Dear TRAI,
I am writing to express my concern against the actions that telecom carriers are taking to restrict fair access to the internet (net neutrality). I believe the internet is a vital resource—it helps me communicate, work, and thrive as a citizen. If telecom operators can discriminate internet traffic on the basis of which services pay the most, we are allowing telcos control over a vital and necessary technological resource. By doing so we allow them to define what information we can view; what entertainment we can access; and how companies can innovate.
This is completely unfair and harms India’s long term role in the global market. I strongly believe the growth of telecoms and the well-being of the internet can go hand-in-hand. I’m asking for a framework to ensure long term and fair access for all services regardless of size. I want my generation and those that come after me to have unfettered access to the Internet, with no telcos or ISPs having the ability to charge for specific services I use on top of it. Please understand that the internet is an important resource and vital to me and to every other Indian citizen. I would like to see it kept free and protected under Net Neutrality to ensure fair and equal access for all and forever.
I signed up a petition on change.org to preserve Net-Neutrality in India. As a Software Engineer, I am someone who is intricately and perennially connected to the Internet. I depend upon the Internet for sustenance of myself and my family. Therefore this is something that is important to me.
Here are the answers to the 20 questions:
Question 1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for Internet/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.
It's not only early, it's also uncalled for. India is still in it's initial phase of the Internet revolution. Content consumption is increasing but it's still not enough in rural areas. There is room for growth. By charging OTT services differently, we will negate the good the Internet has on the India - optimum pricing. The Telecom players will have a monopoly over the call charges and they will increase the same. OTT services put a check on this and charging these services will stop technology from evolving.
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.
Definitely not. OTT players have proved competitors to the big Telecom of India. A consumer has the right to choose the cheapest available solution and OTT service providers facilitate that. Besides, we are already paying for the hiked up data charges for the Internet as a whole. What I mean to say is that OTT players have made a healthy competition. Not many people use OTT services since they haven't properly evolved. Putting a cap on them by charging that data differently will lead to an end of an evolving part of the Internet.
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.
I can definitely say that revenue stream of telecom operators is unaffected. The system in place does not incur a different cost to OTT services. Besides that, they have increased the cost of the Internet as a whole, which should be more than enough to compensate for any minor loss that OTT players may have caused. I myself have used OTT a handful of times. At the same time, I fear that treating OTT differently will put an end to the Internet as we see it. It will just be the beginning. From then on, all kinds of data will be charged differently.
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.
OTT evolved due to the high pricing of the Telecom operators. Can they justify the high cost of postpaid services or the increased cost of internet over mobile phones? Inflation was less than 10% but the increase in cost of data has been more than 100%. If Telecom players hadn't increased their costs, OTT would never have evolved.
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.
Why is there a need of a regulatory framework for OTT players? It is after all just data. Is there a need to analyse every data packet that comes through a router in our country? I disagree that there is an imbalance or that there is a need for any regulatory framework. It is just overhead cost. What will the government do by regulating OTT players? It leads to no end.
As for the impact on economy, some competition will not hurt. If OTT players charge users, only then should they be charged by a regulatory body.
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.
I do understand that this technology can be misused but isn't having an account and a call log enough for security purposes? No user can use this service without verification(over email and so on). These services could be asked to cooperate in case data is needed.
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
They already ensure basic levels of privacy. Not anyone can log into one's account and use the service. Encryption of passwords is a norm and should be a norm with all OTT players. In case they operate outside the country, their services should be allowed only if they agree to the conditions that in case of security concerns, we could access their logs so as to find the mischief maker.
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.
The ETNO is the European Telecommunications Network Operators group, so it is obvious that their recommendations would be biased and heavily in favour of network operators.
Network operators and “OTT” players provide different services and are not competitors. The same way power distribution companies and air conditioner manufacturers are not competitors. Profits or Network Operators and “OTT” players are not mutually exclusive. There is no need to “level the playing field” here, instead we should look at how to make sure both industries grow and continue succeeding.
If TSPs think that OTTs are encroaching into areas traditionally handled by TSPs, then TSPs can do the same by building and investing in promising OTT services themselves. Norway’s telecommunication giant Telenor for example, has recognised the potential of WebRTC technology and has invested heavily in an OTT of their own called appear.in. If the future of communication goes towards the OTT way, then they have ensured they are well-poised to take advantage of it with their investment.
It is highly debatable whether it is “required” to charge from both end-users and OTT players. There is no explanation given why it has to be absolutely required. This claim of theirs of it being “required” is just an opinion, and should be treated as such, not as fact.None of this is new, and work is constantly being done to improve those areas even without differential pricing. All that is mentioned here is offering a faster service to a few by intentionally prioritising some sites over others. This is in no way doing anything technically innovative.
In fact, with net neutrality, there is more innovation. This is because since no site is given priority over others, sites try to innovate in areas like caching, compression, download sizes of their pages, CDNs, offline-use of web pages, and many many more areas. If all it takes to make your site faster is to pay a TSP more money, then work on all these things will take a backseat in favour of the easier approach of paying TSPs money - thereby actually slowing down innovation.
So in conclusion, because of the above reasons, I see no substantial reason why there is a need to draw anything related to the question of “OTT players” and net neutrality from the ETNO based on that paper. They have not managed to demonstrate why the so called “levelling the playing field” between TSPs and OTT players is absolutely required, and neither have given any convincing arguments on the benefits it would provide regarding “innovative network management services”.
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.
Why should there be an Indian context? I don't think anyone would say that the Internet is making our culture go extinct, so ban the Internet. We are moving towards becoming a super power in the next decade or so. Why do we need to be bigots when we are moving towards a better future using Technology and Internet? The Internet has become a provider for many families. Net neutrality will ensure freedom of data of any kind. Why should an individual be charged differently for entertaining himself over the Internet? It is illogical. With the current context, technology keeps on evolving. OTT is a good technology solution. It hurts no one and has room for infinite improvement. There could be many ideas that can incorporate OTT and reduce running costs for individuals who have no funding.
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.
Why is there a need for discrimination? Every individual has a capped bandwidth. If the internet service provider is unable to handle the scenario when a lot of users are using their service, then they are not good enough to keep their services running in the near future. Internet is the future, not just the present. An upgrade will ensure that there are no traffic issues relating to bandwidth or traffic management.
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?
Doing that would not make it fair, and its not a sufficient condition to ensure a transparent and fair regulatory regime.
This goes back to the answer to the first question, that a framework for OTTs, no matter how fair and transparent, is simply not required. Fairness and transparency in the regulation will still not stop significant friction in the market.
Fairness and transparency cannot compensate for a set of regulations which are simply not needed, and which are hurtful to consumers in the long-term.Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.