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:
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
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.
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:
Indian
law does not apply outside India
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.
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:
-
-
-
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?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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
:
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.
No
net neutrality law : A draft has been attached with this reply.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 .