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.
No, it is not too early to create a regulatory framework. High-speed
Internet access is still available to only a small number of people in
India, but fair guidelines will encourage more users and make the
Internet a more useful medium when they do log-on.

It is important that the regulations be focused towards the needs of
the users - the Indian public - and not the needs of corporations.
Without regulations in place, we have seen companies like Airtel plan
special fees for VoIP services, and these same companies have said
that apps like WhatsApp hurt the development of networks, simply
because the telcos do not wish to compete fairly.

You [Trai] need to create rules to ensure that we, the paying
customers, are not being forced to pay extra money to access services
that should all be freely and readily available. Further, in its
draft, you talk about how OTT services are not required to meet any
minimum quality of service standards, unlike telcos.

That is a good point in theory, but as any customer can tell you, the
telcos are doing a terrible job in providing even the bare minimum of
service. Voice and data are both unreliable, billing is not always
correct, and routinely changing billing plans and data packs make it
hard for the customer to know what they're being charged for. Your
focus should first be on getting the telco services in order, before
looking at OTT services.

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.
No. Where would you draw the line on communications? Should any app
that includes any kind of communication with another person be
regulated in this way? Many e-commerce platforms offer a live-chat
function, to let you talk to a customer care representative. Should
that be regulated? Most online games also allow people to chat, but
are clearly not communications services. Should a forum be regulated
as a non-real-time communication service? What about email, or
Facebook, or Twitter? The first problem with regulating communication
services is that this is too vague, and can be interpreted in any
number of ways.

Secondly, these communications services are not offering replacements
for the voice services that are required to meet minimum standards,
but are instead supposed to be an optional means of communication.
Since people don't depend on them for emergency communication, why is
there a need to regulate them?

With that said, it is also worth noting that some of these services
actually offer the user a better experience either in terms of the
features offered, or in terms of the reliability. On days of
festivals, not only do customers have to pay a premium for their text
messages, these messages still don't reach their recipients for hours
- is it a surprise customers prefer WhatsApp?

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.
There is no evidence to show that the increased use of OTT services is
directly costing the telcos money. For one thing, the term OTT is too
broad in itself. Is YouTube costing telcos money if it does not have
any comparable service of its own? Obviously not. But what about
something like WhatsApp?

There, we can see that there has been some reduction in the number of
text messages. This has however been blamed entirely on OTT's but
there could be a number of different reasons, including businesses
moving to other systems of communication and co-ordination, and people
moving away from SMS to using methods like missed calls as a mode of
communication - not to mention telcos employing customer-hostile
policies like charging a premium for messages on days they are most
likely to use SMS.

Data usage has gone up significantly, which should ideally adequately
compensate telcos, who at the same time should be offering a better
product if they want to remain competitive.

The so-called OTT services are the only reason for users to pay telcos
for Internet services at all. Data has been a big revenue source for
telcos at a time when voice and text plateaued. However, we didn't see
Airtel or Reliance being charged an access fee by Google. Why should
the reverse apply?

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 of
product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.
The OTT players should not be required to pay anything over and above
the data charges paid for by customers. We are witnessing the birth of
several online businesses in India, particularly focused on mobile
Internet users. Data used is data used, and we customers are already
paying for data use. More of us are paying every day, and we're using
more data and paying more for it too.

By asking these companies to pay an "access fee", you stifle Indian
innovation and stifle value creation in India. If an access fee was
required to be online in India, you would have no MakeMyTrip, no
Zomato and no Flipkart, and none of the value that these companies are
creating in India.

If telcos are having difficulty in balancing their books - and that is
a separate debate - let them raise tariff for all Internet traffic
equally and see how the market reacts.

Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption? No,
since customer is already paying more for that bandwidth!

Can prices be used as a means of product/service differentiation? No!
If pricing is a means of differentiation, then only established
companies with big pockets will be able to participate in the Indian
online economy. If a company doesn't have the money to pay Vodafone
and Airtel and Reliance and the other operators for free access, it
will lose huge numbers of users. By doing this, you'll make sure that
no new Indian company can come up, while cash rich international firm
will still be able to compete here.

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.
The existing laws cover a wide range of subjects, and should be more
than enough to meet the needs of the day. There should not be special
laws that apply only on the Internet - this was the kind of thinking
that led to the creation of section 66A of the Information Technology
Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Adding further guidelines that protect telcos, instead of customers,
will not just cost the public more money when companies like Airtel
decide to roll out special charges for separate services, but will
also hurt Indian innovation. It will be another layer of spending that
an Indian startup has to endure, putting us on an even more unfair
uphill struggle against the rest of the world. The more such
regulations against the ease of building an OTT service exist, the
less likely it is that a Facebook or Google could be made in India.

How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to OTT players
(who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? Yes, they
can, and they should be. Just because a company is operating online
doesn't mean that it no longer has to follow the laws of the land. If
it is possible for you to regulate OTT players, then the rest of the
laws have to apply to them as well. And if the laws don't apply, then
how exactly can you regulate OTTs?

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.
There's a new app or service - OTT player as you call it - launched
somewhere around the world every single minute. Do you really expect
to mandate all these apps should maintain logs for your benefit, or
for access by Indian security agencies? And if they aren't able to do
that, what is your solution, ban them and restrict Indian consumers to
a handful of 'whitelisted' apps? Such ideas are against the very basic
nature of Internet that's built on a foundation of choice and freedom.

Yes, OTT services could be misused for illegal purposes, but unless
you put a blanket ban across the entire Internet, it won't be possible
to stop people from finding sites for clandestine communications.
Therefore, this question is not relevant.

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.
The OTT services should be held to the same standards of security,
safety and privacy as any other business that operates in India. There
should be no separate laws that apply to online behaviour and offline.
And given that high speed Internet access is still in its infancy in
India, any such laws should be applied first and foremost to offline
businesses, which will impact a larger number of Indian customers.

OTT players do need to ensure that user data is treated as securely as
possible, and need to ensure that our information is not misused in
any way. However, the government and offline services need to be held
to the same standard, and all need to be as transparent in their
activities as possible.

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.
The ETNO proposal is not necessarily relevant to Indian conditions -
the markets and users are entirely different, and our focus should be
on encouraging more users to get on the Internet, and to encourage
more Indian businesses to use the Internet.

The telcos need to innovate to come up with new features that can
provide more value to the customer, instead of innovating to come up
with new ways to charge the customer for the same (shoddy) service
that they are already providing.

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.
The principles outlined in paragraph 5.47 - that outline the
importance of customer choice, transparency from the provider,
requiring information to be given in easy to understand language, and
to ensure that the promises made by telcos are verifiable, are all
very important, and should be the focus of this discussion, not the
regulation of OTT services, which by and large have been much more
customer-friendly.

The OTT companies face actual competition from across the world and
therefore don't need as much oversight. With our telcos on the other
hand, these principles are not being addressed in any real way.

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.
It is our belief that traffic management policies are by nature,
anti-consumer. However, amongst these, the bandwidth caps - referred
to as Fair Usage Policies in India - are the most easily understood by
the customer, who can know in advance exactly what is being paid for,
and adjust their spending according to their needs.

Fair Usage Policies, as described in the paper, where the speed
available to a person is throttled if the usage is "excessive" is in
effect a hidden bandwidth cap, and - from the way it is described - it
seems the exact criteria when the usage becomes 'excessive' is not
disclosed to the customer up front. That is why this is not a good
option for customers.

The practice of toll boothing - where different services are offered
at different prices - is also not suitable to India. The penetration
of mobile broadband is still very low, and the speeds available to
users are also similarly very low. Asking people to pay significantly
more money to access specific sites, or degrading the quality of
service will only hurt the growth of the Internet in India, which has
been hugely beneficial in a number of ways.

Zero rating access - where some services are made free to access
through deals between the OTTs and the telcos is equally problematic,
because it will prioritise some sites over others. If you can access
Facebook for free (as is the case with Internet.org, launched in
partnership with Reliance), but need to pay close to Rs. 100 per month
to access other social networks, then most users would prefer to stick
with the free option - thus providing an unfair advantage to bigger
players who can afford to sign such deals.

For a relatively low cost, an established player could cut off all
chance competition for the huge number of users present in India. In
this way, zero rating access could prevent the growth of new Internet
businesses in India

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?
The telcos should be required to publish traffic management
techniques, in a manner that is possible for ordinary users to clearly
understand. This will help improve transparency, but as discussed in
the previous answer, unless there are reasonable alternatives present,
this isn't helpful to the users.

Transparency is not a sufficient condition by itself - if all the TSPs
follow toll boothing practices, because they claim it results in
better access speeds, then knowing the practice being followed doesn't
help paying customers. What we need is for you to take steps to ensure
that such moves that violate net-neutrality and are anti-consumer are
not allowed.

Question 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.
Telcos can't price their access at an unsustainable rate and then
argue that their costs are not being met because of OTT services. The
increase in data access costs should be enough to pay for network
upgradation over time. If the telcos were hoping to earn enough from
the Indian customer to be able to grow without any risk, then they
might need to rethink their strategy.

So far, customers have seen continuous degradation of quality in telco
services - whether voice, text or data. This has not improved over the
years, and the only innovation we see from telcos is in finding new
ways to get us to pay for the same basic services. This is something
that needs to change, and urgently, because for many of us, the only
true value from telcos today comes via OTT services.

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.
The telcos should not ideally be discriminating between services. As
we mentioned above, the only measure that is (somewhat) fair and
understandable to the customers is data caps. "Fast lanes" of access
are particularly rating, and while there can be an argument made in
favour of zero ratings access, from a purely academic perspective, we
would say that this is also anti-consumer and hurts the Indian
Internet user.

If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? No,
this is not acceptable at all - non-priced discrimination is often
hard to measure or understand, and can easily be used to hurt our
experiences.

What restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are
not abused? These measures should not be in place at all.

What measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers?
Non-price based discrimination should not be adopted. The networks
need to improve their service, instead of continuing to try and get us
to pay more for less.

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. People should not have to pay extra to access services simply
because telcos are not ready to innovate to compete anymore. There is
no circumstance in which this should be justified.

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.
If the customers are already paying for data access in order to visit
the OTT sites - which we are - then why is there a question of BuTS at
all? The telco has little justification to seek payment from the OTTs,
particularly when you consider that OTT services are the only reason
we're paying to access the Internet at all.

If the telcos aren't keen to pay OTTs for every customer who uses
their services (since that customer might not have used data at all
otherwise) then why should the reverse hold true?

How should the framework be structured to prevent any discrimination
and protect stakeholder interest? These kinds of measures only serve
to benefit the network without incentivising it to improve the
services being offered. This is anti-consumer, and
anti-entrepreneurship, in favour of filling the coffers of networks
who are not willing to take risks to grow.

Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India
specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
The free access that helps OTT apps from around the world to grow will
also help Indian and India-specific applications. Just as there
shouldn't be discrimination between online and offline businesses,
there should also not be discrimination between Indian and other
services.

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.
We do not believe that OTT services should be licensed, but if this is
to happen - and it shouldn't - it should be as ASPs (Application
Service Providers). There should be no discrimination based on the
type of service being offered.

Given that there are tens of thousands of apps on each platform, with
many more being created every single day, a licensing regime would be
impractical, and if carried out, could hugely negatively impact the
experience of Indian users.

Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT
communication services? Please comment with justifications.
The OTT services are being regulated by supply and demand. Unlike the
telcos, which operate in a virtual monopoly through cartel like
behaviour (when was the last time you saw different rates on Airtel
and Vodafone?) OTT services exist in marketplaces where the customer
has real choice and therefore can not get away with unfairly charging
the customer. For this reason, there is no need to regulate charges
for OTT communication services.

Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for
regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with
justifications.
The government should not be looking to regulate any OTT players - so
far, they have served customers (the Indian public, who voted for the
government) better than the telcos have. You should instead be working
on means to get the telcos to provide the minimum service that they
are charging for, instead of enabling them to place extra charges on
our bills for using the Internet and apps.

Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the
subject discussed?
Companies like Airtel and Reliance have been experimenting with toll
boothing andzero-rating plans even knowing full well that this paper
was being worked on. The regulator needs to show that it is
independent from the companies that it is supposedly overseeing, and
it is our hope that the final recommendations will reflect this. The
outlines that emerge from this paper are worrying, and contain a lot
of language that is pro-telco, at the cost of the consumer. The
government's first interest must be the consumers, the Indian public,
and we hope that the final version of this document will reflect that.