Salutations.

 

I am a citizen of the Republic of India.

 

I am a moderate-to-heavy user of internet, via mobile, as well as PC (Ethernet & Wi-Fi), and I feel that I am a stakeholder in the issue that has recently come to light.

 

Technology companies enter the field with two motives – one, to provide technology to as many people as possible, two, to keep up with the pace of global technology. The recent developments (chiefly since 2000) have resulted in the boom of internet services, and usage of internet via mobile and PC for services ranging from the necessities to luxuries. This has resulted in older technologies such as landline telephony and mobile telephony be replaced by more convenient, and faster methods of communication via the internet.

 

The internet is a service that has connected people beyond what was assumed to be possible even one hundred years ago. It is now clear that the future of communication is the internet; it is like the radio or the telephone. I cannot imagine a radio manufacturer charging more to allow a certain frequency, or a telephone provider charging more to allow calls to a specific person. Selective pricing to access the internet is a violation of fundamental rights according to both the United Nations and several other countries around the world. While we are not there yet, we must take all steps possible to bring more people on to the platform; neutrality of the internet is the single largest reason for this.

 

If OTTs begin to be charged separately, there are only the ISPs who stand to benefit, and no one else.

 

1.       ISPs will be able to charge more for all the popular services such as Google, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc., and build their own competitive services which will not be charged, leading to monopoly of the internet by ISPs (it doesn’t remain the internet any more);

2.       ISPs will be able to charge more from the OTTs as well as the customers in order to allow equal access to content from other sources as their own content, making money from both ends in a starkly immoral (and what should be illegal) manner;

3.       ISPs will be holding back a large section of the Indian population from both new technology, as well as ability to use the internet effectively;

4.       ISPs will be able to easily censor free speech by regulating prices of content at will;

5.       Affiliations to political parties/organisations/other sources of funding will impact the usability of the internet.

 

These five put together lead to a dangerous scenario where something that has been built as a worldwide communication medium is being monopolized and controlled by the people holding the keys to its gates.

 

One thing is clear: the internet does not belong to anyone. Everyone is free on the internet to go where they like, just like everyone is free to move anywhere in the country.

 

Let me bring to you one more stark comparison, with which I shall bring to an end this letter.

 

We all earn money. With the money we earn, we’re free to buy whatever we want, equally. It is completely our choice, what we want to buy. Suppose the organisation/person who pays me decided that just because they held the power of granting me this access, they could decide what I could buy with the money (and consequently, making me work more for me to be eligible to buy what I’d want, like vegetables and rice), it would be illegal and immoral. Charging separately for OTTs, and blocking net neutrality is like that – it is a gatekeeper telling me where I can go in the park that isn’t his.

 

Here are brief answers to the 20 questions posed by TRAI:

 

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.

a.       It is not too early to establish a regulatory framework for OTT services. Technology is an ever-evolving sphere, and waiting for it to evolve and expand is not the correct approach. It is a continuous process that must begin at the earliest.

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.

a.       No, OTT players must not be brought under licensing, as it involves regulating an open medium as the internet. Communication can happen through other means, electronic mails can also be thought of a form of “messaging” as they are fed live to devices these days – and laws can be rendered useless by clever workarounds. Also, every single provider from every country cannot be expected to register for a licence in India, they will simply skip the market because of the increased difficulty of doing business. Such a move will hamper the access of technology by the Indian public.

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.

a.       Yes, the growth of OTT is impacting the traditional revenue stream of TSPs. The increased data revenues of the TSPs is currently insufficient to compensate for this impact. Let me explain with a small example – a Skype call over 30 minutes costs ₹14, if persons on both sides are using one of the standard 1GB/month 3G internet packs, and significantly lesser for people on fixed line internet packs. This rate remains constant whether the call is local, national, or international. However, an STD call over 30 minutes costs ₹45 to one service provider. Therefore, the net revenue decreases, but revenue is shared equally among service providers for allowing the ability to place and receive internet calls. A similar case holds for messaging and other OTT services.

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 of product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.

a.       NO. OTT players must NOT be made to pay for use of TSPs over and above the standard data charges payable by them or the consumer. Such pricing plans will lead to monopoly of large and rich corporations in the internet. It will not be a free market any more, as new OTT providers will not be able to broadcast their services due to lack of funding. Also, bandwidth consumption is a deal between the TSP and the consumer, and the OTT should have no say in how much bandwidth the TSP can provide (often at the cost of less well-financed OTT providers) to the consumers.

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.

a.       Operation of OTT players is similar to the operation of real life companies as they are real-life companies. Let us go back to the case of the radio. Let us say a hypothetical radio station is playing unlicensed content, or is promoting anti-national sentiment. What would be the action of the establishment in such a situation? A similar thinking needs to be implemented to an internet with many, many, more stations, and the ability to tune in to more than one at a time. OTTs must be, to provide services in India, obligated to maintain the privacy of the individual, or explicitly specify the level of the usage of user data, in a simple and clear manner. However, much regulation will lead to OTTs skipping the market altogether.

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.

a.       As mentioned above, OTT players must be mandated to protect consumer privacy and be liable to the laws if violated. Companies providing internet telephony may later be mandated to maintain a record of calls made by every user for up to a period of 24 months; that however is a long term step and not for 2015.

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.

a.       In the short term, as mentioned above. In the long term, a mandate to maintain all data servers in India would be ideal, so that companies can be easily subject to Indian laws. However, that must be done after India is one of the primary markets for most such services (currently, it is US, China and Western Europe), and not in 2015.

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.

a.       Such regulation of OTTs (as prescribed by ETNO) are to the huge gain of the TSPs; they are holding new technology at ransom for being more inexpensive and simpler than the older one.

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.

a.       The question has been answered in the above paragraphs.

10.   What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach?

a.       Electricity-board style pricing and regulation of the internet, i.e., the more the data you consume, the higher your internet cost is – this up to a peak and then the cost drops off. For example, ₹ x for the first 1 GB, then ₹ x+k for the next 2GB, and then ₹ x-n for anything higher.

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?

a.       Yes for both.

12.   How should the 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.

a.       Every single user of the internet is equally liable to bear the cost of investment in network infrastructure and network upgradation costs; as such the consumer will have to bear the costs. A pricing as suggested above will work.

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.

a.       Yes, these practices are acceptable for certain types of organisations and bulk customers only. For example, a TSP providing internet for an organisation as opposed to a customer (a company, a hospital, a university, etc.) can be allowed to provide more bandwidth to the consumer for specific points on the internet (that are strictly to be chosen by the consumer) and limit the bandwidth offered to all other points on the internet equally. TSPs should be liable to the law if this is not followed, and separate bandwidth data must be provided to such consumers, if and when asked for.

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.

a.       There is no justification for such pricing, as every point on the internet can be treated as an OTT, and this will lead to random and rampant lobbying and exchange of money (in general towards a TSP) at the expense of the individual consumer, who would have to pay more for popular OTT content.

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.

a.       OTT providers must be treated as what they are – there must be two or three levels of internet access – the individual consumer, the mid-level organisation, and the large organisation, ideally; the larger the organisation is, the more they should pay for internet. There must however be a maximum percentage difference between the consumer and large-organisation internet price, and there must be a cap on how much the pricing of the single consumer can be varied.

16.   What framework should be adopted to encourage India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.

a.       This must be left to the developers. In general, India-specific OTT apps for communication in the 21^st century world isn’t a great idea. However, applications for most other services are coming up quickly.

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.

a.       With ever-evolving technology and thinning definitions of what is “communication”, such a distinction of OTTs is uncalled for. They should be classified as ASPs.

18.   Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.

a.       There is a need to keep a check on prices of the internet access to ensure fair compensation to both the consumer and the TSP, but there is no need to regulate subscription charges for OTT services in a separate manner.

19.   What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.

a.       The question has been answered above; maintenance of data servers onshore in the long run would be the ideal way.

20.   Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?

a.       Any such thing that needs to be brought about has been brought about in the first paragraph(s).

 

I hope that TRAI will remain open to the plight of the average internet consumer, and with a conscious understanding of the nature of the medium that is the internet, make a mature decision that can be amended and used in the long run.

 

Regards

Smarth Kakkar
A concerned internet user