The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 41 to 55.
Freedom struggle 2.0
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-zara-khan-april-25-2015-freedom-struggle
<b>In the face of the debate on net neutrality, here is a look at the consequences of not having a free, equal, and private internet.</b>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/freedom-struggle-20/article7137585.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on April 25, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">There has been so much noise surrounding net neutrality (generously helped along by <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=55&v=mfY1NKrzqi0" target="_blank">All India Bakchod’s explanatory video</a>) that by now even my technology-abhorring grandmother knows something is rotten in the state of Denmark.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">However, let us recap: net neutrality refers to a free and open Internet that lets us utilise every channel of communication without bias or — heaven forbid — having to pay extra dough. Paid sites and subscriptions excluded of course; the owners have to send their kids to college, you know. As to the Importance of net neutrality, it is “... a democratic principle (in line with the right to equality in our Constitution) and it is important for freedom of speech and expression,” says Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Evolving technologies cannot be regulated” was one of the opening lines of <i>Almost Human</i>, a science fiction/crime series that did not survive its debut season. A profound statement, especially in the light of the blistering debate over net neutrality. A debate that has the Twitterati frothing at the mouth and primed to spew sarcasm at those against them in what is being perceived as a battle of epic proportions. Sample these: @Roflindian: What if this net neutrality debate was a clever ploy by telcos to merrily push up rates? And we’ll be like — anything for net freedom! @GabbbarSingh: Someone should launch a start-up just to announce its support to #NetNeutrality “We at Random-Word-with-no-vowels support #NetNeutrality”. @madversity: Net Neutrality has become so popular in Delhi in just three days Aunties want to know where it is available so they can wear it for Karva Chauth.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The battle for net neutrality, in India at least, looks to have exacerbated suddenly in the past few weeks. In truth, however, the issue has been brewing for quite a while, fanned by the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) penchant for preparing sheaves of rules and regulations, sundry disputes and discourses by the Reddit demigods and anyone who owns a blog or a YouTube channel, the Bitcoin mafia’s complacent insistence on being the saviour of the web as we know it, and the rumours and filtered nuggets of news surrounding Google’s plans for a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO).</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Here, then, are the main antagonists of our piece: telecom company Airtel (post its announcement of the ostensibly unpopular Airtel Zero plan, so much so that the CEO decided to grace Airtel’s users with an e-mail to “clear the air”) and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that has taken to pitting Davids (consumers) against Goliaths (telecom companies) by floating a paper (subject to discussion and a cannonade of indignant e-mails) containing “some of the strangest and some ridiculously biased statements”, as Nikhil Pahwa succinctly put it in a <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/04/223-trais-internet-licensing-and-net-neutrality-consultation-paper-simpler-shorter-version/" target="_blank"><i>MediaNama piece</i></a><i>.</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">According to Airtel’s CEO, their “vision is to have every Indian on the Internet. There are millions of Indians who think that the Internet is expensive and do not know what it can do for them… We know that if we allow them to experience the joys of the Internet they will join the digital revolution.” Noble thought, but the sentiment is marred by the sordid matter of blunt. “Airtel Zero is a technology platform that connects application providers to their customers for free. The platform allows any content or application provider to enrol on it so their customers can visit these sites for free. Instead of charging customers we charge the providers who choose to get on to the platform.” In effect, restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose what site he/she wishes to use.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">And I wish telecoms would stop bandying about the word “free” like confetti at a wedding. ‘100 free SMSes per day! Only at Rs. 50 a month!’ Well, I’m still losing Rs. 50, aren’t I? Why would you insult my intelligence by telling me my 100 SMSes are free then? “Customers are free to choose which website they want to visit, whether it is toll free or not. If they visit a toll free site they are not charged for data. If they visit any other site normal data charges apply.” Well, pray tell us plebians, Mr. CEO, since companies like Flipkart, NDTV and others have already abandoned the Airtel Zero ship, and a Google probably mightn’t consider coming aboard, having bigger fish to fry (i.e. its MVNO plans), does not your unequal treatment of these websites go against the very backbone of net neutrality?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The debate on net neutrality has more far-reaching consequences, however, than just having to shell out extra to exchange annoying Whatsapp group messages all day long or Skyping with your significant other. The absence of neutrality will result in a barrage of unregulated technologies and the unprecedented growth of the deep web (the portion of Internet content that is not or cannot be indexed by regular or standard search engines — typically comprising around 90 per cent of data presently available on the World Wide Web). Most of the deep web is a fairly innocuous place, consisting of anything from library catalogues to your private folder of dead baby jokes, but it is also a lair of (mostly) undetectable criminal activity (case in point, the recent shutdown of Silk Road, an online black market for your every requirement, and I mean <i>every</i> requirement).</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The deep web, naturally, is the best illustration of “a free, equal, and private Internet” (when its powers are harnessed for good, not evil) and so is its most popular currency — Bitcoin. A Bitcoin is, in the concise words of Danny Bradbury (in an informative <a href="http://www.coindesk.com/eroding-net-neutrality-hurt-bitcoin/" target="_blank">CoinDesk piece</a>), “a payment mechanism designed to level the playing field, driving out unnecessary costs and making it possible for even the lowest income members of society to participate in the economy. But it relies on a free and open Internet to do so.” And vice versa. Researchers have been working on a way to make micropayments and encryption work together without privacy or bandwidth compromise via mesh networks (faster connections through nearby peers, thus leading to net neutrality, and further to telecoms becoming skittish). However, steady price gains for Bitcoin as well as altcoins (alternative cryptocurrencies to bitcoin) are undeniable proof that telecoms may have to bow to the inevitable.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Also, in the absence of a free and open Internet, organisations like Wikileaks and Anonymous would abound with alacrity. While some would call that an excellent development, there are those who would want to banish Internet altogether from our fair land, making the <i>aam junta </i>cower, tremble and rage by turns at the usurping of its digital rights.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Another thing that seems to be troubling very few, especially in the wake of the wave of acrimony against Airtel, is Google’s plans to expand into the MVNO market. Google, so goes the news, is planning to go into partnership with Sprint and T-Mobile to further its plans of becoming a wireless carrier. While Google already provides free or subsidised Internet with Project Loon and Google Fiber, the new move could easily prove a challenge to net neutrality. Some see the move as harmless — in fact, for the greater good. Evidenced by a senior software engineer of my acquaintance who, since Google makes money by tracking user information and behaviour online and doesn’t prioritise certain kinds of traffic on the Internet access it provides currently, doesn’t see them having any incentive to do so in the cellular space. In fact, he finds the Google MVNO a fascinating move, especially since Sprint and T-Mobile have far fewer subscribers than ATT or Verizon — meaning that the MVNO provider is at the mercy of these MNOs and that, were Google to be successful with this, it means the MNOs are losing selling power. An interesting irony in the context of net neutrality. On the other hand, a researcher at Centre for Internet and Society and former tech journalist is of the opinion that Google may try to push its services since that has always been the case with corporates, whether they provide CSR freebies or diversify their business.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">After all, “Who decides what we consume? What if tomorrow the government decides everyone watching YouTube is wasting their time, or [those] watching cricket should be doing something better? That starts to tread into censorship...” says Vijay Anand of The Startup Centre. I suppose all we can do is keep hope animatedly existent as to the triumph of the freedom in our webspace and spam TRAI’s inbox with as many e-mails as we can.</p>
<h2 class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Net Neutrality</h2>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Net neutrality is a principle that says <b>Internet Service Providers (ISPs)</b> should treat all traffic and content on their networks equally.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>How does net neutrality affect you?</b><br />The internet is now a level-playing field. Anybody can start up a website, stream music or use social media with the same amount of data that they have purchased with a particular ISP. But in the absence of neutrality, your ISP might favour certain websites over others for which you might have to pay extra. Website A might load at a faster speed than Website B because your ISP has a deal with Website A that Website B cannot afford. It’s like your electricity company charging you extra for using the washing machine, television and microwave oven above and beyond what you are already paying.</p>
<div><b>Why Now? </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Late last month, Trai released a draft consultation paper seeking views from the industry and the general public on the need for regulations for over-the-top (OTT) players such as Whatsapp, Skype, Viber etc, security concerns and net neutrality. The objective of this consultation paper, the regulator said, was to analyse the implications of the growth of OTTs and consider whether or not changes were required in the current regulatory framework.</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Key Players<br /></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div class="thfact-file">
<ul class="list-y">
<li><b>Internet Service Providers</b> like Airtel, Vodaphone, Reliance...</li>
<li><b>The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India</b> which lays down the rules for telecom companies</li>
<li>The <b>Internet companies</b> like Facebook, Google, whatsapp and other smaller startups</li>
<li>You, <b>the consumer</b></li>
</ul>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What is an OTT?</b><br />OTT or over-the-top refers to applications and services which are accessible over the internet and ride on operators' networks offering internet access services. The best known examples of OTT are Skype, Viber, WhatsApp, e-commerce sites, Ola, Facebook messenger. The OTTs are not bound by any regulations. The Trai is of the view that the lack of regulations poses a threat to security and there’s a need for government’s intervention to ensure a level playing field in terms of regulatory compliance.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-zara-khan-april-25-2015-freedom-struggle'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-zara-khan-april-25-2015-freedom-struggle</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-04-27T01:23:44ZNews ItemFinancial Express hosts #NetNeutralityDebate: ‘Price discrimination can be allowed, but not for the same packet of data’
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-may-9-2015-financial-express-hosts-net-neutrality-debate
<b>Trying to cut through the noise on Net Neutrality in India, FICCI in partnership with Financial Express is hosting a panel discussion titled “Decoding Net Neutrality” in New Delhi on Wednesday.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.financialexpress.com/article/tech/financial-express-to-host-netneutralitydebate/65828/">published in Financial Express</a> on April 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash participated in the discussion.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trying to cut through the noise on <a href="http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/tech/be-neutral-on-the-net/64791/" target="_blank">Net Neutrality</a> in India, FICCI in partnership with Financial Express is hosting a panel discussion titled ‘Decoding Net Neutrality’ in New Delhi on Wednesday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moderated by Sunil Jain, the guests on the Net Neutrality debate panel are Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Lok Sabha MP Baijayant Jay Panda along with ICRIER chief executive Dr Rajat Kathuria, IAMAI president Dr Subho Ray, Facebook’s head of public policy for South and Central Asia Ankhi Das, COAI director general Rajan S Mathew, Com First director Dr Mahesh Uppal and Policy Director of the Centre for Internet and Society Pranesh Prakash.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Highlights of the debate:</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Starting off the discussion, <b>Rajeev Chandrasekhar</b> said that this issue is all about market abuse and market power and not as utopian as it sounds. He said that this debate is nothing new as regulators identified the problem long ago. Chandarasekhar added, “TRAI had recognized in 2006 that there is an opportunity to abuse by access providers.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Joining the conversation, COAI director general <b>Rajan S Mathew</b> said, “We have put the cart before the horse. What needs to be addressed first is online governance.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Looking forward, ICRIER chief executive <b>Rajat Kathuria</b> said that we need to figure out the best way to use this privately funded public good. He added, “We still haven’t so far.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Com First director <b>Dr Mahesh Uppal</b> tries to find a common ground and said, “Everyone is against ‘arbitrary commercial’ prioritisation or throttling.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Subho Ray</b> agreed and said, “There should be no blocking, throttling and preferential treatment.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook India’s<b> Ankhi Das</b> said that Internet.org is not for people who are already on the Internet. She explained, “Our objective is that it should be free and non-exclusive.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Pranesh Prakash,</b> Policy Director of the Centre for Internet and Society intervened to add, “An universally affordable model is important. We must ensure that the diversity that Internet provides is not lost.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Taking the conversation further, <b>Rajeev Chandrasekhar</b> said, “I don’t believe data packets can be discriminated except in terms of speed and bandwidth.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Rajan Mathews</b> interjected, “We do not discriminate, we differentiate. And all businesses differentiate.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On this point, <b>Rajat Kathuria</b> said, “Price discrimination is something that should be allowed within boundaries of regulation.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Indian Express New Media Editor <b>Nandagopal Rajan</b> said that, “#NetNeutralityDebate panel agrees that price discrimination can be allowed, but not for the same packet of data.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Jay Panda</b>, Lok Sabha MP now also joins the discussion and says, “I have come out in favour of net neutrality despite the fact that my family will be benefiting from the lack of it. Whether fragmentation is desirable on the Internet or not, it needs to be debated. I am not in favour of fragmented access to the Internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Underlining his views, <b>Jay Panda</b> reiterated, “Spectrum may be limited but access won’t be in the future. I am against prioritizing packets over others.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Pranesh Prakash</b> gave an overarching view and said, “Everyone benefits from Internet. What we need to figure out is whether everyone is getting paid enough.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Jay Panda</b> said, “It is possible for access providers to make money.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Rajan Mathews</b> said, “I think it is not fair to say that telcos can influence the govt.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On this <b>Jay Panda</b> quipped, “The govt has to chip in its share to make the Internet accessible to all.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Jay Panda</b> says govts have been behind the curve in #NetNeutralityDebate and telcos have benefitted from it.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-may-9-2015-financial-express-hosts-net-neutrality-debate'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-may-9-2015-financial-express-hosts-net-neutrality-debate</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-09T10:05:10ZNews ItemThe Hazards of a Non-neutral Internet
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-week-april-18-2015-geetha-hariharan-hazards-of-non-neutral-internet
<b>Spurred by recent events, India’s policy circles are dancing to the complex tunes of net neutrality. Airtel came under fire for pricing calls made over the Internet differentially; it has since withdrawn this plan. Airtel and Reliance Communications are caught in the storm as Airtel Zero and Internet.org, the Facebook-spearheaded product for low-cost Internet access, face stiff criticism for violating net neutrality. Companies like Flipkart, which earlier supported these products, have stepped back and are throwing their weight behind net neutrality. The Department of Telecommunications has set up a six-member panel to consult on net neutrality. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A modified version of the blog entry was published as an article titled "<a class="external-link" href="http://week.manoramaonline.com/cgi-bin/MMonline.dll/portal/ep/theWeekContent.do?programId=1073754899&contentId=18716696">A must for free speech</a>" in the Week on April 18, 2015</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Responding to concerns, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a consultation paper on OTT services on March 27, 2015. TRAI has called for public comments to be sent by April 24, 2015, and counter-comments to be sent by May 8, 2015. The TRAI consultation paper raises several crucial issues, including net neutrality. Given the heightened interest in the issue, let us two steps back and revisit the basics about net neutrality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>What is net neutrality?</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the simplest terms, net neutrality is the principle by which the carrier (telco/ISP like Reliance, Airtel) is prohibited from discriminating between any two ‘packets’ of data carried over its network. That is, ISPs ought not treat data packets differently, no matter what the content, source or price.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It follows, then, that when packets are given differential treatment, the principle of net neutrality is violated. As Centre for Internet and Society’s Sunil Abraham explains, differential treatment may occur in many ways: <span>first</span>, carriers may provide consumers with free access to certain websites or web content, while charging the sender or destination; <span>second</span>, ISPs may throttle traffic of one website/company to give it priority over other sites (the website will then load faster than others); <span>third</span>, ISPs may refuse access to some websites unless consumers or content-providers pay extra charges. Other violations abound too; this list is merely illustrative.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Diversity, Innovation & Competition: The Costs of Net Non-neutrality</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Let us take zero-rating to explore the impacts of a net neutrality violation. In <i>Internet.org</i> and <i>Airtel Zero</i>, companies like Facebook and Flipkart (prior to the latter’s withdrawal) pay to provide users with free access to their cluster of websites; these are examples of “zero-rating”. Telcos and content-providers like Facebook argue that this is crucial to expand Internet access in price-sensitive markets like India. While this is an important consideration, zero-rating can have detrimental impacts on free speech and diversity, competition and innovation. It can result in “walled gardens” and a diversity-trap, where the only sites we can access are the walled gardens of curated information compiled by Facebook and the like.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today, we can access an unprecedented variety of content across freely accessible platforms. We pay for our Internet connections and for data, but the content we access is neither set nor monitored by ISPs or content-providers, unless legally mandated to do so under Section 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Our freedom to access and receive diverse information is not curated by the companies themselves (as Facebook would in <i>Internet.org</i>) or their ability to pay ISPs to carry traffic. But with zero-rating, preferential access or traffic throttling, content diversity will suffer.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, impact of receding diversity of content may not be felt in the short term, if access is made the priority. However, if net non-neutrality is allowed to continue in perpetuity, this may result in corporate curation and censorship of content. Moreover, since established players can better shell out the money needed for zero-rated or prioritised access, new companies and start-ups may find their entry blocked. Such a possibility is vexing for innovation, as greater costs will disincentivise smaller players from entering the market. There is also an impact on competition: entrenched players who can afford to pay carriers will dig their heels deeper, and become the sole curators of content. This is censorship by market design.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Access and Self-preservation, say the Telcos</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some telecom operators and ISPs argue that zero-rating is essential for universal access to data services, a dream of the Digital India mission. They also stress that OTTs like Whatsapp, Viber, Skype and others are free-riding on their networks and usurping their revenue, since it is the telcos and not OTTs who pay licence fees and spectrum charges. Finally, telcos and ISPs say that treating packets differently is a form of network and traffic management; such management is crucial to an efficient and open Internet, and is an age-old practice of operators.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, traffic and network management practices <i>do </i>exist, and operators do block or manage speeds during congestion periods or when there are security threats. As users, we also experience different Internet speeds depending on the hardware and software employed by operators, the time of day, the type of content accessed (video/ audio/ text), etc. As Christopher Yoo says, operators should be free to experiment with network management practices (‘network diversity’) so long as consumers and competition suffer no detriment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But as reports show, net non-neutrality practices have negative impacts on speech diversity, innovation and competition, among others. Any proposal to grant legal recognition to net non-neutrality practices like zero-rating, traffic-prioritization or others, which depend on the consumer or content-provider’s ability to pay and result in differential treatment of data packets, must answer these concerns and provide safeguards. In <i>Shreya Singhal</i>, the Supreme Court affirmed the value of freedom of speech and diversity; saying that “…a culture of open dialogue is important”, the Court declared that “…we need to tolerate unpopular views”. Internet companies and telcos provide the platforms to make such views available. Through traffic prioritization and zero-rating, and by chilling innovation and competition, net neutrality violations can stifle speech diversity. The Department of Telecom and TRAI must remember this when debating a net neutrality regulation.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-week-april-18-2015-geetha-hariharan-hazards-of-non-neutral-internet'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-week-april-18-2015-geetha-hariharan-hazards-of-non-neutral-internet</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-27T16:07:36ZBlog EntryMultiple Aspects Need to be Addressed as the Clamour Grows for Network Neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-april-16-2015-sunil-abraham-multiple-aspects-need-to-be-addressed-as-the-clamour-grows-for-network-neutrality
<b>In the global debate there are four violations of Network Neutrality that are considered particularly egregious.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-everyone-equally-unhappy-2077796">published in DNA </a>on April 16, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One — blocking of destinations or services in order to force the consumer to pay extra charges for access, two — not charging or zero-rating of certain destinations and services with or without extraction of payment from the sender or destination, and three — throttling or prioritisation of traffic between competing destinations or services and four — specialised services wherein the very same <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/internet">Internet</a> infrastructure is used to provide non-Internet but IP based services such as IP-TV.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The main harms of network neutrality violations are as follows: one, censorship by private parties without legal basis; two, innovation harms because the economic threshold for new entrants is raised significantly; three, competition harms as monopolies become more entrenched and then are able to abuse their dominant position; four, harms to diversity because of the nudge effect that free access to certain services and destinations has on consumers reducing the infinite plurality of the Internet to a set of menu options. The first and fourth harm could result in the Internet being reduced to a walled garden.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is insufficient to try and address this with networking rules for engineers such as “all packets should be treated equally.” But a set of principles could be developed that can help us grow access without violating network neutrality. Wikimedia Foundation has already developed their principles which they call “Wikipedia Zero Operating Principles”. In India our principles could include the following. One, no blocking without legal basis. Two, transparency — all technical and commercial arrangements are to be disclosed to the public. Three, non-exclusivity — all arrangements should be available to all parties, no special deals for those you favour. Four, non-discrimination between equals — technologies and entities that are alike should be treated alike. Five, necessity — whilst some measure may be required occasionally when there is network congestion they should be rolled back in a time-bound fashion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Once these principles are enforced through a network neutrality regulation, ISPs and telecom operators will be allowed to innovate with business and payment models. Steve Song, inventor of Village Telco says “My preferred take on zero-rating would be to zero-rate gprs/edge data in general so that there is a minimum basic access for all.” My colleague Pranesh Prakash says “One possibility, of many, is to create a single marketplace or exchange for zero-rating, through which one can zero-rate on all telecom networks for standard tiered rates that they publish, and terms that are known to the regulator. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly” Jochai Ben-Avie of Mozilla told me yesterday of experiments in Bangladesh where consumers watch an advertisement everyday in exchange for 5Mb of data. My own suggestion to address the harms caused by walled gardens would be to make them leak – mandate that unfettered access to the Internet be provided every other hour.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is many other ways in which the Internet has been transformed in India and other countries but these are not commonly considered network neutrality violations. Here are some examples. One, blocking of port 25 — a port that is commonly used to relay email spam. Two, blocking of port 80 – so that domestic connections cannot be used to host web servers. Three, the use of private IP addresses, ISPs who are delaying migration to IPv6 infrastructure because of cost implications leverage their IPv4 address inventory by using Carrier Grade — Network Address Translators [CG-NATs]. Four, asymmetric connections where download speeds for consumers are faster than upload speeds. With the exception of the first example — all of them affect end users negatively but do not usually impact corporations and therefore have been unfortunately sidelined in the global debate.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The TRAI consultation paper reveals many of the concerns of the telecom operators that go beyond the scope of network neutrality. Many of these concerns are very legitimate. There is a scarcity of spectrum — this could partially be addressed by auctioning more spectrum, scientific management of spectrum, promotion of shared spectrum and unlicensed spectrum. Their profit margins are thinning – this could be addressed by dismantling the Universal Service Obligation Fund, it is after all as Rohan Samarajiva puts it “a tax on the poor.” Internet companies don't pay taxes – this could be addressed by the Indian government, by adopting the best practices from the OECD around preventing tax avoidance. But some of their concerns cannot be addressed because of the technological differences between telecom and Internet networks. While it is relatively easy to require telecom companies to provide personal information and allow for interception of communications, those Internet companies that use end-to-end encryption cannot divulge personal information or facilitate interception because it is technologically impossible. While the first two concerns could be addressed by TRAI, the last two should be addressed by other ministries and departments in the Indian government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are other concerns that are much more difficult to address without the deep understanding of latest advancements in radio communication, signal processing and congestion control techniques in packet switched networks. A telecom expert who did not wish to be identified told me that “even 2G TDM voice is 10 to 15 times more efficient when compared to VOIP. IP was developed to carry data, and is therefore not an efficient mode to carry voice as overhead requirement for packets destroys the efficiency on voice. Voice is best carried close to the physical layer where the overheads are lowest.” He claims that since “VOIP calls are spectrally inefficient they should be discouraged” through differential pricing. We need accessible scientific literature and monitoring infrastructure so that an evidence base around concerns like this can be created so as to address them effectively through regulatory interventions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">You know you have reached a policy solution when all concerned stakeholders are equally unhappy. Unfortunately, the TRAI consultation paper assumes that Internet companies operate in a regulatory vacuum and therefore places much unnecessary focus on the licensing of these companies. This is a disastrous proposal since the Internet today is the result of “permission-less innovation”. The real issue is network neutrality and one hopes that after rigorous debate informed by scientific evidence TRAI finds a way to spread unhappiness around equally.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>The author works for the Centre for Internet and Society which receives funds from Wikimedia Foundation which has zero-rating alliances with telecom operators in many countries across the world.</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-april-16-2015-sunil-abraham-multiple-aspects-need-to-be-addressed-as-the-clamour-grows-for-network-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-april-16-2015-sunil-abraham-multiple-aspects-need-to-be-addressed-as-the-clamour-grows-for-network-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publishersunilNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-04-16T13:33:03ZBlog EntryNet neutrality: Debate rages on
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on
<b>A controversy was sparked after Bharti Airtel, the country's largest telecom operator, launched 'Airtel Zero' on Monday that allows companies to offer their applications to Airtel subscribers for free.</b>
<p>The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Business Standard on April 11, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p><a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Net+Neutrality" target="_blank">Net neutrality </a>campaigners have raised the pitch as the <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Telecom+Regulator" target="_blank">telecom regulator </a>seeks public comments on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">They argue any kind of discrimination will scuttle the Internet's growth in the country. Opponents claim technology may make it difficult for the government to stop network management.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A controversy was sparked after Bharti Airtel, the country's largest telecom operator, launched 'Airtel Zero' on Monday that allows companies to offer their applications to Airtel subscribers for free. The maker of the application pays the operator for the customer's free use. "It is wrong for me to have to pay Airtel or <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Vodafone" target="_blank">Vodafone </a>money to access YouTube, <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Skype" target="_blank">Skype </a>or any site they decide to charge for," Mahesh Murthy, founder of digital marketing agency Pinstorm, wrote in a blog on Wednesday. "What we do with bandwidth must be up to us, not up to some profiteering telecom tycoon," he added. Sachin Bansal, founder of e-commerce company Flipkart.com, on the other hand, tweeted, "When foreign companies do it in India - innovation. Indians do it - violation". Flipkart may have signed up with Airtel's Zero platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Telecom companies are saying zero-rating websites (that are offered free like Facebook or Wikipedia) are cannibalising revenues from customers who used to pay for data earlier. It is also failing to convert non-data paying customers into paying ones, so it is not working for telecom companies," said a member of an <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Internet" target="_blank">Internet </a>think tank who did not wish to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India released a discussion paper on net neutrality in the last week of March and is seeking public comments by April 24 and counterviews by May 8.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another Internet expert said people paying extra to visit select sites was like higher charges for high definition cable television. If net neutrality was restricted to price, consumers could decide what they wished to pay for, he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, if websites or apps were blocked or telecom operators bumped up internet speed for certain services, the implications for innovation would be wider, he pointed out. "If the government is attempting to make a policy, it has to be as fair as possible," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet Society, said ensuring network neutrality might be difficult, but the government could stop censorship and discrimination. "Competition usually resolves these issues. We have competition among telecom service providers and Internet service providers. This must be protected," he added.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-02T08:45:03ZNews ItemNet neutrality debate rages
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages
<b>While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/net-neutrality-debate-rages/article7102338.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It’s a major victory for the proponents of net neutrality and a big setback for service provider Airtel. As the e-commerce firm Flipkart pulled out of talks on joining the controversial Airtel Zero platform, launched by Airtel last week, the debate on net neutrality has taken a fresh turn in the Indian context. In the wake of a virtual uproar in social media and following wide condemnation by votaries of net neutrality, Flipkart has to just give in. With Flipkart-induced new twist in the net neutrality game, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), mostly telecom operators, are running for cover without knowing how to deal with the evolving situation that has the potential to adversely affect their business.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game. And, they are unwilling to comment on a subject that has become an emotive issue. There are, however, voices which seek a middle path as solution to this issue.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“We are in favour of net neutrality. But this has to be defined in the Indian context. That is what TRAI is precisely doing. The debate on net neutrality is appropriate and important. All stakeholders should be able to decide what is net neutrality for India after due debate,” said Rajan Mathews, Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). “We must have a holistic approach to this issue. There should be rational debate, and we are committed for open and non-discriminatory Internet,” Mr Mathews added. A thought must go into protecting the interest of telecom operators as well, he felt.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While supporting net neutrality, analysts have voiced concern over its impact on the finances of telecos. “Net neutrality is a fair concept but it must take into account the concerns of telecom operators and ensure that their revenue and margins are not significantly impacted,” said Rajiv Gupta, Partner and Director, BCG. “Some kind of middle path needs to be achieved,” Mr Gupta said. Only a few countries so far have made net neutrality into a law. “We are yet to see whether our government’s moral support for net neutrality can translate into a law,” Mr Gupta added.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Surprisingly, Airtel which has come under flak on two occasions in last four months for alleged violation of net neutrality norms, too, has pledged its support for net neutrality! “Airtel fully supports the concept of net neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll free data platform Airtel Zero. It is a not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform that allows any application or content provider to offer their service on a toll free basis to their customers who are on our network… The statement made by Flipkart regarding their decision not to offer toll-free data service to their customers is consistent with our stand that Airtel Zero is not a tariff proposition. It is merely an open platform for content providers to provide toll free-data services,” Airtel said. Without spelling out the future of Airtel Zero, it said “The platform remains open to all companies who want to offer these toll free data services to their customers on a completely non-discriminatory basis.” Over 150 start-ups have already expressed willingness to come on board Airtel Zero.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “The need for net neutrality is very real and urgent. There are many practices that telecom companies are trying to engage in, such as blocking of WhatsApp to force customers to pay more money for it, which ought not to be allowed.” On Airtel Zero plan, he said “We should clearly separate out the issue of "zero rating" from that of "net neutrality". ``Only anti-competitive instances of zero-rating - for instance, Airtel offering it's own Hike service for free, or Airtel entering into an exclusive deal with Flipkart for zero-rating its app — are problems. Competitive zero-rating, with regulatory safeguards to ensure a fair and efficient marketplace, should be allowed, just as we allow free TV channels and allow toll-free numbers. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly,” Mr Prakash said.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>No such plans: Snapdeal</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Snapdeal said, “We have no such plans at this point, especially given the regulatory framework is unclear.’’</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Zero rating is a practice among mobile network operators, where customers are not charged for a certain volume of data by specific applications or internet services.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">An Amazon spokesperson said, “Amazon supports net neutrality - the fundamental openness of the Internet - which has been so beneficial to consumers and innovation.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier, Facebook and Reliance Communications had partnered for Internet.org. Reliance had announced in 2012 that it would offer free Facebook and WhatsApp for Rs 16 a month, without any additional data costs.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Amidst the debate on net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said a six-member panel had been constituted by the telecom department to submit its recommendations regarding the same by early next month.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Start-ups for net neutrality:</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sumit Jain, Co-Founder & CEO, CommonFloor.com</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s well acknowledged that Internet has disrupted the world of business like no other technology has in last few decades. It has enabled start-ups with hardly any capital and clout to make a mark. So by rejecting net neutrality, we will be shutting the door on the entrepreneurial aspirations of millions and will leave telcos to play the gate-keeper to a valuable resource as the Internet and challenges the democratic behaviour that Internet in known for”.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sameer Parwani, CEO & Founder, CouponDunia</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“We will stand for net neutrality. India has been in the forefront of digital world. It is the Internet that has given the country hope and aspirations to the common man to be informed and entertained. Not being able to give equal access will just make the situation anti- competitive and it will have a negative effect on the upcoming businesses.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Kashyap Vadapalli, Chief Marketing officer, Pepperfry</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Lack of net neutrality supports a monopolistic market which will adversely affect the growing start-up eco-system. While heavily funded businesses will be able to maintain their supremacy over consumers start-ups will stand to lose out heavily. We do not encourage discrimination of any sorts when it comes to consumer's access to information.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Yogendra Vasupal, Founder of Stayzilla</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Airtel Zero seems like an innovative solution to bring Internet to every person. Whether this is on a firm footing or a slippery slope will be decided by the actual implementation. The current way of individual companies buying Internet for their consumers is a slippery slope. The right way to do it would be through a central consortium formed from the e-commerce companies and who has the interests of both the start-ups in this sector and the end-users in mind. After all, Internet is all about freedom of choice. Keeping in mind that currently it would be free only if you use a particular company makes it free at the cost of the freedom of choice it offers. This is everyone's loss.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, OYO Rooms</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Net neutrality is absolutely essential for a free and competitive market especially now since there is a start-up boom in the country particularly in the online sector. Most importantly, Internet was created to break boundaries and as concerned industry players, we should maintain that. We support net neutrality and will do all needed to build this further.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-08T14:45:34ZNews ItemNet neutrality: Trai receives over 2 lakh mails
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails
<b>The idea of an open internet can bring together not just worried netizens but politicians of all hues.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sandhya Soman and Jayanta Deka was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Net-neutrality-Trai-receives-over-2-lakh-mails/articleshow/46913271.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on April 14, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On a day when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India got more than 2 lakh emails by Monday afternoon from Indian netizens annoyed by possible efforts to make internet an unequal space, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and DMK leader MK Stalin also defended net neutrality.<br /><br />While Kejriwal tweeted that "India MUST debate #NetNeutrality. I support #Saveinternet campaign www.savetheinternet.in", Stalin in his statement said that any move to allow telecom companies to give preferential access to websites would go against the concept of equality.<br /><br />Telecom minister Ravishankar Prasad, meanwhile, told media that a special DoT panel will come out with its report on net neutrality in May.<br /><br />The latest fight for net neutrality — the idea that all traffic is treated equally by internet service providers — gained momentum after Trai put up a consultation paper on the topic asking users to give their views before April 24. The paper was in response to demands from telecom companies seeking to splice up internet into various packages so they could charge users based on what websites and services they were using. The companies' specific grouse is against services like Skype, Whatsapp and Viber, which they claim are eating into their profits.<br /><br />"Net neutrality is about ensuring that ISPs don't end up harming universal access, effective competition and consumer benefit," says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society. This means that what Airtel was trying to do in December by preventing its customers from accessing WhatsApp, Skype and Viber without paying extra shouldn't be permitted, Prakash says.<br /><br />One of the worst case scenarios could be the murder of innovation, says Srinivasan Ramani, 'director, National Centre for Software Technology (now, part of C-DAC).<br /><br />"New ways of doing things are disruptive — Voice over Internet Protocol demonstrated how inexpensive voice calls could be. Video calls over the internet demonstrate what the old telephone technology could not do in a cost-effective manner, can now be done with ease," Ramani says. If ISPs get greater control over the internet they may end up killing the golden goose, he says.<br /><br />Neutrality of the internet is essential to a wide variety of users, from bloggers, entrepreneurs and to students. "A non-neutral internet is like offering a separate driving lane to people who own a Ferrari, Mercedes or any other luxury vehicle," says Harsh Agrawal, a professional blogger atshoutmeloud.com. He is clear that he can't pay telecom operators to offer better speeds to his blog. "But what if one of my competitors can afford to pay for preferential treatment for his website? It could be a huge loss to me," Agrawal says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">E-commerce startup-founder Catherine Dohling has the same fear. "We want our website to be accessed by anyone who is interested in our products and this should not be governed by which telecom provider a person buys data from," says Dohling, co-founder of TheNorthEastStore.com.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Activists like Lobsang Tseten, who relies on digital media to reach out to people, fear that if there is no net neutrality, it could mean that a huge chunk of the NGO's grassroots base could be taken away unless users pay. "This is a very underhand way of stopping people from accessing certain websites and products," says Tseten, Asia regional coordinator of International Tibet Network.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With many biggies like Flipkart considering Airtel's Zero plan, which aims to offer free consumer browsing for such companies that sign up with the telco, start-up enthusiasts are also troubled. "An internet that is non-neutral would be a huge set-back for people like me who want to create a tech start-up. We would have to factor in a good sum of money for tie-ups with ISPs," says Rahul Kumar, an IIT-Kanpur student.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, some activists say that some nuances of what is net neutrality are getting lost as the campaign gathers steam. On Monday, several angry netizens tweeted about uninstalling Flipkart's app and actively working to get it down voted. "What we need are regulations that ensure access, competition and benefit consumers instead of proposing specific outcomes or solutions," says Prakash.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaTelecomNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-08T02:11:15ZNews ItemPeople voice their support for net neutrality, say Internet a utility not a luxury
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-april-13-2015-people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury
<b>As the campaign and support for net neutrality is picking up, Politicians, celebrities and a cross section of people are voicing their support for it. Net neutrality means all data and sites are treated and charged equally be it mobile app or any other app.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post was <a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury/539585-3.html">published in IBN Live</a> on April 13, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to AIB whose video on net neutrality has gone viral, more than one lakh emails have been sent to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) through the website <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank">savetheinternet.in.</a> This is in response to the regulator's call for public consultation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MK Stalin, DMK treasurer:</b> The Internet is changing India. For the first time there is a platform that gives equal opportunity for everyone to gain knowledge and reap economic benefits. TRAI, the government telecom regulatory body is proposing to change this by allowing telecom companies to allow preferential access to websites. If this is allowed, companies will be allowed to charge extra for commonly used services like Whatsapp, YouTube, web based voice calling and many more. This will also allow telcos to allow preferential treatment of websites, allowing the big companies to destroy start-ups and internet based small business by blocking or slowing them down. This goes against the very concept of the Internet where every legal website or service is considered equal. This attempt to increase the profits of the telecom companies by surrendering social gains should be condemned. I request the TRAI to dismiss this proposal and let the Internet continue to be a neutral medium which serves our country and community instead of a select few companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Tathagata Satpathy, Dhenkanal MP:</b> My concern was that why should TRAI get involved with private profit making companies and give them the facility to become a profiteering company. While saying this we must remember that Internet is not free anywhere in the world. That is accepted. My issue is with TRAI which has not even bothered to reply to my letter, I do not know why TRAI is getting involved and it has put itself in a situation where its interntions are suspect.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Nikhil Pahwa, Editor and publisher of Medianama:</b> Startups may have to get license to provide services in India. Another outcome is communications firms will buy license. Third outcome is TRAI will allow ISP's to make some sites slow.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Pranesh Prakash, cyber security expert:</b> So what the TRAI is proposing is something that should have every single Internet user very worried. There is some truth at least to what companies like Airtel etc. are saying which is that there is a difference in the regular trade standard for the Internet services and the telecom operators. But the correct solution for that is not to increase and sort a new license raj for Internet services but rather to decrease those over onerous burdens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Riteish Deshmukh, actor:</b> Net neutrality is as important as Freedom of Speech. Our Basic Right</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Siddharth Malhotra, actor:</b> Save The Internet push for net neutrality, Internet is a utility not a luxury.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Parineeti Chopra, actress:</b> Save the Internet! Net neutrality is crucial! Proud of you boyses!</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Shekhar Ravjiani, singer:</b> Time to stand up and take a stand. Time to fight for what's right. Head to savetheinternet.in to make a difference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Raghu Ram, Ex Roadies judge:</b> PEOPLE!! Your internet and freedom are under attack in India! Listen to the AIB boys and join the fight.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-april-13-2015-people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-april-13-2015-people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-08T01:56:28ZNews ItemTRAI-ing Times: The Story So Far
https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-ing-times-the-story-so-far
<b>24th December, 2014 marked a pivotal moment in the Indian experience with network neutrality. On this date, one of India’s largest telecom players, Bharti Airtel, announced the introduction of a new ‘VoIP’ usage policy for its mobile users.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Under this policy, usage of VoIP services would henceforth be <em>excluded</em> from standard data usage packs and would instead be charged at standard data rates (of 4p / 10KB on 3G and 10p / 10KB on 2G).<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> Alongside this modification to 2G and 3G packs, a separate data pack exclusively for VoIP services was to be introduced. <a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The flurry of activity the announcement precipitated included widespread consumer and civil society outrage<a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a>, a statement by the Union Minister for Telecom<a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a>, a justificatory counter-statement by Airtel itself<a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a> and ultimately, a statement by TRAI. <a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a> While it remains to be seen whether this was a calculated move by Airtel to kick-start the neutrality discussion in India (as some suspect<a name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7"><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></a>), the implementation of the new policy/pack was deferred pending TRAI's proposed consultation paper on OTT services. <a name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8"><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>In the context of the impending (though seemingly delayed<a name="_ftnref9" href="#_ftn9"><sup><sup>[9]</sup></sup></a>) release this paper, we take this opportunity to study TRAI-linked output on network neutrality in the past. This study was carried out using RTI requests [Part I] and targeted keyword searches of the TRAI website [Part II].</p>
<h3><strong>Information received through RTI requests</strong></h3>
<div><strong><br /></strong></div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We had filed the following request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the subject and net neutrality and any material available with them generated in the course of internal or other discussions:</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005</strong></p>
<p align="left">To</p>
<p align="left"><strong>Shri V.K.Saxena </strong></p>
<p align="left">Dy. Advisor (GA.) & Central Public Information Officer-LO</p>
<p align="left">Telecom Regulatory Authority of India</p>
<p align="left">Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,</p>
<p align="left">Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road,</p>
<p align="left">New Delhi-110 002</p>
<p align="left"><strong>Date of application</strong> : 08-10-2014</p>
<p align="center">Subject:<strong> Documents relating to Network Neutrality</strong></p>
<p>1. Please provide a list of all the consultations/discussions/meetings that have taken place with respect to network neutrality by TRAI.</p>
<p>2. Please provide a list of all responses received by TRAI which concern network neutrality.</p>
<p>3. Please provide a list of other documents/memos/minutes regarding network neutrality available with TRAI.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">4. Does TRAI possess power to punish ISPs for violating principles of network neutrality? If so, please mention the provision of law which permits this.</p>
<p>5. What measures are taken by TRAI to monitor network neutrality violations by ISPs? For example, throttling of internet content/protocols.</p>
<p>6. What is the procedure for a consumer to file a complaint with TRAI regarding network neutrality violations?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">7. Please provide copies of any documents regarding complaints received / action taken with respect to network neutrality violations in the past three years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It is certified that I am a citizen of India and that I do not fall within the BPL category. I am enclosing Rupees thirty (Rs. 10) towards the application fee and photocopying costs under the RTI Act for the information and documents requested. Kindly inform me at the address stated below if any further fees are required to be paid.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Applicant</strong> : <strong>Signature of the Applicant</strong></p>
<p>Tarun Krishnakumar</p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society</p>
<p>194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage,</p>
<p>Bangalore - 560071</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p>In response to the same, we received the following reply which smacked of non-application of mind by the concerned officer to the request:</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p>To,</p>
<p>Shri Tarun Krishnakumar</p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society</p>
<p>194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage</p>
<p>Bangalore (Karnataka) - 560071.</p>
<p><strong>SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SUPPLY OF INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005.</strong></p>
<p>Sir,</p>
<ol type="1">
<li style="text-align: justify;"> Please refer to your application dated 08.10.2014 , seeking information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding Network Neutrality related matter. </li></ol>
<ol type="1">
<li> It is informed that the information sought by you vide the above referred application is not available in TRAI. </li></ol>
<ol type="1">
<li style="text-align: justify;"> The Appellate Authority in TRAl under section 19 (1) of the "Right to Information Act, 2005" is Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Pr. Advisor (CA&QOS), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlai Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi-110 002, Tele:011- 23216930, Fax : 011- 23235270. </li></ol>
<p>Yours faithfully,</p>
<p>(V.K. Saxena)</p>
<p><strong>Central Public Information Officer (LO)</strong></p>
<p><strong>Tele: 011-23211622</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<div> </div>
<div><br />
<p>In reply, we filed the following appeal with the designated Appellate Authority:</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>Appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>To</strong> :</p>
<p>Appellate Authority</p>
<p>Shri. Suresh Kumar Gupta,</p>
<p>Pr. Advisor (CA and QoS),</p>
<p>Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,</p>
<p>Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan,</p>
<p>Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road,</p>
<p>New Delhi - 110002</p>
<p><strong>Date: </strong> 23.11.2014</p>
<p align="center"><strong>Subject: </strong> Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with reference to your reply No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014</p>
<p>Dear Sir,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">I write to you with reference to my RTI Application dated 08.10.2014 for information relating to 'network neutrality' held by TRAI. The CPIO, Shri. V.K. Saxena, rejected my request vide letter no. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 stating that " <em>the information sought by you vide the above referred application is not available in TRAI.</em>" (enclosed herewith). As the applicant, I am unsatisfied and aggrieved by the above decision and hereby appeal against the same.</p>
<p><strong>Circumstances and Grounds of Appeal</strong> <strong>:</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">By way of my application (enclosed herewith), I sought any and all information held by TRAI in relation to 'network neutrality'. For example, questions 1 - 3 queried the list of consultations etc. that have taken place involving network neutrality and sought copies of all documentation pertaining to the same. The other questions sought information pertaining to the powers of TRAI in relation to internet service providers and complaints received by it in relation to network neutrality. I submit that the failure of the CPIO to provide any answer to my queries is erroneous and therefore liable to be set aside on appeal to you.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It is well-documented that there is at least one consultation connected with the subject-matter of my application i.e. 'network neutrality' released by TRAI in December 2006 (Paper No. 19/2006). In fact, the paper is currently available on the TRAI website at the following URL: <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf"> http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf </a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">(Please see heading 3.6 and 3.7). Therefore, if nothing else at least all information pertaining to this paper including the responses received to the question under Heading 3.7 <em>must be supplied to me</em>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">You may also take note of TRAI's "Recommendations on Application Services" (available at URL: <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/recommendation/documents/as140512.pdf"> http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/recommendation/documents/as140512.pdf </a> ) dated 14.05.2014 where paras 1.29 - 1.31 pertain to net neutrality. This is another document that the CPIO failed to take notice of.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The failure of the CPIO to even acknowledge the existence of TRAI's own papers as cited above shows that there has been no application of mind to my application and a mechanical denial has been issued.</p>
<p><strong>Prayer</strong> <strong>:</strong></p>
<p>In light of the grounds advanced above, I request that:</p>
<p align="left">i. My application for all information pertaining to 'network neutrality' be allowed and the relevant documents be released to me.</p>
<p align="left">ii. I receive a question-by-question response to each of my queries.</p>
<p><strong>List of Enclosures: </strong> 1. Original Application dated 08.10.2014</p>
<p>2. Reply of CPIO No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10-11-2014</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Name of Appellant/Applicant and Address</strong> :</p>
<p>Tarun Krishnakumar</p>
<p>Centre for Internet and Society</p>
<p>194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage,</p>
<p>Bangalore - 560071</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
<p> </p>
<p>The appellate authority vide dated decision 12-01-2015 replied as follows:</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="center"><strong>BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>F. No. 1(658)/2014-RTI</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>Telecom Regulatory Authority of India</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>(Old Minto Road), New Delhi-110002.</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>APPEAL in terms of Section 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>Date of Decision: 12th January, 2015</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>In the Matter of:</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> SHRI TARUN KRISHNAKUMAR, CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY, 194, 2nd C CROSS ROAD, DOMLUR ll STAGE, BANGALORE (KARNATAKA)-560071 </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>vs</strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong> </strong></p>
<p align="center"><strong>CPIO, TRAI.</strong></p>
<ol type="1">
<li style="text-align: justify;"> Shri Tarun Krishnakumar has preferred the present appeal dated 23.11.2014 against the reply of CPIO, TRAI, communicated to him vide letter No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 in response to his application dated 08.10.2014 under the RTI Act.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">I have gone through the appellant's application dated 08.10.2014 addressed to the Central Public Information Officer, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the reply dated 10.11.2014 given to the appellant by the CPIO and the present appeal. The appellant had requested for information regarding Network Neutrality and related matter. Since the said information was not available with the Public Authority, TRAI, the CPIO. TRAI informed this to the appellant. The appellant, however, not being satisfied with the reply has filed this appeal.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Upon examination, it was noticed that the consultation paper on "Review of Internet Services" issued on 27'" December, 2006 has a reference to Net Neutrality in Chapter 3-Emerging Trends. Therefore, the concerned division has uploaded the comments received in response to the 2006 consultation paper for the information of stake holders, the same is available in TRAI website under the link <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/content/consultation_ViewCommentDescription/144_11_ViewCommentDescription.aspx"> http://www.trai.gov.in/content/consultation_ViewCommentDescription/144_11_ViewCommentDescription.aspx </a> . Further, the "Recommendations on Application Services" was issued on 14.05.2012 and is available on TRAI website. There is no additional information which can be provided to the appellant at this stage.</li>
<li>In view of the above, the appeal is accordingly disposed.</li>
<li>Let a copy of this order be sent to the appellant. </li></ol>
<p align="right">Sd/-</p>
<p align="right"><strong>(Suresh Kumar Gupta)</strong></p>
<p align="right"><strong>Appellate Authority, TRAI</strong></p>
<p align="right"><strong>Under RTI Act, 2005</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This reveals the extent of TRAI-produced output on the issue of 'net neutrality'. Besides a reference to Neutrality in 2006 paper TRAI did not disclose any other instance where it had discussed the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________</p>
</div>
<h3><strong>Targeted Keyword Searches of the trai.gov.in website</strong></h3>
<div><strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This leg of the survey consisted of conducting targeted keyword searches of the trai.gov.in website to gauge the engagement with the subject of Network Neutrality either in the form of TRAI Output, Submissions to TRAI or other outputs (from seminar, conferences etc.). The results - aggregated using Google and Bing - have been tabulated.</p>
<p><strong>Note: </strong> The results do not include the OTT Consultation Paper of 27-03-2015.</p>
<p><strong>Methodology</strong> : Keyword searches of specific website using the advanced search / site-search search operator ("KEYWORD + site:<URL>"); Repeated Hits were not tabulated.</p>
<p><strong>i. </strong> <strong>Keyword: "Net Neutrality"</strong></p>
<p>Total No. of search results returned = 10 (Google), 6 (Bing)</p>
<p>Relevant Hits: 8</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p><strong>Hit URL</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Name of Document </strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Date</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p><strong>Relevant Page</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p><strong>Remarks</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>1.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Consultation Paper on "Review of Internet Services" (No. 19/2006)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>26-12-2006</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>References at Pg. 27-28.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="text-align: justify;">Views were sought in relation to emerging trends one of which outlined was 'Net Neutrality.'</p>
<p>Selected Extracts:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">" <em> 3.6.2 The situation may also rise in India as Internet access providers may use their market power to discriminate against competing applications and/or contents. </em> "</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">" <em> 3.6.3 The issue of net neutrality in the long term can threaten popularity of Public Internet based Internet telephony and similar 28 other applications as all the intermediate Internet providers may start asking commercial agreements in absence of which they may refuse to carry the content and provide desired quality of service. The future developments are likely to have new applications and contents. The business models of ISPs are concentrated around useful application. In this background views of stake holders are required whether regulatory intervention is needed to ensure net neutrality in India in times to come or it may be left to market forces. </em> "</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>2.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201410221229242471860Vodafone_Delivering%20Broadband%20quickly_Counter_21Oct2014.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Vodafone's counter-response to TRAI's Consultation paper on 'Delivering Broadband Quickly'</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>22-10-2014</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>References at Pg. 3-4.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="text-align: justify;">Here, Vodafone pledges support for an 'open internet' for all however comments " <em>net neutrality has long been a solution in search of a problem</em>" and criticises EU framework.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>3.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/20120730022807389860713.Etisalat[1].pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Response of Etisalat DB to Pre-consultation paper on "IMT-Advanced (4G) Mobile wireless broadband services"</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>15-04-2010</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>References at Pg. 2 (Paragraph 12).</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="text-align: justify;">Etisalat notes that net neutrality is a topic that requires deliberation in reference to the proposed consultation paper on 4G.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It defines neutrality as "<em>Avoiding blockage of any specific web site on a particular network</em>".</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>4.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/recom18aug08.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>TRAI Recommendations on "Issues relating to Internet Telephony"</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>18-08-2008</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>References at Pg. 46 and 78</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="text-align: justify;">At Pg. 46: " <em> The very popularity and success of the Internet is due to Net neutrality, i.e packets of all services and applications shall be processed and delivered without any discrimination by the intermediate service providers." </em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At Pg. 78: " <em> Regulation in Argentina considers IP as a mere way to offer telecommunication services, such as telephony in the form of VoIP, thus there are no legal barriers that impede market access or any plans to regulate different types of the service. Any provider is free to offer telecommunication services with different technologies and network architectures, based on the network neutrality principle…"…" The foreign investment policy is liberal and there are no distinctions between local and foreign companies. According to the network neutrality principle, there are no regulated technological standards or protocols for VoIP </em> "</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>5.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201412300449107784040Dr%20Rohit%20Prasad.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Response to the Consultation Paper (No: 13/2014) on "Interconnect Usage Charges" filed by (i) Dr. Rohit Prasad, Professor, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon</p>
<p>(ii) Mansi Kedia, Researcher, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)</p>
<p>(iii) Dr. V. Sridhar, Professor, International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore</p>
</td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Reference at Pg.7</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Raises the question of Net Neutrality with reference to OTT services.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At Pg. 7: "… <em> Since an Internet Telephony call is a partial OTT service (i.e. from the origin until it hits the IP-Telco gateway), should Net Neutrality principles (as and when drafted) should be applicable for this as well. The above question, can be taken up when the Net Neutrality rules or OTT regulation rules are framed by the regulator. </em> "</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>6.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/2.Infotel_Broadband..pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Response of Infotel Broadband Services Ltd to Consultation Paper on "Mobile Value Added Services" (CP 05/ 2011)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>11-08-2011</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Reference at Pg. 3</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="text-align: justify;">Opposition to Licensing regime for Internet Content and Application Providers:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At Pg. 3: " <em> 3. Internet/ Data Applications do not depend on Telecom Operator, and are not licenced in open mature countries The need to exercise restraint on regulation is stronger in the case of data/ internet services. In the case of VAS on data/ internet services, VASPs have no technical dependence on Telecom/ Internet Service Provider for providing the service, as the data connection is generally a dumb pipe. For some services, VASPs choose to partner Telecom Operators for billing convenience (as in the case with currently provided Games-on-Demand service and Anti-virus services over Broadband). Globally, Internet Application Companies and Regulators mostly operate on a net neutrality approach, wherein a broadband application is accessible across Telecom/ Internet Service Providers. Thus, especially in the case of data services, there is no case to govern a relationship/ arrangement that has no technical necessity. Licencing Regime for Internet Content and Application providers, like portals, e-commerce, etc is not in practice in any of the open countries and should not be introduced in India too." </em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>7.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201308221249488827971vodafone-final3.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Response to Vodafone to Consultation Paper on "Valuation and Reserve Price of Spectrum"</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>21-08-2013</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Reference at Pg. 11</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Reference irrelevant / not-substantive.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p>8.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/recommendation/documents/as140512.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>TRAI Recommendations on "Application Services"</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>14-05-2012</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>References at Pg.18 and 19.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="text-align: justify;">At Pg. 18: " <em> 1.29 Net neutrality advocates no restrictions by Service Providers on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed. Issue of net neutrality started in early 2007 when it was revealed that Comcast, a provider of broadband Internet access over cable lines intentionally blocked the traffic of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications and gave other Internet traffic preferential treatment. </em> "</p>
<p>At Pg.19:" <em>1.31 The issue of net neutrality for ASPs providing services on OTT model will be dealt as and when required.</em>"</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="9">
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>ii. </strong> <strong>Keyword: "Network Neutrality"</strong></p>
<p>Total No. of search results returned = 16 (Google), 8 (Bing)</p>
<p>Relevant Hits: 11.</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p><strong>S.No. </strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Hit URL</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Name of Document </strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p><strong>Date</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p><strong>Relevant Page</strong></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><strong>Remarks</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>1.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291232282048929Matthias_Ehrler_Migration_NGN.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Presentation titled "Regulatory implications of migrating to NGN" made at the TRAI - Seminar on Next Generation Networks by Matthias Ehrler</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>25-08-2011</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pgs. 6 and 15</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Presentation by expert covers neutrality implications of migrating to next generation networks.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>2.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291229152361429Scott_Marcus_QoS.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Presentation titled "Management of QoS" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>25-08-2011</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pgs. 10, 11, 15 etc.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Presentation by expert covers neutrality in the context of QoS.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>3.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/consultationpaper/document/3agust.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Response of Microsoft to Consultation Paper on "National Broadband Plan"</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>27-07-2010</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pgs. 1-2</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Extract:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">" <em> 2. Network Neutrality Openness has been the key to the ever-expanding nature of the Internet. We would urge that the Authority adopt a light-touch regulatory approach to network neutrality that appropriately balances the needs of consumers, network operators, and those of content/ application / service providers as well as those of device vendors. Some respondents have called out the Authority's attention towards this aspect and it is important for the Authority to chart a course that harmonizes the interdependent values of innovation and continued evolution of a robust network infrastructure while promoting consumer choice and freedom online. e suggest that the Authority undertake the following three steps in this regard: a. First, adopt the widely-accepted principles that consumers have the right to access and use the content, applications, services and devices of their choosing and to receive reasonable information about their Internet access provider's practices; b. Second, adopt a behavioral standard intended to prohibit Access Provider discrimination that is anticompetitive or harms consumers, and bar Access Provider conduct that violates the other core, open Internet principles, such as allowing access to lawful content, applications, and services of the user's choosing; and c. Third, implement an expert and efficient enforcement mechanism to identify and prohibit unlawful forms of discrimination. This framework would achieve a sensible balance by allowing Access Providers the flexibility to not only appropriately manage their networks by distinguishing, if necessary, among different types of traffic but also enter into business arrangements with content providers that are transparent and do not discriminate in a manner that is anticompetitive or harms consumers </em> ."</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>4.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201301080620033272892NGN-Migration-Session6-Licensing-Issues-NGN_rev.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Presentation titled "Migration to Next Generation Networks" made at the Workshop on Migration to NGN by Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>29-11-2012</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pgs. 30-36.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Presentation by expert covers Network Neutrality in the context of content and licensing.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>5.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291222335017679NGN_Dr.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Presentation titled "NGN: UK and European Frameworks" made at the TRAI Seminar on NGN by Rekha Jain.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>25-08-2011</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pg.18</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Presentation by expert covers network neutrality as implemented by European authorities.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>6.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291226086423929NGN_Interconnection.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Presentation titled "NGN Interconnection" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>25-08-2011</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pg. 41, 43 and 46</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Presentation by expert covers neutrality in the context of QoS.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>7.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201301080612503134332NGN-Migration-Session1-Introduction-to-NGN_rev.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Presentation titled "Migration to Next Generation Networks" (Introduction to NGN) made at the Workshop on Migration to NGN by Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>29-11-2012</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pg. 25</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Cursory reference to important regulatory aspects of NGN Migration</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>8.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291221446111429NGN_Case_Studies%20-%20Scott%20marcus.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Presentation titled "Migration Studies Challenges and Migration Studies, Challenges, and Implementation Case Studies" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>25-08-2011</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pg. 6.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Cursory reference to public policy challenges in NGN Migration</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>9.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/Auspi.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>AUSPI's Response to the TRAI Consultation Paper No. 6/2011 on "IMT Advanced Mobile Wireless Broadband Services"</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2"></td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pg.10</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At Pg.10: " <em> In an effort to encourage network neutrality, Google asked that the spectrum be free to lease wholesale and the devices operating under the spectrum be open. Google's specific requests were the adoption of certain policies such as open applications, open devices, open services and open networks. Currently many providers such as Verizon and AT&T use technological measures to block external applications. In return, Google guaranteed a minimum bid of $4.6 billion. However, this model of broader eco-system players playing a part in spectrum auctions has not seen significant success, with Google in this instance not winning any licenses. Even if regulator wants to keep the market open for non-telecom players, broader eco-system players can participate through M&As which are likely to be permitted under the new telecom policy. </em> "</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>10.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/consultationpaper/document/201304090446122006799casbaa.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Response of the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia to TRAI Consultation Paper on "Issues relating to Media Ownership"</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>8-04-2013</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pg.30</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At Pg.30: " <em> Convergence: Despite convergence, there remains fragmentation in the approaches adopted by regulators towards intervention in telecoms and other sectors. However, issues of access, network neutrality, non-discrimination and protection of intellectual property rights ("IPR") are recurrent themes. These are issues that are familiar to competition authorities. Moreover, technological changes may break down these demarcations further. However the real challenge that convergence poses is increased uncertainty in respect of the speed of technical change and its effects in the short and longer runs. Regulators/competition authorities run the risk of 'getting it wrong' either by applying old style/stringent regulations and/or mistaking transitory profitability for abuse. A cautious and flexible approach is required. The application of old style regulations to such evolving markets is not recommended; it may stifle investment and innovation. Regulation should be flexible enough to take account of the evolving market dynamic and be informed by the best assessment of how markets are likely to evolve. TRAI's proposed intervention does not even come close to this dynamic approach since it is predicated on an assessment which is four years out of date. It does not take account of the increased diversity and competition currently prevailing and likely to develop in India over the next 3 to 5 years and beyond. </em> "</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p>11.</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201306240358500637086RCOM_CC.pdf</p>
</td>
<td>
<p>Counter Comments of Reliance Communications to TRAI Consultation Paper on "Interconnection Usage Charges"</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>25-05-2011</p>
</td>
<td colspan="2">
<p>Pgs. 230 (Internal Pg. 41 of appended document)</p>
</td>
<td>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Appended ERG DRAFT Common Position on Next Generation Networks Future Charging Mechanisms / Long Term Termination Issue document analyses questions in relation to QoS and Network Neutrality in the US and other jurisdictions.</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<div>
<hr />
<div id="ftn1">
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-starts-charging-for-voip-data-viber-skype-charges/128118/ (Last visited on 08-03-15).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> See http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-voip-rs75-75mb-with-a-validity-of-28-days/128216/ (Last visited on 08-03-15);</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-net-neutrality-violation-airtel-introduces-differential-pricing-for-type-of-mobile-internet-usage (Last visited on 08-03-15); http://yourstory.com/2015/01/net-neutrality-startups-in-india-airtels-voip-charges/ (Last visited on 08-03-15)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> See http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-01-15/news/58109002_1_net-neutrality-internet-governance-model (Last visited on 08-03-15); http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-look-into-airtels-plan-to-charge-for-internet-calls-ravi-shankar-prasad-639713 (Last visited on 08-03-15)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-a-response-to-airtels-statement-justifying-net-neutrality-violation/</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> See http://indianexpress.com/article/business/companies/airtel-move-to-charge-voip-calls-not-illegal-khullar/ (Last visited on 09-03-15); For a video of the interview, see http://youtu.be/d6QyapRBPXA (Last visited on 09-03-15).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a> See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-airtel-withdraws-voip-charges-for-now-after-forcing-trais-hand-on-net-neutrality-consultation/ (Last visited on 08-03-15).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> See http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/airtel-to-roll-back-higher-voip-charges/24057/ (Last visited on 08-03-15)</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn9" href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a> See NDTV report dated 16-02-15 at http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/trais-paper-on-ott-players-to-also-cover-voip-calls-net-neutrality-in-india-661111 (Last visited on 09-03-15).</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-ing-times-the-story-so-far'>https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-ing-times-the-story-so-far</a>
</p>
No publishertarunTelecomNet Neutrality2015-03-30T13:32:13ZBlog EntryCollection of Net Neutrality Definitions
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/collection-of-net-neutrality-definitions
<b>As part of CIS's inquiry into 'Network Neutrality' in the developing world, we have collected a set of definitions of the term from different sources. The definitions were collated and compiled by Manoj Kurbet, Maitreya Subramaniam and Tarun Krishnakumar under the guidance of Sunil Abraham.</b>
<table class="listing"></table>
<h3 style="text-align: center;"><a title="View Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/255177669/Collection-of-Net-Neutrality-Definitions">Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions</a></h3>
<p style="text-align: center;">Please feel free to get in touch if you would like to suggest definitions to be added to this working database.</p>
<div style="text-align: center;"><iframe src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/255177669/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&show_recommendations=true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" height="600" width="100%" id="doc_47259" class="scribd_iframe_embed"></iframe></div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/collection-of-net-neutrality-definitions'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/collection-of-net-neutrality-definitions</a>
</p>
No publishertarunNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-02-09T13:33:38ZBlog EntryIndians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click to read the article <a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/12/30/indians-plead-for-netneutrality-as-airtel-raises-data-charges/">published in the Global Voices</a> on December 30, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After Indian mobile data service provider Airtel <a href="http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/airtel-unveils-voip-calling-pack-for-prepaid-customers-postpaid-plans-coming-soon-640220" target="_blank">announced</a> plans to introduce data charges for VoIP usage, it received a rash of criticism from customers and open web advocates alike.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With 192.22 million users (as of August 2013), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharti_Airtel" target="_blank">Airtel </a>is India's largest mobile telephony provider and Asia-Pacific's second largest mobile operator. Although plans are now on hold due to regulatory restrictions, advocates worry that the company may yet find a way impose the fee increase.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On December 26, company proposed to raise costs for mobile phone users who rely on services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber to communicate with their contacts, requiring them to pay Rs.0.04/10KB (0.063 USD, based on current conversion rate) for 3G and Rs. 0.10/10KB (0.158 USD) for 2G service where a local or national call will cost one third of this amount or less.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you pay a fixed amount for internet data pack, Airtel will charge you extra for internet calls on Skype, Viber or any free calling app. How much? 4 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 3G and 10 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 2G.</p>
<p>- <a href="http://netneutrality.in/" target="_blank">Netneutrality.in</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new plan to charge Rs. 75 for 75 MB of data usage over VoIP calls was heavily criticized on social media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So let me get this straight. Airtel is worried about people using a mere 75 MB out of their data allowance? WTF? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottAirtel?src=hash">#BoycottAirtel</a></p>
<p>— Madhu Menon (@madmanweb) <a href="https://twitter.com/madmanweb/status/548472041901260800">December 26, 2014</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Messages against Airtel on Twitter and Facebook included hashtags such as <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottAirtel?src=hash" target="_blank">#BoycottAirtel</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash" target="_blank">#NetNeutrality</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In protest of Airtel India's violation of net neutrality principles, I disabled all data packs in my mobile number .</p>
<p>I am not using skype or viber usually . My usual video requirements are<a href="http://chatb.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">chatb.org</a> and Google hangout. But a carrier breaking net neutrality is a very serious development . Raise your voice against this .</p>
<p>Read More about Airtel Breaking Net Neutrality here <a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnetneutrality.in%2F&h=5AQEupp_4&enc=AZODIt9843Zfg0KTigPc37NtkWll4o_jnCF5xk0p-rwPCJ6BGVPyr7nrt427PIw8sBdvQXe8FqbbLynwJCYwCQoel_zl5wgOfqAYMZMCnrqMP9VRFIct2P_5YCx9sRsnskHUTeoGK5GHimPYVlvtDhXpbbcaTPoWROlULIgdbRfG2w&s=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://netneutrality.in/</a></p>
<p>I would like to port to some other services without gate keeping after a few weeks If airtel continues same path.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/netneutrality?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#netneutrality</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/india?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#india</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/airtel?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#airtel</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/fail?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#fail</a></p>
<p>- Anivar Joshina (on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/anivar.aravind.a/posts/1531344597115231" target="_blank">Facebook</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In an op-ed, Indian online news portal Niti Central's CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/shashidigital" target="_blank">Shashi Shekhar</a> said the move could put Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's “Digital India” initiative in jeopardy.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.niticentral.com/2014/09/22/narendra-modis-digital-india-taking-shape-239067.html" target="_blank">Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of a Digital India</a> will be in jeopardy unless the larger mess in Telecom is fixed urgently on priority and “Net Neutrality” does not make that priority list.</p>
<p>- <a href="https://twitter.com/shashidigital" target="_blank">Shashi Shekhar</a>, CEO, Niti Central</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Airtel has not released any further response on the issue of net neutrality since their initial announcement, which read as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All Internet/data packs or plans (through which customer can avail discounted rate) shall only be valid for internet browsing and will exclude VoIP (Both incoming/ Outgoing). VoIP over data connectivity would be charged at standard data rates of 4p / 10 KB (3G service) and 10p / 10 KB (2G service).</p>
<p>- Published on <a href="http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-starts-charging-for-voip-data-viber-skype-charges/128118/" target="_blank">Telecomtalk.info </a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/airtel.png" alt="Airtel" class="image-inline" title="Airtel" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reacting to the public outcry against Airtel, India's Union Minister of Communications <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_Prasad" target="_blank">Ravi Shankar Prasad</a> <a href="http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-look-into-airtels-plan-to-charge-for-internet-calls-ravi-shankar-prasad-639713">pledged to look into matter</a>. According to news portal <a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/airtel-to-charge-extra-for-voip-calls-is-it-time-to-bid-goodbye-to-free-messaging-services-247004.html" target="_blank">First Post</a>, telecom operators voiced opposition to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content">“over-the-top”</a> VoIP services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber for some time, but the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom_Regulatory_Authority_of_India" target="_blank">Telecom Regulatory Authority of India</a> (TRAI) has thus far stood in the way of a price increase.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Airtel has started on plans to charge OTT users particularly using VOIP services like viber and skype. TRAI had earlier this year rejected such demands from Indian operators. Even after this Airtel has gone ahead and kickstarted this practice.</p>
<p>- Sandip Pillai (on <a href="https://www.change.org/p/telecom-regulatory-authority-of-india-request-trai-to-stop-airtel-from-charging-voip-users-and-protect-net-neutrality-at-par-with-other-nations" target="_blank">Change.org</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Airtel has pushed for a policy level change to legitimize exceptional data charges and many other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content">over-the-top</a> services. But these were <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/29/bharti-airtel-rates-idINKBN0K70A920141229" target="_blank">declined </a>by TRAI who contended that Airtel's plans were “illegal and violation of net neutrality,” forcing Airtel to drop the plan — for now.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In view of the news reports that a consultation paper will be issued shortly by TRAI on issues relating to services offered by OTT players including VOIP, we have decided not to implement our proposed launch of VoIP packs.</p>
<p>We have no doubt that as a result of the consultation process a balanced outcome would emerge that would not only protect the interests of all stakeholders and viability of this important sector but would also encourage much needed investments in spectrum and roll out of data networks to fulfill the objective of digital India.</p>
<p>- Reported on <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-airtel-withdraws-voip-charges-for-now-after-forcing-trais-hand-on-net-neutrality-consultation/" target="_blank">MediaNama</a> by Nikhil Pahwa</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-02-11T15:10:44ZBlog EntryReply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-filed-with-bsnl-regarding-network-neutrality-and-throttling
<b>As part of its work on Network Neutrality, the Centre for Internet and Society through Tarun Krishnakumar had filed a Right To Information (RTI) application with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), a state-owned teleco holding a market share of 65 per cent in the Indian land line and broadband markets — regarding its position on and adherence to Network Neutrality principles.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The application — targeted at easing the information asymmetry between internet service providers (ISPs) and consumers — elicited responses that provide interesting insights into the functioning of ISPs in India.</p>
<p>The application queried BSNL about its:</p>
<ul>
<li>Adherence to net neutrality / non-discrimination principles</li>
<li>Throttling on the basis of content</li>
<li>Throttling on the basis of protocol</li>
<li>Limiting traffic / speeds for pornographic websites</li>
<li>Limiting traffic / speeds for P2P / torrent connection</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In its reply, BSNL denied all forms of throttling on the basis of content and reaffirmed that it is bound by the terms of its ISP license granted by the Department of Telecommunications. The application and response are below:</p>
<p> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: center; "><a name="application"></a><b><span>Application</span>:</b></h3>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center; "><b><span>Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005</span></b></p>
<p>To,</p>
<p>Sh. Suresh Kumar<br />Addl.GM (MIS) & CPIO ,BSNL Co.<br />R. No. -29, IR Hall<br />Eastern Court, Janpath<br />New Delhi – 110001</p>
<p><b>Date of application</b>: 08-10-2014</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center; "><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>Subject: Network Neutrality / Throttling / Data discrimination policies of BSNL</b></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Please provide information as to the policies of BSNL / decisions taken in respect of the following questions. Please supply where possible a copy of the relevant documents, minutes of meeting, position papers etc.</p>
<ol>
<li>Does BSNL support the principle of net neutrality and non-discrimination of data?</li>
<li>Does BSNL regulate internet traffic flows depending on the type of content being accessed by the user on its broadband connections?</li>
<li>Does BSNL regulate internet traffic flows depending on the type of protocol being used by the user on its broadband connections?</li>
<li>Please provide details of the various types of content/protocols for which BSNL regulates traffic and the nature of such regulations, restrictions as the case may be.</li>
<li>Please provide a list of traffic for which BSNL engages in limiting internet speed or throttling.</li>
<li>Does BSNL limit internet traffic or upload/download speeds for pornographic websites and content?</li>
<li>Does BSNL limit internet traffic or upload/download speeds for Peer-to-peer or torrent connections?</li>
</ol>
<p>Please provide copies of all documents that pertain to BSNL’s policies and decisions in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is certified that I am a citizen of India and that I do not fall within the BPL category. I am enclosing Rupees thirty (Rs. 30) towards the application fee and photocopying costs under the RTI Act for the information and documents requested. Kindly inform me at the address stated below if any further fees are required to be paid.</p>
<p><b>Applicant</b>:</p>
<p>Tarun Krishnakumar<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br />No.194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage,<br />Bangalore - 560071</p>
<p> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: center; "><span>RESPONSE FROM BSNL:</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: center; "><span><br /></span></div>
<p>To,</p>
<p>Sh. Tarun Krishnakumar<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br />No. 194, 2<sup>nd</sup> C Cross Road, Domulur II stage,<br />Bengaluru – 560071</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Subject: Supply of Information under RTI ACT – 2005</span></p>
<p>Case of Shri. Tarun Krishnakumar – reg.</p>
<p>Ref: - 1. No. BSNL/BBNW/RTI Act/Vol II/2012-13/52 dtd 28.10.2014</p>
<p>2. No. 23-744/14-RTI dtd 21.10.2014</p>
<p>With reference to the above subject, for the point wise information furnished as below:</p>
<ol>
<li>BSNL is following the guidelines as per the ISP License Agreement of DOT.</li>
<li>NO, BSNL is NOT regulating the Internet traffic flow based on content.</li>
<li>NO, BSNL is not regulating the Internet traffic flow based on the type of protocol.</li>
<li>Not Applicable</li>
<li>Not Applicable</li>
<li>NO</li>
<li>NO</li>
<li>The documents relating to above are available on DOT’s website http://dot.gov.in</li>
</ol>
<p>(Sd/-)</p>
<p>DE Admin and APIO<br />O/o General Manager<br />BBNW, BSNL,<br />5<sup>th</sup> floor, BG (E), TE Building,<br />Lazar Road, Fraser Town,<br />Bengaluru – 560005<br />Tel No. 080 - 25808878</p>
<p>Copy to:</p>
<ol>
<li>The Addl. GM (A) & CPIP O/o CGM, BBNW, New Delhi for information pl.</li>
</ol>
<p>The scanned version of the reply is available <a class="external-link" href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/250739602/BSNL-Reply-on-Net-Neutrality">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-filed-with-bsnl-regarding-network-neutrality-and-throttling'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-filed-with-bsnl-regarding-network-neutrality-and-throttling</a>
</p>
No publishertarunInternet AccessNet NeutralityInternet GovernanceInformation Technology2014-12-22T14:45:03ZBlog EntryThe Socratic debate: Whose internet is it anyway?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-november-18-2014-pranesh-prakash-the-socratic-debate-whos-internet-is-it-anyway
<b>In the US, President Obama recently spoke out on the seemingly arcane topic of net neutrality. What is more astounding is that the popular satire news show host John Oliver spent a 13-minute segment talking about it in June, telling Internet trolls to “focus your indiscriminate rage in a useful direction” by visiting the US Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) website and submitting comments on its weak draft proposal on net neutrality.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a class="external-link" href="http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-citings/the-socratic-debate-whose-internet-is-it-anyway/">article was published in the Economic Times</a> on November 18, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Due to the work of activists, popular media coverage, pro-net neutrality technology companies, and John Oliver, eventually the FCC received 1.1 million responses. Text analysis by the Sunlight Foundation using natural language processing found that only 1% of the responses were clearly opposed to net neutrality. So millions of people in the US are both aware and care about this issue. But the general response in India would be: what is net neutrality and why should I be concerned?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Net neutrality is commonly described as the principle of ensuring that there is no discrimination between the different ‘packets’ that an Internet service provider (ISP) carries. That means that the traffic from NDTV should be treated equally by Reliance Infocomm as the traffic from Network 18’s CNNIBN; that even if Facebook wants to pay Airtel to deliver Whatsapp’s packets faster than Viber’s, Airtel may not do so; that peer-to-peer traffic is not throttled; that Facebook will not be able to pay Airtel to keep its subscribers bound within its walled gardens; and also that Airtel can’t claim to be providing Internet access while restricting that to only Facebook or Whatsapp.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The counter to this by telecom companies the world over, which has little evidence backing it, is primarily two-fold: first, one of equity — that it is ‘unfair’ for the likes of YouTube to get a ‘free ride’ on Airtel networks, hogging up bandwidth but not paying them; and second, that of economic incentives — networks are bleeding money due to services like WhatsApp and Skype replacing SMS and voice, and not being able to charge them will lead to a decrease in profitability and network expansion. The first claim is based on a myth of the ‘free ride’, while the reality is that subscribers who download more also pay the ISP more, while contentemitting companies also have to pay their network providers as per the traffic they generate, and those network providers, in turn, have to enter into ‘transit’ or ‘peering’ agreements with the ISPs that eventually provide access to consumers. The second claim has little evidence to back it up. Efficient competition is the best driver of both profit as well as network expansion. VSNL complained about services like Net2Phone in the 1990s and even filtered all voice-over-IP (VoIP) traffic — and illegally blocked a number of VoIP websites — to preserve its monopoly over international telephony. Instead, removing VSNL’s monopoly only benefited our nation. As for network expansion, it is inability of networks to profit from sparsely populated rural areas that poses a major roadblock. Fixing those problems require smart pricing by telecom companies and intelligent regulation, including exploring policy options like shared spectrum, but they do not necessarily require the abandoning of net neutrality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, the fact that the reasons telecom companies often provide against net neutrality are bogus doesn’t mean that it’s easy to ensure net neutrality. The Trai has been exploring this issue by holding a seminar on OTT services. However, the main focus of the discussions were not whether and how India should ensure net neutrality: it was on whether the government should regulate services like WhatsApp and bring them under the licence Raj. Yes, the debate going around in the regulatory circles is whether India should implement rules to ensure net non-neutrality so as favour telecom companies! Net neutrality is a difficult issue in regulatory terms since there is no common understanding among academics and activists of what all should fall under its ambit: only the ‘last mile’ or interconnection as well?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The policy dialogue in India is far removed from this and from considering the nuanced positions of anti-net neutrality scholars, such as Christopher Yoo, who raise concerns about the harms to innovation and the free market that would be caused by mandating net neutrality. The situation in India is much more dire, since blatant violations of net neutrality — howsoever defined — are already happening with Airtel launching its ‘One Touch Internet’, a limited walled garden approach that lies about offering access to the ‘Internet’ while only offering access to a few services based on secretive agreements with other companies. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, recently toured India talking about his grand vision of providing connectivity to the bottom half of the pyramid yet did not talk about how that connectivity would not be to the Internet, but will be limited to only a few services — including Facebook.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even if we had good laws in favour of net neutrality, without effective monitoring and forceful action by the government, they will amount to little. s. Undoubtedly the contours of the conversation that needs to happen in India over net neutrality will be different from that happening in more developed countries with higher levels of Internet penetration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However it is a cause of grave concern that while net neutrality is being brutally battered by telecom companies in the absence of any regulation, they are also seeking to legitimize their battery through regulation. It is time the direction of the conversation changed. Perhaps we should invite John Oliver over.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-november-18-2014-pranesh-prakash-the-socratic-debate-whos-internet-is-it-anyway'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-times-november-18-2014-pranesh-prakash-the-socratic-debate-whos-internet-is-it-anyway</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshNet NeutralityInternet Governance2014-12-09T13:35:45ZBlog EntryNet Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution – III: Conceptions of Free Speech and Democracy
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy
<b>In this 3 part series, Gautam Bhatia explores the concept of net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the modern State, effective exercise of free speech rights is increasingly dependent upon an infrastructure that includes newspapers, television and the internet. Access to a significant part of this infrastructure is determined by money. Consequently, if what we value about free speech is the ability to communicate one’s message to a non-trivial audience, financial resources influence both <i>who </i>can speak and, consequently, <i>what </i>is spoken. The nature of the public discourse – what information and what ideas circulate in the public sphere – is contingent upon a distribution of resources that is arguably unjust and certainly unequal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are two opposing theories about how we should understand the right to free speech in this context. Call the first one of these the libertarian conception of free speech. The libertarian conception takes as given the existing distribution of income and resources, and consequently, the unequal speaking power that that engenders. It prohibits any intervention designed to remedy the situation. The most famous summary of this vision was provided by the American Supreme Court, when it first struck down campaign finance regulations, in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/1#writing-USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZO"><i>Buckley v. Valeo</i></a>: <i>“t</i><i>he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” </i>This theory is part of the broader libertarian worldview, which would restrict government’s role in a polity to enforcing property and criminal law, and views any government-imposed restriction on what people can do within the existing structure of these laws as presumptively wrong.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>We can tentatively label the second theory as the <i>social-democratic theory </i>of free speech. This theory focuses not so much on the individual speaker’s right not to be restricted in using their resources to speak as much as they want, but upon the collective interest in maintaining a public discourse that is open, inclusive and home to a multiplicity of diverse and antagonistic ideas and viewpoints. Often, in order to achieve this goal, governments regulate access to the infrastructure of speech so as to ensure that participation is not entirely skewed by inequality in resources. When this is done, it is often justified in the name of democracy: a functioning democracy, it is argued, requires a thriving public sphere that is not closed off to some or most persons.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Surprisingly, one of the most powerful judicial statements for this vision also comes from the United States. In <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/case.html"><i>Red Lion v. FCC</i></a>, while upholding the “fairness doctrine”, which required broadcasting stations to cover “both sides” of a political issue, and provide a right of reply in case of personal attacks, the Supreme Court noted:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“[Free speech requires] <i>preserv</i>[ing]<i> an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance <span style="text-decoration: underline;">monopolization of that market</span>, whether it be by the Government itself or <span style="text-decoration: underline;">a private licensee</span>…</i><i> it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here</i>.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What of India? In the early days of the Supreme Court, it adopted something akin to the libertarian theory of free speech. In <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/243002/"><i>Sakal Papers v. Union of India</i></a>, for example, it struck down certain newspaper regulations that the government was defending on grounds of opening up the market and allowing smaller players to compete, holding that Article 19(1)(a) – in language similar to what <i>Buckley v. Valeo </i>would hold, more than fifteen years later – did not permit the government to infringe the free speech rights of some in order to allow others to speak. The Court continued with this approach in its next major newspaper regulation case, <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/125596/"><i>Bennett Coleman v. Union of India</i></a>, but this time, it had to contend with a strong dissent from Justice Mathew. After noting that “<i>it is no use having a right to express your idea, unless you have got a medium for expressing it”</i>, Justice Mathew went on to hold:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“<i>What is, therefore, required is an interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) which focuses on the idea that restraining the hand of the government is quite useless in assuring free speech, if a restraint on access is effectively secured by private groups. A Constitutional prohibition against governmental restriction on the expression is effective only if the Constitution ensures an adequate opportunity for discussion… Any scheme of distribution of newsprint which would make the freedom of speech a reality by making it possible the dissemination of ideas as news with as many different facets and colours as possible would not violate the fundamental right of the freedom of speech of the petitioners. In other words, a scheme for distribution of a commodity like newsprint which will subserve the purpose of free flow of ideas to the market from as many different sources as possible would be a step to advance and enrich that freedom. If the scheme of distribution is calculated to prevent even an oligopoly ruling the market and thus check the tendency to monopoly in the market, that will not be open to any objection on the ground that the scheme involves a regulation of the press which would amount to an abridgment of the freedom of speech.</i>”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>In Justice Mathew’s view, therefore, freedom of speech is not only the speaker’s right (the libertarian view), but a complex balancing act between the listeners’ right to be exposed to a wide range of material, as well as the collective, societal right to have an open and inclusive public discourse, which can only be achieved by preventing the monopolization of the instruments, infrastructure and access-points of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Over the years, the Court has moved away from the majority opinions in <i>Sakal Papers </i>and <i>Bennett Coleman</i>, and steadily come around to Justice Mathew’s view. This is particularly evident from two cases in the 1990s: in <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/921638/"><i>Union of India v. The Motion Picture Association</i></a>, the Court upheld various provisions of the Cinematograph Act that imposed certain forms of compelled speech on moviemakers while exhibiting their movies, on the ground that “<i>to earmark a small portion of time of this entertainment medium for the purpose of showing scientific, educational or documentary films, or for showing news films has to be looked at in this context of </i><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">promoting dissemination of ideas, information and knowledge to the masses so that there may be an informed debate and decision making on public issues</span></i><i>. Clearly, the impugned provisions are designed to further free speech and expression and not to curtail it.</i>”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/304068/"><i>LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah</i></a> is even more on point. In that case, the Court upheld a right of reply in an <i>in-house </i>magazine, <i>“because fairness demanded that both view points were placed before the readers,</i><i> </i><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">however limited be their number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions and unreasonable</span></i><i> </i><i>because there was no logic or proper justification for refusing publication…</i><i> </i><i>the respondent’s fundamental right of speech and expression clearly entitled him to insist that his views on the subject should reach those who read the magazine so that they have a complete picture before them and not a one sided or distorted one</i>…” This goes even further than Justice Mathew’s dissent in <i>Bennett Coleman</i>, and the opinion of the Court in <i>Motion Picture Association</i>, in holding that not merely is it permitted to structure the public sphere in an equal and inclusive manner, but that it is a <i>requirement </i>of Article 19(1)(a).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We can now bring the threads of the separate arguments in the three posts together. In the first post, we found that public law and constitutional obligations can be imposed upon private parties when they discharge public functions. In the second post, it was argued that the internet has replaced the park, the street and the public square as the quintessential forum for the circulation of speech. ISPs, in their role as gatekeepers, now play the role that government once did in controlling and keeping open these avenues of expression. Consequently, they can be subjected to public law free speech obligations. And lastly, we discussed how the constitutional conception of free speech in India, that the Court has gradually evolved over many years, is a social-democratic one, that requires the keeping open of a free and inclusive public sphere. <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/net-neutrality-monopoly-and-the-death-of-the-democratic-internet?trk_source=homepage-lede">And if there is one thing that fast-lanes over the internet threaten, it is certainly a free and inclusive (digital) public sphere</a>. A combination of these arguments provides us with an arguable case for imposing obligations of net neutrality upon ISPs, even in the absence of a statutory or regulatory obligations, grounded within the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>For the previous post, please see: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-2.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>_____________________________________________________________________________________________________</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><i style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com</a>. Here at CIS, he will be blogging on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.</i></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy</a>
</p>
No publishergautamFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governance2014-05-27T10:21:24ZBlog EntryMarco Civil da Internet: Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet
<b>On March 25, 2014, Brazil's lower house of parliament passed bill no. 2126/2011, popularly known as Marco Civil da Internet. The Marco Civil is a charter of Internet user-rights and service provider responsibilities, committed to freedom of speech and expression, privacy, and accessibility and openness of the Internet. In this post, the author looks at the pros and cons of the bill.</b>
<h3><em><strong>Introduction:</strong></em></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">Ten months ago, Edward Snowden’s revelations of the U.S. National Security Agency’s extensive, warrantless spying dawned on us. Citizens and presidents alike expressed their outrage at this sweeping violation of their privacy. While India’s position remained carefully neutral, or indeed, supportive of NSA’s surveillance, Germany, France and Brazil cut the U.S. no slack. Indeed, at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (whose office the NSA had placed under surveillance) stated, “<em>Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of International Law and is an affront to the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations.</em>” Brazil, she said, would “<em>redouble its efforts to adopt legislation, technologies and mechanisms to protect us from the illegal interception of communications and data.</em>”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div>Some may say that Brazil has lived up to its word. Later this month, Brazil will be host to <em>NETmundial</em>, the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, jointly organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the organization /1Net. The elephantine invisible presence of Snowden vests NETmundial with the hope and responsibility of laying the ground for a truly multi-stakeholder model for governing various aspects of the Internet; a model where governments are an integral part, but not the only decision-makers. The global Internet community, comprising users, corporations, governments, the technical community, and NGOs and think-tanks, is hoping devise a workable method to divest the U.S. Government of its <em>de facto</em> control over the Internet, which it wields through its contracts to manage the domain name system and the root zone.</div>
<div></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>But as Internet governance expert Dr. Jeremy Malcolm put it, these technical aspects do not make or break the Internet. The real questions in Internet governance underpin the rights of users, corporations and netizens worldwide. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, when he <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/12/online-magna-carta-berners-lee-web">called for</a> an Internet Bill of Rights, meant much the same. For Sir Tim, an open, neutral Internet is imperative if we are to keep our governments open, and foster “<em>good democracy, healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture</em>”. Some countries agree. The Philippines envisaged a <em>Magna Carta</em> for Internet Freedom, though the Bill is pending in the Philippine parliament.</div>
<div></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<h3><strong><em>Marco Civil da Internet:</em></strong></h3>
<div>Last week, on March 25, 2014, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of parliament) passed the <em>Marco Civil da Internet</em>, bill 2126/2011, a charter of Internet rights. The <em>Marco Civi</em>l is considered by the global Internet community as a one-of-a-kind bill, with Sir Tim Berners-Lee <a class="external-link" href="http://www.webfoundation.org/2014/03/marco-civil-statement-of-support-from-sir-tim-berners-lee/?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite">hailing</a> the “<em>groundbreaking, inclusive and participatory process has resulted in a policy that balances the rights and responsibilities of the individuals, governments and corporations who use the Internet</em>”.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>The <em>Marco Civil</em>’s journey began with a two-stage public consultation process in October 2009, under the aegis of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice’s Department of Legislative Affairs, jointly with the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Center for Technology and Society of the Law School of Rio de Janeiro (CTS-FGV). The collaborative process <a class="external-link" href="http://observatoriodainternet.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Internet-Policy-Report-Brazil-2011.pdf">involved</a> a 45-day consultation process in which over 800 comments were received, following which a second consultation in May 2010 received over 1200 comments from individuals, civil society organizations and corporations involved in the telecom and technology industries. Based on comments, the initial draft of the bill was revamped to include issues of popular, public importance, such as intermediary liability and online freedom of speech.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>An official English translation of the <em>Marco Civil</em> is as yet unavailable. But an <a class="external-link" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kJYQx-l_BVa9-3FZX23Vk9IfibH9x6E9uQfFT4e4V9I/pub">unofficial translation</a> (please note that the file is uploaded on Google Drive), triangulated against <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/32527">online</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/brazil-passes-groundbreaking-internet-governance-bill-7000027740http://www.zdnet.com/brazil-passes-groundbreaking-internet-governance-bill-7000027740/">commentary</a> on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-brazils-internet-constitution-7000022726/">the bill</a>, reveals that the following issues were of primary importance:</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<h3><strong><em>The fundamentals:</em></strong></h3>
<div>The fundamental principles of the <em>Marco Civil</em> reveal a commitment to openness, accessibility neutrality and democratic collaboration on the Internet. Art. 2 (see unofficial translation) sets out the fundamental principles that form the basis of the law. It pledges to adhere to freedom of speech and expression, along with an acknowledgement of the global scale of the network, its openness and collaborative nature, its plurality and diversity. It aims to foster free enterprise and competition on the Internet, while ensuring consumer protection and upholding human rights, personality development and citizenship exercise in the digital media in line with the network’s social purposes. Not only this, but Art. 4 of the bill pledges to promote universal access to the Internet, as well as “<em>to information, knowledge and participation in cultural life and public affairs</em>”. It aims to promote innovation and open technology standards, while ensuring interoperability.</div>
<div></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>The <em>Marco Civil</em> expands on its commitment to human rights and accessibility by laying down a “<em>discipline of Internet use in Brazil</em>”. Art. 3 of the bill guarantees freedom of expression, communication and expression of thoughts, under the terms of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, while at the same time guaranteeing privacy and protection of personal data, and preserving network neutrality. It also focuses on preserving network stability and security, by emphasizing accountability and adopting “<em>technical measures consistent with international standards and by encouraging the implementation of best practices</em>”.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>These principles, however, are buttressed by rights assured to Internet users and responsibilities of and exceptions provided to service providers.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<h3><strong><em>Rights and responsibilities of users and service providers:</em></strong></h3>
<div><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Net neutrality:</span></strong></div>
<div>Brazil becomes one of the few countries in the world (joining the likes of the Netherlands, Chile and Israel in part) to preserve network neutrality by legislation. Art. 9 of the <em>Marco Civil</em> requires all Internet providers to “<em>to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application</em>”. Not only this, but Internet providers are enjoined from blocking, monitoring or filtering content during any stage of transmission or routing of data. Deep packet inspection is also forbidden. Exceptions may be made to discriminate among network traffic <em>only</em> on the basis of essential technical requirements for services-provision, and for emergency services prioritization. Even this requires the Internet provider to inform users in advance of such traffic discrimination, and to act proportionately, transparently and with equal protection.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Data retention, privacy and data protection:</span></strong></div>
<div>The <em>Marco Civil</em> includes provisions for the retention of personal data and communications by service providers, and access to the same by law enforcement authorities. However, record, retention and access to Internet connection records and applications access-logs, as well as any personal data and communication, are required to meet the standards for “<em>the conservation of intimacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved</em>” (Art. 10). Specifically, access to identifying information and contents of personal communication may be obtained <em>only</em> upon judicial authorization.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>Moreover, where data is collected within Brazilian territory, processes of collection, storage, custody and treatment of the abovementioned data are required to comply with Brazilian laws, especially the right to privacy and confidentiality of personal data and private communications and records (Art. 11). Interestingly, this compliance requirement is applicable also to entities incorporated in foreign jurisdictions, which offer services to Brazilians, or where a subsidiary or associate entity of the corporation in question has establishments in Brazil. While this is undoubtedly a laudable protection for Brazilians or service providers located in Brazil, it is possible that conflicts may arise (<a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21599781-brazils-magna-carta-web-net-closes?frsc=dg%7Ca&fsrc=scn/tw_app_ipad">with penal consequences</a>) between standards and terms of data retention and access by authorities in other jurisdictions. In the predictable absence of harmonization of such laws, perhaps rules of conflicts of law may prove helpful.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>While data retention remained a point of contention (Brazil initially sought to ensure a 5-year data retention period), under the <em>Marco Civil</em><span>, Internet providers are required to retain connection records for 1 year under rules of strict confidentiality; this responsibility cannot be delegated to third parties (Art. 13). Providers providing the Internet connection (such as Reliance or Airtel in India) are forbidden from retaining records of access to applications on the Internet (Art. 14). While law enforcement authorities may request a longer retention period, a court order (filed for by the authority within 60 days from the date of such request) is required to access the records themselves. In the event the authority fails to file for such court order within the stipulated period, or if court order is denied, the service provider must protect the confidentiality of the connection records.</span></div>
<div><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>Though initially excluded from the <em>Marco Civil</em>, the current draft passed by the Chamber of Deputies requires Internet application providers (such as Google or Facebook) to retain access-logs for their applications for 6 months (Art. 15). Logs for other applications may not be retained without previous consent of the owner, and in any case, the provider cannot retain personal data that is in excess of the purpose for which consent was given by the owner. As for connection records, law enforcement authorities may request a greater retention period, but require a court order to access the data itself.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>These requirements must be understood in light of the rights that the <em>Marco Civil</em> guarantees to users. Art. 7, which enumerates these user-rights, does not however set forth their <em>content</em>; this is probably left to judicial interpretation of rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. In any event, Art. 7 guarantees to all Internet users the “<em>inviolability of intimacy and privacy</em>”, including the confidentiality of all Internet communications, along with “<em>compensation for material or moral damages resulting from violation</em>”. In this regard, it assures that users are entitled to a guarantee that no personal data or communication shall be shared with third parties in the absence of express consent, and to “<em>clear and complete information on the collection, use, storage, treatment and protection of their personal data</em>”. Indeed, where contracts violate the requirements of inviolability and secrecy of private communications, or where a dispute resolution clause does not permit the user to approach Brazilian courts as an alternative, Art. 8 renders such contracts null and void.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>Most importantly, Art. 7 states that users are entitled to clear and complete information about how connection records and access logs shall be stored and protected, and to publicity of terms/policies of use of service providers. Additionally, Art. 7 emphasizes quality of service and accessibility to the Internet, and forbids suspension of Internet connections except for failure of payments. Read comprehensively, therefore, Arts. 7-15 of the <em>Marco Civil prima facie</em> set down robust protections for private and personal data and communications.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>An initial draft of the <em>Marco Civil</em> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/companies-brace-for-brazil-local-data-storage-requirements-7000027092/">sought to mandate</a> local storage of all Brazilians’ data within Brazilian territory. This came in response to Snowden’s revelations of NSA surveillance, and President Rousseff, in her <a class="external-link" href="http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf">statement</a> to the United Nations, declared that Brazil sought to protect itself from “<em>illegal interception of communications and data</em>”. However, the implications of this local storage requirement was the creation of a <a class="external-link" href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/brazil-looks-break-us-centric-internet">geographically isolated</a> Brazilian Internet, with repercussions for the Internet’s openness and interoperability that the <em>Marco Civil</em> itself sought to protect. Moreover, there are <a class="external-link" href="http://www.gp-digital.org/gpd-update/data-retention-provisions-in-the-marco-civil/">implications</a> for efficiency and business; for instance, small businesses may be unable to source the money or capacity to comply with local storage requirements. Also, they lead to mandating storage on political grounds, and not on the basis of effective storage. Amid widespread protest from corporations and civil society, this requirement was then <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/brazil-gives-up-on-local-data-storage-demands-net-neutrality-7000027493/">withdrawn</a> which, some say, propelled the quick passage of the bill in the Chamber of Deputies.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Intermediary liability:</span></strong></div>
<div>Laws of many countries make service providers liable for third party content that infringes copyright or that is otherwise against the law (such as pornography or other offensive content). For instance, Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) is such a provision where intermediaries (i.e., those who host user-generated content, but do not create the content themselves) may be held liable. However, stringent intermediary liability regimes create the possibility of private censorship, where intermediaries resort to blocking or filtering user-generated content that they fear may violate laws, sometimes even without intimating the creator of the infringing content. The <em>Marco Civil</em> addresses this possibility of censorship by creating a restricted intermediary liability provision. Please note, however, that the bill expressly excludes from its ambit copyright violations, which a <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/31993">copyright reforms bill</a> seeks to address.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>At first instance, the <em>Marco Civil</em> exempts service providers from civil liability for third party content (Art. 18). Moreover, intermediaries are liable for damages arising out of third party content <em>only</em> where such intermediaries do not comply with court orders (which may require removal of content, etc.) (Art. 19). This leaves questions of infringement and censorship to the judiciary, which the author believes is the right forum to adjudicate such issues. Moreover, wherever identifying information is available, Art. 20 mandates the intermediary to appraise the creator of infringing content of the reasons for removal of his/her content, with information that enables the creator to defend him- or herself in court. This measure of transparency is particularly laudable; for instance, in India, no such intimation is required by law, and you or I as journalists, bloggers or other creators of content may never know why our content is taken down, or be equipped to defend ourselves in court against the plaintiff or petitioner who sought removal of our content. Finally, a due diligence requirement is placed on the intermediary in circumstances where third party content discloses, “<em>without consent of its participants, of photos, videos or other materials containing nudity or sexual acts of private character</em>”. As per Art. 21, where the intermediary does not take down such content upon being intimated by the concerned participant, it may be held secondarily liable for infringement of privacy.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>This restricted intermediary liability regime is further strengthened by a requirement of specific identification of infringing content, which both the court order issued under Art. 20 and the take-down request under Art. 21 must fulfill. This requirement is missing, for instance, under Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, which creates a diligence and liability regime without requiring idenfiability of infringing content.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<h3><strong><em>Conclusion:</em></strong></h3>
<div>Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’ has done much to add to the ongoing discussion on the rights and responsibilities of users and providers. By expressly adopting protections for net neutrality and online privacy and freedom of expression, the Marco Civil may be considered to set itself up as a model for Internet rights at the municipal level, barring a Utopian bill of rights. Indeed, in an effusive statement of support for the bill, Sir Tim Berners-Lee stated: “<em>If Marco Civil is passed, without further delay or amendment, this would be the best possible birthday gift for Brazilian and global Web users.</em>”</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>Of course, the <em>Marco Civil</em> is not without its failings. Authors <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/32527">say</a> that the data retention requirements by connection and application providers, with leeway provided for law enforcement authorities to lengthen retention periods, is problematic. Moreover, the discussions surrounding data localization and a ‘walled-off’ Internet that protects against surveillance ignores the interoperability and openness that forms the core of the Internet.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>On the whole, though, the <em>Marco Civil</em> may be considered a victory, on many counts. It is possibly the first successful example of a national legislation that is the outcome of a broad, consultative process with civil society and other affected entities. It expressly affirms Brazil’s commitment to the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, as well as to Internet accessibility and the openness of the network. It aims to eliminate the possibility of private censorship online, while upholding privacy rights of users. It seeks to reduce the potential for abuse of personal data and communication by government authorities, by requiring judicial authorization for the same. In a world where warrantless government spying extends across national border, such a provision is novel and desirable. One hopes that, when the global Internet community sits down at its various fora to identify and enumerate principles for Internet governance, it will look to the <em>Marco Civil</em> as an example of standards that governments may adhere to, and not necessarily resort to the lowest common denominator standards of international rights and protections.</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionData ProtectionNet NeutralityInternet Governance2014-06-19T10:38:10ZBlog Entry