the runners ability matters), it essentially means that those competing aren't on different tracks - one rough and one smooth. 

AP Application Development

Global Information Services, Caterpillar India

Mobile : +91 8861994811

Email : Agarwal_Pratik@cat.com