Subject: net neutrality
From: Ashwini Kumar Sharma
Date: 08-Apr-15 4:56 PM
To: advqos@trai.gov.in

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.

OTT services is a misleading term. Should a pipe manufacturer be charging the cola company for using the water that flows through the water pipeline network in the city? It is preposterous of telecos to think it as their right to have a profitable business. Profitability should be a function of their own innovation- it should not be handed over to them by changing the rules of the game.

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.

If you want to regulate the data as in the content of the calls for checking possible misuse by terrorists etc.,that regulation is justified but within some logical limits and the limits upheld by the constitution of India. If you want to make the existing services pricier for the consumer so that the existing but obsolete business model of certain telecom giants starts to work, then no. Definitely not. NEVER because it will hamper consumer choice, stifle growth of new kinds of products and services, and impede India’s economic progress. For example, if airline companies decide to offer online customer service through voice chat, an already heavily taxed and loss-making industry should not have to take another license.

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.

Profit of Vodafone in 2014 was £59.42 billion.

Airtel operating profit  (INR Cr.) is as follows:

Mar ’14-    16,298.80                                                               

Mar ’13-  13,470.70                

Mar ’12- 13,643.70            

Mar ’11- 13,340.30         

Mar ’10- 13,966.3  

                                                               

(source: http://www.moneycontrol.com/financials/bhartiairtel/profit-loss/BA08)

A new-story on CEOs and their salaries highlights

And it is not just the CEO whose salary has crossed the Rs 1 crore (Rs 10 million) barrier. In 2005-06, Bharti Airtel had no less than 13 employees drawing a crore or more.

In fact, with a salary cheque of Rs 3.21 crore (Rs 32 million) per annum, joint managing director Akhil Gupta was paid better than the other joint managing director and a promoter of the company, Rajan Bharti Mittal (Rs 2.48 crore)

(Source: http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/apr/30bspec.htm)

These companies are not doing anybody a favor by offering internet services. Just because their current model is not working like before, they should now innovate, not modify the rules of the game and punish a whole country of a billion people who are now progressing in which internet has a huge role to play. (As an example, refer the following story on UN website on the benefits of free internet: http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/july-2006/harnessing-internet-development)

Radio channels cannot tax television channels for reduction in revenue. Even if OTT players are impacting the traditional revenue streams of TSPs, the TSPs cannot tax OTT services. Market forces should allow TSPs to reach a profitable price-point. TSPs need to invest in the quality and expansion of their existing products. TSPs need to explore outside their traditional revenue streams. India’s economy needs to favour innovative companies’ not outdated incumbents with vested interests.

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.

I, as a consumer, am already paying for the internet pack, only because I want to use the OTT service. Why should TSP charge the consumer as well as the OTT player??

Should the electric car manufacturers pay oil companies if electric cars become more attractive to consumers? The telecos have bought the spectrum which belongs to the people of India, sold by Indian people’s elected representatives in the government.

OTT players should NEVER pay TSPs for anything that can entail the violation of principles of Net Neutrality.

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.

No imbalance exists between the OTT players and the telecom companies. They are both in different businesses. OTT players offer applications while the telecom operator offer bandwidth for offering those services.

OTT players compete with each other, for eg,Viber competes with Whatsapp, but not with Vodafone.  The rules for Whatsapp and Viber should be the same, but Vodafone, Airtel, Uninor etc. are telecom companies which are working in an entirely different environment.

OTT players compliance issues should be with respect to privacy rights of the consumers, not the profitability “right” of the telecom players.

The Internet IS a levelled playing field for everybody. In today’s world, OTT players do not operate solely in the virtual world but, on the contrary, interact with “REAL” world products and services, and result in creation of innumerable jobs. In an ever more connected world, any law or regulation which breaks this ‘FLAT’ and ‘NEUTRAL’ nature of the Internet would harm economic growth.

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.

This question requires a completely separate debate in itself. First and foremost, governments and all companies should respect and uphold the consumer’s Right to Privacy. If we lose privacy, we lose freedom itself because we no longer feel free to express what we think. India cannot be allowed to become a complete surveillance state which taps every OTT service which a consumer accesses. Second, OTT services should be allowed to freely combine and bundle online communication services within applications, and shouldn’t be forced to keep data records. For example, an online vegetable ordering service should not be forced to save online communications between a buyer and seller.

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.

A consumer ombudsmen to redress consumer issues related to OTT players can be formed. Again, it should not stifle the free internet, but promote it.

All OTT services should adopt  security standards in online communication. And they should keep consumers informed about the right privacy and security choices. In fact, the government should be proactive in making companies aware of such practices.

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.

As already answered, NO regulatory framework is required which violates Net Neutrality.

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.

Net neutrality should be strictly enforced with the bright line rules as mentioned above and as proposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). There is no need to fear surgeries getting affected because some users are hogging all the bandwidth.

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.

No form of traffic management should ever be permitted. Internet is where people speak like they speak in real life. If you start discriminating, it would be like putting a cello-tape on some people’s mouth while providing a mic and loudspeaker to other people. It would be, like you mentioned, “DISCRIMINATION” and non-justifiable

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?

No traffic management should happen. The TSPs should not be allowed to adopt “traffic management techniques.” That should be defined as illegal and should lead to the cancellation of licenses of said TSPs.

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

TSPs are businesses. It’s not the consumer’s headache to worry about how to make any business profitable. Nobody asks an airline user: “who should bear new airplane purchase costs?” Let the TSPs worry about how to “invest in network 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.

CAPs will innovate and grow without the TRAI having to worry about them.

Regulation will make the TSPs lazy and stifle innovation. Handing them a plate of profit based on punishing the consumer (by double charging him as well as regulating what he sees and hears on the internet) will only lead to de-growth in the use of internet as it is today.

Taking the various non-price based discrimination of services options available to TSPs, here’s a more detailed response.

Restrictions undertaken in response to legal obligations are obviously okay. However, restricting specific types of traffic should not be allowed nor should differentiating between providers of types of content or applications.

Congestion management, network security and integrity can be legitimate reasons for TSPs to implement temporary restrictions but these should not be long term and TSPs should be legally bound to disclose these temporary measures to customers and the TRAI as well as detailing what steps they are planning to take to ensure there is no network congestion.

Providing a congestion-free network is the TSP’s responsibility — if it promises 10 GB data plans or ‘unlimited’ data plans, then it should come up with a network where it is able to standby that promise without resorting to choking, throttling and so on.

Zero-rating is acceptable as long as no competitors are complaining about collusion or predatory business practices. If Flipkart gets together with some TSP, it should not lead to problems when the TSP’s customers try to access Amazon or SnapDeal.

Application-agnostic congestion management, prioritization, and differentiated throttling as non-price based discrimination of services can all be allowed with adequate regulatory oversight and when TSPs resort to these, all this should be fully disclosed to consumers on their websites.

A technique like differentiated throttling should not mean the consumer suffering on an ongoing basis for a prolonged period of time. Hence, terms such as ‘unlimited’ should be clearly defined by the TSPs if they choose to offer them. The ‘Fair Usage Limits’ should be well defined and every TSP usually has them and that is only ‘fair.’

TSPs should never have the option to block anything. They should only be allowed to block sites after the appropriate courts issue an order to that effect.

In summary, the TSPs should only have access to these discrimination of services for limited periods of time. If these measures are made routine, they will be abused. So, the TRAI should spell out the narrow set of circumstances when such practices are acceptable.

If TSPs choose to abuse the limited power they have to go for discrimination of services, their licenses should be liable for cancellation.

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.

No justification. The TSPs are charging the consumer for internet services already. They should then in no case charge the OTT communication service.

We do not allow for double taxation. Differential pricing would be like triple taxation of the consumer- charge for internet service, charge for OTT service (as OTT player will at least someway pass on the cost to consumer, and then the charge for the loss of freedom choice on the internet)

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.

ALL data on the Internet is EQUAL. ALL bits are bits, NO need to segregate OTT players. TSPs need to focus on improving their existing products and quality of service.

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

Let the market decide. It’s not the regulator’s domain.

OTT apps are not critical defense hardware such as nuclear weapons or missiles. Hence, no need to worry about their ‘indigenization.

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.

Not Applicable (N/A).

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

Do Not go down the road of the License Raj. You start with asking whether the OTT communication service players should be licensed and then ask if there is a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services.

One set of regulations leading to another set and yet another

Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justification
Government need not bother itself with the regulation of non-communication OTT players. “Let the buyer beware” should be the governing philosophy.

If people choose to opine to the world or share ideas or keep up with friends and do a million other things with millions of apps, it’s not the government’s business to tell people what to do with their lives. It’s inconceivable that the government can even think of ‘regulation of non-communication OTT players.’

What is the government proposing to do — “regulate” whether and how much people use Twitter or Facebook or Google or how much time they spend/waste playing FarmVille and Candy Crush or World of Warcraft?

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

Free internet is the best thing to happen to humanity since ages. It fuels innovation, promotes freedom and aids progress. It should be saved.

Uphold Net Neutrality. Uphold an Open Internet. Uphold the citizens’ Right to Freedom of Speech.


--
Thanks and regards.
Ashwini Kumar Sharma
Mobile: +919874979263