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. 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:
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. 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: NO. If , because:
1. Indian law does not apply outside India
2. Indian companies will simply shift base outside
India, killing indian revenues. It 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? 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:
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. 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 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
discussed?
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 : A draft has been attached
with this reply.
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 .