Hi,
I support strong net neutrality in India and below are my response to your questions.
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 justhas 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:
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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:
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:
1. Indian law does not apply outside India
2. 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.
3. 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:
1. Bharti Airtel Q4 net profit surges by 89% to Rs 962 crore, meets estimates
2. Vodafone India service revenue up 11.7% in first half of FY15
3. Idea Cellular posts 64 pct profit rise as subscriber numbers grow
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:
1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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.
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.
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 practicesa 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.
1. 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.
2. 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 respectthis 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
Answer :
1. 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.
2. No net neutrality law
3. 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.
4. 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)
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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 sanctionsNational 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 .
--