The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
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
<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 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 EntryAccess at the cost of Net neutrality?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality
<b>In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Suhrith Parthasarathy was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on October 8, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece">formalised a partnership</a> with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as “Internet.org,” has now been <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece">rebranded</a> as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos, though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, which includes, quite naturally, <a href="http://facebook.com" target="_blank">facebook.com</a>. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally available mobile data prohibitive.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Neutrality, an interpretive concept</b><br /> On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come together to launch a website “<a href="http://savetheinternet.in" target="_blank">savetheinternet.in</a>” with a view to defending Internet freedom — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the principle of network (or Net) neutrality.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term, views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any technical qualifications.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece">released a draft consultation paper </a>seeking the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation. Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece">supposedly pernicious impact </a>of applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative, the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them, whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or another, within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, contrary to helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be actively promoting an unequal Internet.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual <i>carte blanche</i> to discriminate between different applications. Though these companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece">Airtel announced Airtel Zero</a>, an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also highlights certain telling concerns.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least, some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal. This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous process.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained. It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by constraints imposed by the service provider.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Laudable end, unethical means</b><br /> This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions lie in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. According to them, negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is this: at what cost?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — and must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties could well be put to grave danger.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">(<i>Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court.</i>)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-10-09T01:18:31ZNews ItemMapping Web Censorship & Net Neutrality Violations
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations
<b></b>
<p> </p>
<p>For over a year, researchers at the Centre
for Internet and Society have been studying website blocking by internet
service providers (ISPs) in India. We have learned that major ISPs
don’t always block the same websites, and also use different blocking
techniques. <strong>To take this study further, and map net neutrality violations by ISPs, we need your help.</strong>
We have developed CensorWatch, a research tool to collect empirical
evidence about what websites are blocked by Indian ISPs, and which
blocking methods are being used to do so. Read more about this project (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/qxKoDnnG4cR8mPZaiOr8immlHKFilRoRSYOvX_26BcZRtiN_hoo5VrFfQHbDqaES1OV6jUM0RbWCZs1ODSHr_Pf9yeJFesRxxQvyUrZm4Tlcvdjmh232QQV3fOkmrj9wiVh5LQiW1LQAprvYWmHp_s-TW5ZdNXZY07QvlFR01dKzIxnv7TorEfkyazo" target="_blank">link</a>), <strong>download CensorWatch</strong> (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/F9Wsq5zbx6VJKZxrsjYFy3Q5-jSkk0-3nr5hBfuyQiDUEKyEm_fLY6kh4W9MB7GOLoPZbowqsXDT17DEmFgMoFY4IIOEjxq0rNCtFeEc7b-0GSnRPeLDi9VmYX5WE1vGlwMvM7BPtyfmXD6lNdIWzAdjq_MpSqWRACk3JJNPhzqieJXoEoOnY8WH1rxR4HnJwDjyJHSkHgMTmWcm0POB_kDOtt2fk_GnXkkjv5LK7MxRZe8f" target="_blank">link</a>), and help determine if ISPs are complying with India’s net neutrality regulations.</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.censorwatch.netprobesapp"><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/censorwatch/" alt="null" width="75%" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>Learn more about website blocking in India, through our recent work on the issue —</div>
<ol><li>Using information from court orders,
user reports, and government orders, and running network tests from six
ISPs, Kushagra Singh, Gurshabad Grover and Varun Bansal presented the <strong>largest study of web blocking</strong>
in India. Through their work, they demonstrated that major ISPs in
India use different techniques to block websites, and that they don’t
block the same websites (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/mgmW9wuVo0QjRGqm9DnDQiVT4lYy3lgY5maOgjAk05baH_NWtRSfznWooMtcTgQ2a059mWk91p_lMZqJAqaRHXZOLSEQQOAMeM5RowiyfY3giKQm3aDJoYnWw7VhAHeBjdkObBFF0PYWjoC1NJi21fSZyifOWm_CvlC3gq7nxbHtejEy" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Gurshabad Grover and Kushagra Singh
collaborated with Simone Basso of the Open Observatory of Network
Interference (OONI) to study <strong>HTTPS traffic blocking in India</strong> by running experiments on the networks of three popular Indian ISPs: ACT Fibernet, Bharti Airtel, and Reliance Jio (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/oP_eOysGeBOsgRW-5k8V-ReWU_DMUhykR2wN9ZAqndgHev3bxY1c8kSSviR3jjOMqzOJhP05AfK2CtHAH8-Zv21mU7uAW2ainkl5tmS-uZx3LG15MjZXbRQyE71871AouDuXY0hLTVEVG3ovaEvb8BSFOhJz7NpnTZdsY5vIOeBqSsaB31HJdMT8bNELQJ8VjhUoNw" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>For <em>The Leaflet</em>, Torsha Sarkar and Gurshabad Grover wrote about the <strong>legal framework of blocking in India</strong>
— Section 69A of the IT Act and its rules. They considered commentator
opinions questioning the constitutionality of the regime, whether
originators of content are entitled to a hearing, and whether Rule 16,
which mandates confidentiality of content takedown requests received by
intermediaries from the Government, continues to be operative (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/WggQUDysA9mWPEzvGTRc43aPpKNmNjDcdEzj1ALhrbXgQWqnZRY9L9J45XXbJ3yCnX9-XIuYyRTQ588cBiYNQIs2KsfB0Dydz2QY4Z5VdMTdJ-RMr2M5uDqJ8Amr5gT3APy01bg8gNTyoEvdIcKryjrWnUFlTdxFAtohQ_AwVRjTbzC5FcAFhO9DdHOQV0Xp9X65At3tR17epGvo" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>In the <em>Hindustan Times</em>, Gurshabad Grover critically analysed <strong>the confidentiality requirement embedded within Section 69A of the IT Act</strong> and argued how this leads to internet users in India experiencing arbitrary censorship (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/j75HVdd7j4huKQd0kP9lusNpz1ZL0CxXMEWeySOhsQZbcKECrEKfaq52LlB-QjnT1TIB1mjqhB0TyweA7rLCq41Rd_6uyBUo8-Uc4iHiHSXYxC06rhW7o7ZFtCt7bKdNldDWkoMhSD7x0daAhzcSdLSPbNBRSy1HkGEGZ7Z_11tovlleodez9gm60zyvkGNM1YMQSLZ4NZ0k8RD2zncGPoWXjsytI4YwnQyy_QZNSKOSdY2_X6GoVSugRZhmyWwWCpHpk-yDM7XJ0OF4GZlTUSgfhcfftJEGBlQlkQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Torsha Sarkar, along with Sarvjeet Singh of the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), spoke to <em>Medianama</em> delineating the <strong>procedural aspects of section 69A of the IT Act </strong>(<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/QAWrguo8Vx6X1PsmbTvCTYQ6U6nycGdSRg9gfDYFTRxUAa82nB6gYpuPyEE3VztSJzG2888ua224upBlg-k9Tu29TZdhl3ET71WwsKUfKxdyUPkLiY1A4jSD1p59sH0KXlQBqU10H38gDFHZ5WVsMCwZXLTISv9SvXIRx7Vu59U4HBV-hhB3BSpe_SApQnHQgPN0BIl0g852jSINvTI6Bh5HGNTWZ3nQWRn5H1vShoG4Q3VcZBWfewbc" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Arindrajit Basu spoke to the <em>Times of India</em> about the <strong>geopolitical and regulatory implications</strong> of the Indian government’s move to ban fifty-nine Chinese applications from India (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/lICwdbQnezwqQKZHQ_Xso6Qp7735jleiJJJI88DgKZx348ewlSRWU1uFyEbtMwZOoJRS5MjHbX9KgklFrlc-jKTXKL2S4K5aCXEU2isCuFhwORAz_DnnBai7nr2pyiK0HmM0Eb3AD_JyTUwWtg9O6c0jV0Nf8cbTuT3FD7WypVO_NWUJ_GZVo7er10LMUXE_1EP_d2nh2uziuXXmM1JV-9NN6klSATsLa_tprf0bDNbNa_U4DHMm6oQvXFfVHj74jRhq3nKDkCzQeQZ_SRMxNNqIUIN5aMLGbQfBAziZ_E3hIYp-ptOQ7Y2cqF_4eiYdY20tBm5ltySmFBQQi5_nFQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li></ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations</a>
</p>
No publisherpranavFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governanceinternet governanceCensorship2020-10-05T07:59:47ZBlog EntryCIS's Position on Net Neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality
<b>As researchers committed to the principle of pluralism we rarely produce institutional positions. This is also because we tend to update our positions based on research outputs. But the lack of clarity around our position on network neutrality has led some stakeholders to believe that we are advocating for forbearance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Please see below for the current articulation of our common institutional position.</b>
<p> </p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Net Neutrality violations can potentially have multiple categories of harms —<strong> competition harms, free speech harms, privacy harms, innovation and ‘generativity’ harms, harms to consumer choice and user freedoms, and diversity harms</strong> thanks to unjust discrimination and gatekeeping by Internet service providers.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Net Neutrality violations (including some those forms of zero-rating that violate net neutrality) can also have different kinds benefits — enabling the <strong>right to freedom of expression</strong>, and the <strong>freedom of association</strong>, especially when access to communication and publishing technologies is increased; <strong>increased competition</strong> [by enabling product differentiation, can potentially allow small ISPs compete against market incumbents]; <strong>increased access</strong> [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those without any access because they cannot afford it, increased access [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those who don't see any value in the Internet, <strong>reduced payments</strong> by those who already have access to the Internet especially if their usage is dominated by certain services and destinations.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Given the magnitude and variety of potential harms, <strong>complete forbearance from all regulation is not an option</strong> for regulators nor is self-regulation sufficient to address all the harms emerging from Net Neutrality violations, since incumbent telecom companies cannot be trusted to effectively self-regulate. Therefore, <strong>CIS calls for the immediate formulation of Net Neutrality regulation</strong> by the telecom regulator [TRAI] and the notification thereof by the government [Department of Telecom of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology]. CIS also calls for the eventual enactment of statutory law on Net Neutrality. All such policy must be developed in a transparent fashion after proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and after giving citizens an opportunity to comment on draft regulations.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Even though some of these harms may be large, CIS believes that a government cannot apply the precautionary principle in the case of Net Neutrality violations. <strong>Banning technical innovations and business model innovations is not an appropriate policy option. </strong>The regulation must toe a careful line <strong>to solve the optimization problem: </strong>refraining from over-regulation of ISPs and harming innovation at the carrier level (and benefits of net neutrality violations mentioned above) while preventing ISPs from harming innovation and user choice. ISPs must be regulated to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards consumers as well as to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards the services they carry on their networks.<br /><br /></li>
<li>Based on regulatory theory, we believe that a regulatory framework that is technologically neutral, that factors in differences in technological context, as well as market realities and existing regulation, and which is able to respond to new evidence is what is ideal.<br /><br />This means that we need a framework that has some bright-line rules based, but which allows for flexibility in determining the scope of exceptions and in the application of the rules. Candidate principles to be embodied in the regulation include: <strong>transparency, non-exclusivity, limiting unjust discrimination</strong>.<br /><br /></li>
<li>The <strong>harms emerging from walled gardens can be mitigated in a number of ways</strong>. <strong>On zero-rating the form of regulation must depend on the specific model and the potential harms that result from that model. </strong>Zero-rating can be: paid for by the end consumer or subsidized by ISPs or subsidized by content providers or subsidized by government or a combination of these; deal-based or criteria-based or government-imposed; ISP-imposed or offered by the ISP and chosen by consumers; Transparent and understood by consumers vs. non-transparent; based on content-type or agnostic to content-type; service-specific or service-class/protocol-specific or service-agnostic; available on one ISP or on all ISPs. Zero-rating by a small ISP with 2% penetration will not have the same harms as zero-rating by the largest incumbent ISP. For service-agnostic / content-type agnostic zero-rating, which Mozilla terms ‘<strong>equal rating</strong>’, CIS advocates for<strong> no regulation.</strong><br /><br /></li>
<li>CIS believes that <strong>Net Neutrality regulation for mobile and fixed-line access must be different</strong> recognizing the fundamental differences in technologies.<br /><br /></li>
<li><strong>On specialized services CIS believes that there should be logical separation</strong> and that all details of such specialized services and their impact on the Internet must be made transparent to consumers both individual and institutional, the general public and to the regulator. Further, such services should be available to the user only upon request, and not without their active choice, with the requirement that the service cannot be reasonably provided with ‘best efforts’ delivery guarantee that is available over the Internet, and hence requires discriminatory treatment, or that the discriminatory treatment does not unduly harm the provision of the rest of the Internet to other customers.<br /><br /></li>
<li>On incentives for telecom operators, CIS believes that the government should consider different models such as waiving contribution to the Universal Service Obligation Fund for prepaid consumers, and freeing up additional spectrum for telecom use without royalty using a shared spectrum paradigm, as well as freeing up more spectrum for use without a licence.<br /><br /></li>
<li>On reasonable network management CIS still does not have a common institutional position.<br /><br /></li></ol>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publishersunilFeaturedHomepageNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-12-09T13:06:06ZBlog EntryNet Neutrality Advocates Rejoice As TRAI Bans Differential Pricing
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing
<b>India would not see any more Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they benefited from this Facebook project.</b>
<p>The article by Subhashish Panigrahi was <a class="external-link" href="http://odishatv.in/opinion/net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing-125476/">published by Odisha TV </a>on February 9, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning differential pricing without discriminating services. In their notes TRAI has explained, “In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.” Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs. 50,000 every day.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook planned to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites – mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised aggressively on bill boards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics. TRAI criticized Facebook’s attempt to manipulate public opinion. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and internet advocates including non-profits like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign. The two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by moulding public opinion against it with Savetheinternet.in alone used to send over 2.4 million emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics. Furthermore, 500 Indian start-ups, including major names like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax, also wrote to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality – a concept that advocates equal treatment of websites – on Republic Day. Stand-up comedians like Abish Mathew and groups like All India Bakchod and East India Comedy created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality. Both went viral.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying; “Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision of the Indian government has been largely welcomed in the country and outside. In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation Renata Avila has said; “As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are mixed responses on the social media, both in support and in opposition to the TRAI decision. Josh Levy, Advocacy Director at Accessnow, has appreciated saying, “India is now the global leader on #NetNeutrality. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Had differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start-ups and content-based smaller companies adversely as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free. On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception, the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaSocial MediaFree BasicsNet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-23T02:10:42ZBlog Entry‘A Good Day for the Internet Everywhere': India Bans Differential Data Pricing
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere
<b>India distinguished itself as a global leader on network neutrality on February 8, when regulators officially banned “differential pricing”, a process through which telecommunications service providers could or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services offered based on content.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://globalvoices.org/2016/02/09/a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere-india-bans-differential-data-pricing/">Global Voices </a>on February 9, 2016</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In short, this means that Internet access in India will remain an open field, where users should be guaranteed equal access to any website they want to visit, regardless of how they connect to the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In their ruling, <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf"><span>Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) commented:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TRAIFreesInternet?src=hash"><span>#TRAIFreesInternet</span></a> | Key take aways from TRAI’s ruling on Net Neutrality <a href="https://t.co/xlFsLb3bZ6"><span>pic.twitter.com/xlFsLb3bZ6</span></a></p>
<p>— CNN-IBN News (@ibnlive) <a href="https://twitter.com/ibnlive/status/696746896556032000"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision of the Indian government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside. In support of the move, the World Wide Web Foundation's Renata Avila, also a Global Voices community member, <a href="http://webfoundation.org/2016/02/worlds-biggest-democracy-bans-zero-rating/?platform=hootsuite"><span>wrote:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">A blow for Facebook's “Free Basics”</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the new rules should long outlast this moment in India's Internet history, the ruling should immediately force Facebook to cancel the local deployment of “Free Basics”, a smart phone application that offers free access to Facebook, Facebook-owned products like WhatsApp, and a select suite of other websites for users who do not pay for mobile data plans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's efforts to deploy and promote Free Basics as what they described as a remedy to India's lack of “digital equality” has encountered significant backlash. Last December, technology critic and Quartz writer<a href="http://qz.com/582587/mark-zuckerberg-cant-believe-india-isnt-grateful-for-facebooks-free-internet/"><span> Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When TRAI solicited public comments on the matter of differential pricing, Facebook responded with an aggressive <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/17/save-free-basics/" target="_blank"><span>advertising campaign </span></a>on bill boards and in television commercials across the nation. It also embedded a campaign inside Facebook, asking users to write to TRAI in support of Free Basics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/facebooks-free-basics-campaign-slammed-by-indian-regulator-1539261" target="_blank"><span>criticized</span></a> Facebook for what it seemed to regard as manipulation of the public. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and open Internet advocates including non-profits like the <a href="http://www.fsmi.in/" target="_blank"><span>Free Software Movement of India</span></a> and the <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank"><span>Savetheinternet.in</span></a> campaign. The latter two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by bringing public opinion where Savetheinternet.in alone facilitated a campaign in which citizens sent over <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech%20news/Net-neutrality-Trai-gets-24-lakh-comments-on-differential-data-pricing-paper/articleshow/50493525.cms" target="_blank"><span>2.4 million emails</span></a> to TRAI urging the agency to put a stop to differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Alongside these efforts, <a href="http://blog.savetheinternet.in/startups-pm-letter/" target="_blank"><span>500 Indian startups</span></a> including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to India's prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality" target="_blank"><span>net neutrality</span></a>—on the Indian Republic Day January 26.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Stand-up comedians like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSxB1mD7SdE&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank"><span>Abish Mathew</span></a> and groups like <a href="https://youtu.be/AAQWsTFF0BM" target="_blank"><span>All India Bakchod</span></a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/UCwaKje44fQ" target="_blank"><span>East India Comedy</span></a> created humorous and informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Had differential pricing been officially legalized, it would have adversely affected startups and content-based smaller companies, who most likely could never manage to pay higher prices to partner with service providers to make their service available for free. This would have paved the way for tech-giants like Facebook to capture the entire market. And this would be no small gain for a company like Facebook: India represents the world's largest market of Internet users after the US and China, where Facebook remains blocked.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet responds</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There have been mixed responses on social media, both supporting and opposing. Among open Internet advocates both in India and the US, the response was celebratory:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p dir="ltr">This order shows the power of citizen involvement in policymaking. Policymakers are forced to listen if citizens engage. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a></p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/696720959974211586"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>I think this is not just a good day for the Internet in India. It's a good day for the Internet everywhere <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TRAI?src=hash"><span>#TRAI</span></a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/savetheinternet?src=hash"><span>#savetheinternet</span></a></p>
<p>— Anja Kovacs (@anjakovacs) <a href="https://twitter.com/anjakovacs/status/696657952946565121"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>India is now the global leader on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a>. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US. <a href="https://t.co/D6g68k2xaI"><span>https://t.co/D6g68k2xaI</span></a></p>
<p>— Josh Levy (@levjoy) <a href="https://twitter.com/levjoy/status/696716845290655744"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are also those like <a href="https://www.facebook.com/rajkiran.panuganti/posts/10153961592211457"><span>Panuganti Rajkiran</span></a> who opposed the ruling:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>A terrible decision.. The worst part here is the haves deciding for the have nots what they can have and what they cannot.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>When you buy a car, it's fulfilment of aspiration. After that, the next guy who buys a car is just traffic. Let's regulate. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a></p>
<p>— Ramesh Srivats (@rameshsrivats) <a href="https://twitter.com/rameshsrivats/status/696737409136926721"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.facebook.com/soumya.manikkath/posts/10153386837235920"><span>Soumya Manikkath</span></a> says:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>So all is not lost in the world, for the next two years at least. Do come back with a better plan, dear Facebook, and we'll rethink, of course.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling leaves an open pathway for companies to offer consumers free access to the Internet, provided that this access is truly open and does not limit one's ability to browse any site of her choosing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Bangalore-based Internet policy expert Pranesh Prakash noted that this work must continue until India is truly — and equally — connected:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The pro-<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a> campaign shouldn't rest until every poor family in India has full and free access to the Internet. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ZeroRating?src=hash"><span>#ZeroRating</span></a></p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/696732814083907584"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-02-25T01:21:27ZBlog EntryThe Perils and Prospects of Bringing the Next Billion Online
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/perils-and-prospects-of-bringing-next-billion-online
<b>Sunil Abraham is the executive director of the Centre for Internet & Society, Bangalore. In his PDF talk, he explains the fight for net neutrality in India and how many solutions fall under the category of walled garden.</b>
<h2>Video</h2>
<hr />
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/amJaGwAgD_A" width="560"></iframe></p>
<hr />
<p>For more see <a class="external-link" href="https://personaldemocracy.com/media/perils-and-prospects-bringing-next-b illion-online">Personal Democracy Media</a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/perils-and-prospects-of-bringing-next-billion-online'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/perils-and-prospects-of-bringing-next-billion-online</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-08-23T08:04:01ZNews ItemIndians 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 EntryFrom net neutrality to IBC & Aadhaar, how Vidhi is framing key government legislation
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-and-samanwaya-rautray-from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-and-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation
<b>It's not every day that a 30-something former Oxford academic disrupts the plans of the world's biggest disruptor. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Surabhi Agarwal and Samanwaya Rautray was published in <a class="external-link" href="https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation/printarticle/62357565.cms">Economic Times</a> on January 4, 2018.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">But </span><span style="text-align: justify; ">Arghya Sengupta is no pushover — his boyish charm perfectly couches confidence, clarity and commitment towards translating law for the layman. That alone helped Sengupta and his team from the Vidhi Centre of Legal Policy to take on none other than Facebook's Mark Zukerberg and his army of public policy wonks and spin doctors during the fiery net neutrality debate, helping the telecom regulator draft guidelines. Vidhi's intervention had a huge impact and led to Facebook's Free Basics programme being called off, changing the global narrative on net neutrality forever. That zeal continues.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">Walk into their office in a plush Defence Colony bungalow even at 7 pm and you will feel the fervour. The day ET did, two colleagues were discussing interference in appointments to tribunals.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>Judicial reforms is one of the many independent research projects Vidhi has been pursuing since it came into existence in December 2013. It has since carved out a significant role for itself in framing key government legislations — perhaps more than any legal think tank in India. In fact, several of Vidhi's independent research projects on public policy have led to commissioned assignments from the government as well as the judiciary.</span></span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>The Game Begins</span></span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vidhi's first government assignment had to do with the ministry of finance's Public Procurement Bill. Since then, it has assisted in framing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Aadhaar Act and amendments to the Companies Act. It has also helped in drafting differential pricing norms under net neutrality guidelines issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. It is currently working on the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) and Data Protection Bills, and is also involved in deliberations over simplifying GST.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>So how did this not-for-profit organisation manage such velocity? Sengupta, the 33-year-old founder of Vidhi, points to the void that exists between good legal research and framing of legislations in India. "A particular problem that exists within the governance framework is that good policy ideas don't often translate into good legislation because lawyers and policy makers don't talk to each other," he says to explain where Vidhi fits in. "There is nothing special about us...Policy and law is a new area and there are very few people doing high-quality work in it." Vidhi is mostly engaged directly by ministries or departments drafting a particular law, and not by the law ministry.</span></p>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So how did this not-for-profit organisation manage such velocity? Sengupta, the 33-year-old founder of Vidhi, points to the void that exists between good legal research and framing of legislations in India. "A particular problem that exists within the governance framework is that good policy ideas don't often translate into good legislation because lawyers and policy makers don't talk to each other," he says to explain where Vidhi fits in. "There is nothing special about us...Policy and law is a new area and there are very few people doing high-quality work in it." Vidhi is mostly engaged directly by ministries or departments drafting a particular law, and not by the law ministry.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta, former faculty at Pembroke College in the UK, where he taught administrative law, emphasises that Vidhi does not draft laws, only assists in their drafting. "To some, we provide inputs and research, while for others we sit together to draft the legislation."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Their primary goal is to draft better law — and they have no competition. The only other organisation coming even close is NIPFP, providing sectorial services for government committees. In that sense, NIPFP doesn't have lawyers so they may not draft the law, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). "Vidhi's efforts are pioneering and it's not surprising that they have become so successful. They are like that Mad Magazine tagline, number one in the field of one," he quips. "Other bodies such as Carnegie Mellon are vehicles for US MNCs to lobby but Vidhi doesn't have any foreign funding, so they are credible for the government," says Abraham, who was member of the Shah Committee when privacy principals were being drafted.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">An Outsider Perspective</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Drafting of legislations requires a whole lot of research. Ten years ago, there weren't any institutions that did that kind of work," says Sumit Bose, Vidhi's current chairman. This retired bureaucrat was instrumental in getting Vidhi its first project as then finance secretary.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He was introduced to Sengupta through his daughter and son-in-law, a graduate of National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru. Although things are better now, Bose says, many states still don't have enough capacity for the research behind laws. "You need one foot in the door, and then it's up to you," says Sengupta, son of a teacher and banker in Kolkata.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a system where the legislative department is typically engaged to draft laws, Vidhi has emerged as the "new interface" between policy and law-making, says its board member Arvind Datar, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court. "They have the unique ability to give an outsider's perspective to any area of law." Datar says Vidhi did extensive research for former Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi in debates on Aadhaar and the National Judicial Appointments Commission.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Other members on Vidhi's board include Star India chief executive Uday Shankar, strategic adviser Ireena Vittal and NLSIU associate professor Govindraj Hegde. A Union minister familiar with Vidhi's work offers an explanation as to why the government was roping it in. "It is about comfort as well as secrecy and they bring both," he says, asking not to be identified.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A top bureaucrat who has worked extensively with Vidhi says it is not a yes man, and this sets it apart. "Many times, they refuse to include our suggestions, telling us that it will not stand the scrutiny of court or it will not be proper from a legal standpoint," he explains, also requesting anonymity. "There is a lot of research that goes into drafting a legislation, be it pertaining to international best practices or previous judgements. Post a lot of internal discussions, these inputs are included."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another government official says his department has a running advisory contract with Vidhi. "They are very young people with fresh ideas. They may not fight cases, but they do a lot of good table research, bringing up new legal points." Sengupta says not many organisations are doing similar work. "A lot of the work of this nature is done by universities."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Resistance to Change</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Among the biggest reforms Vidhi has worked on are the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Aadhaar Act, with GST being an ongoing task. Vidhi helped translate Aadhaar from an executive order to a statutory body. As for the IBC, Sengupta's assessment is that it was a reform 50 years late and essential for entrepreneurship to grow.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But what remains " Vidhi's single-most rewarding experience" is shepherding the net neutrality guidelines. "I think this government is very keen on systemic reforms. They have the appetite to change status quo," says Sengupta. Even so, some legislations Vidhi has been involved with face stiff resistance from citizen-activists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta isn't perturbed. He distinctly outlines Vidhi's purpose and role in policymaking — advise the government to ensure that a law being drafted is constitutional, clear, takes into account international best practices and can be implemented effectively. "I believe all opposition is good because it makes everybody think. A lot of the opposition—be it to Aadhaar or to payment-related clauses in IBC —is to the concept," he says. "We didn't come up with the concept so we don't see it as a criticism of our work."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Early Opportunities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vidhi began as an idea when Sengupta was a graduate student at Oxford University. Along with a lawyer friend, he began sending unsolicited legal input to the parliamentary standing committee looking into the controversial Indo-US Nuclear Liability Bill. To the duo's surprise, it was called to depose before the committee; later, the Department of Atomic Energy sought help with some sections. "We drafted 17 sections and of those, two became law... It was a great opportunity for us," says Sengupta.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This was followed by solicited and unsolicited work during 2010-12 on eight projects, including the Judicial Standards and Accountability, Prevention of Torture and Public Procurement Bills.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The think tank currently has about 40 employees and opened a second office in Bengaluru in August.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta credits Vidhi's early success to Ashok Ganguly, former chairman of Hindustan Lever (now Unilever) who was also a member of Parliament. In 2011, Ganguly was putting together a representation on policy paralysis and wanted help with research. Ganguly, who would become Vidhi's first chairman, put Sengupta in touch with several people, some of whom provided grant funding to get the think tank going. That did raise some eyebrows.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Conflict of Interest</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As they spread their wings, the think tank received funding from the Mahindra Group, Pirojsha Godrej Foundat ion, Vikram Sarabhai Foundation, Jamsetji Tata Trusts, Gourab Banerji, Mohandas Pai and Rohini Nilekani. Verticals within Vidhi have separate funding. For instance, the unit working on the Judicial Reforms Bill is funded by a group called Dasra, which is a collective of philanthropists. And yet, Sengupta says "fund-raising is a constant challenge."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While government work does cover costs, it is not enough to sustain the organisation. Sengupta did not divulge how much Vidhi earns from a typical government project. Over half of the work that Vidhi does is independent research on topics ranging from clean air in Delhi to euthanasia and judicial reform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Vidhi's fundraising, though, brings up a serious issue of possible conflict of interest, given its work on key legislations such as the Aadhaar Act while being funded by entities that could be affected directly or indirectly by those legislations. For example, Rohini Nilekani, is the wife of Aadhaar architect Nandan Nilekani, who funds Vidhi which not only assisted in drafting the Aadhaar Act but is now also involved with the Data Protection Bill that has key implications on the unique identity number.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta has also been called to argue in the landmark debate on whether privacy is a fundamental right — ignited after the Supreme Court received scores of petitions against Aadhaar — on request of the government's top lawyers arguing against it. Sanjay Hegde, senior Supreme Court advocate, says, "I see credibility issues when Sengupta argues in favour of Aadhaar in court in the privacy debate and, at the same time, is nominated on the Dr Srikrishna Committee, which is drafting the Data Protection Bill."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He adds, "In a city replete with think tanks and law firms, it would be interesting to see what percentage of government advisory work in terms of billing is cornered by this think tank alone."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He adds, "In a city replete with think tanks and law firms, it would be interesting to see what percentage of government advisory work in terms of billing is cornered by this think tank alone."</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sengupta's defence is that Vidhi believes in transparency and doesn't accept foreign or retail funding. All funding-related information is detailed on its website, he argues. "People are free to make whatever judgement they wish to because conflict is one thing that cannot be eliminated," he says. "The moment you take funding from anybody, there will always be conflict. My answer to that is transparency."</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IVY League Talent</h3>
<p>What matters is that till date, such issues have not deterred the flow of best Ivy League talent into Vidhi. The founding team included Dhyani Mehta, who heads its environmental vertical; Devanshu Mukherjee, who leads its financial sector work and Alok Prasanna, who heads its Bengaluru office.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Prasanna, had earlier worked with solicitor general Mohan Parasaran's office in Delhi in high profile cases such as the government versus Vodafone and the government versus Reliance Industries. A few "fellows"— Sriboni Sen, Rukhmini Das (pursuing a PhD now) and Ketan Paul (now litigating) — though have moved on.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Yet others like Nikita Khaitan, who graduated from Yale University in the summer of 2016, have stepped in since June last year. Khaitan, who comes from the family of the Khaitan and Co law firm, heard about Vidhi from her cousins who went to the same law school as Sengupta. "Vidhi is one of the few staples where you can do quality work that is not litigation or corporate law," she says, on what clinched the decision for her to join Vidhi after Yale. "A lot of young people today want to return to India and do work which is high-impact." Now that's an argument no one can disagree with.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-and-samanwaya-rautray-from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-and-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-and-samanwaya-rautray-from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-and-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2018-01-04T14:45:59ZNews Item#NetNeutrality, Data Protection Laws among topics at ITechLaw Conference
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference
<b>The who’s-who of the technology law sector convened at the ITechLaw India International Conference held from January 27-29 in Bangalore.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The last three days saw panel discussions being held on a varied set of topics related to technology law. The debates were led by a number of Indian and international legal professionals from law firms, companies and policy houses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Day 2, some of the panel discussions included Commercialization of Data, Aggregator Model – Licensing and Regulatory Issues Faced by Shared Economy Models, Digital Underworld, and Legal Challenges faced in New Media and Entertainment, among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The speakers present at these sessions included lawyers like <span><a href="http://barandbench.com/former-mmb-legal-partner-talha-salaria-sets-own-firm-lawyers-work-says-time-right/">Talha Salaria</a></span>, Founder of Lawyers at Work; JSA Partner Sajai Singh; Trilegal Partner <span><a href="http://barandbench.com/lawyers-tend-to-be-the-last-to-adapt-to-technological-changes-trilegals-rahul-matthan/">Rahul Matthan</a></span>; MCM Law Partner Samuel Mani, apart from a host of In-House counsel from Intel, Amazon, IBM, Cognizant et al.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The highlight of Day 3 was a debate on Net Neutrality; Deepali Liberhan from Facebook, Pranesh Prakash from Centre for Internet and Society and <span><a href="http://wp.me/p6ZY6N-1so" target="_blank">Rohan George from Samvad Partners</a></span> were among the panelists.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more info, <a class="external-link" href="http://barandbench.com/itechlaw-net-neutrality/">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-30T09:21:20ZNews ItemNasscom wants board to protect Net neutrality, regulate pricing
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing
<b>The debate against differential pricing of data services at the cost of net neutrality doesn’t seem to be getting over yet. While internet activists have gone out on streets in Bengaluru and Hyderabad to protest in favour of net neutrality, industry experts believe that differential pricing, when regulated could be tailored for public interest.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Shadma Shaikh was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.asianage.com/technomics/nasscom-wants-board-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing-454">published in Asian Age</a> on January 7, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the current situation of low internet and broadband penetration along with lower levels of digital literacy and limited local language support in the country, IT industry body Nasscom said that protection of net neutrality is essential to fight these monumental challenges that require continuous innovation, both in technology solutions and business models.<br /><br />“We strongly oppose any model where TSPs or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed,” Nasscom President R. Chandrashekhar said in a statement.<br /><br />However, Nasscom also suggested a suitable oversight mechanism in the form of “an independent not-for-profit entity with an independent board to manage proposed differential pricing programs that are deemed to be in the public interest and are philanthropic in nature.”<br /><br />In view of regulator Trai’s proposal to question the fairness of zero-rating—a practice of not counting certain traffic towards a subscriber's regular Internet usage, Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society said, all forms of zero-rating result in some form of discrimination, but not all zero-rating is harmful, nor does all zero-rating need to be prohibited.<br /><br />Prakash says that Trai’s paper has been inappropriately reduced to a referendum, by both parties—supporters of differential pricing programme as well as internet activists fighting zero-rating. Content-agnostic zero-rating models are not harmful, he says, adding “some traffic, such as government or public interest sites could be made free.”<br /><br />Facebook’s Free Basics app that aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who cannot afford data packs, has run into trouble for being against net neutrality principle. Trai, while evaluating the zero-rating proposal has asked Reliance Communications, the official telecom partner for Free Basics to put the service on hold.<br /><br />After drawing flak from critics and citizens over its Free Basics program and its extensive advertisement in the media and on Facebook itself to influence the decision of Trai in favour of zero-rating program, Zuckerberg reached out to Indian readers through an opinion piece he published in an Indian daily newspaper.<br /><br />Facebook’s justification for Free Basics lies in comparing internet as a service similar to education and healthcare. Free schools, free libraries and public hospitals may not provide the best of services, but their existence is essential to cater to a large set of audience who cannot afford expensive healthcare or education. In the same way, says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, everyone deserves access to free basic internet service.<br /><br />Calling Facebook’s Free Basics programme as an illusion, Nikhil Pahwa, founder MediaNama and volunteer at savetheinternet.in said “Facebook’s Free Basics is not free internet.” The choice to determine what data or content to browse should be left to the internet users, he says.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-31T09:25:09ZNews ItemZuckerberg's Plan Spurned as India Backs Full Net Neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality
<b>Facebook Inc.’s plans for expansion in India have suffered a major setback.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Srivastava was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-08/facebook-faces-setback-as-india-bans-differential-data-pricing">Bloomberg</a> on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Telecom regulator bans differential Internet data plans</li>
<li>Facebook had lobbied India to approve its Free Basics plan</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After the company spent months lobbying the country to accept its Free Basics service -- a way of delivering a limited Internet that included Facebook, plus some other tools, for no cost -- India’s telecom regulator ruled against any plans from cellular operators that charge different rates to different parts of the Web.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Telecom operators can’t offer discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, and aren’t allowed to enter into agreements with Internet companies to subsidize access to some websites, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf" target="_blank" title="Link to website">said</a> in a statement Monday. Companies violating the rules will be fined, it said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“This is the most extensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing anywhere in the world,” Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said via phone. “Those who suggested regulation in place of complete ban have clearly lost.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With this decision, India joins countries such as the U.S., Brazil and the Netherlands in passing laws that restrict telecom operators from discriminating Internet traffic based on content. It is a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/india-facebook-s-fight-to-be-free" title="Facebook’s Fight to Be Free">big blow</a> to Facebook’s Internet sampler plan known as Free Basics, which is currently offered in about <a href="https://info.internet.org/en/story/where-weve-launched/" target="_blank" title="Link to Internet.org page">three dozen</a> countries including Kenya and Zambia, none of which come close to the scale or reach that could’ve been achieved in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With 130 million Facebook users, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t, India is the biggest growth market for the social network, which remains blocked in China.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook said in a statement that it’s “disappointed with the outcome.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said the decision won’t cause Facebook to give up on connecting people to the Internet in India, “because more than a billion people in India don’t have access to the Internet.” The company will continue to focus on its other initiatives, like extending networks using satellites, drones and lasers.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Freebies Curtailed</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The rule will put an end to prepaid plans that offered free access to services such as Google searches, the WhatsApp messaging application and Facebook. These packages were popular with low-income users by giving them an incentive to get online, said Rajan Mathews, director general of the lobby group Cellular Operators Association of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“These types of plans were being used by operators to meet the policy goals of connecting one billion people,” Matthews said. “With these gone, the government needs to tell us what alternatives are there.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulator’s decision comes after months of public <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-28/zuckerberg-makes-personal-appeal-in-india-for-free-net-service" title="Zuckerberg Makes Personal Appeal for Free Internet in India (1)">lobbying by Facebook</a> for India to approve Free Basics, which allows customers to access the social network and other services such as education, health care, and employment listings from their phones without a data plan.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Free Basics was criticized by activists who said it threatened net neutrality, the principle that all Internet websites should be equally accessible, and could change pricing in India for access to different websites.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The regulator, which had sought stakeholders’ views, said it was seeking to ensure data tariffs remain content agnostic. Operators will have six months to wind down existing differential pricing services.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Google Unaffected</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Anything on the Internet can’t be priced based on content, applications, source and destination,” R.S. Sharma, the regulator’s chairman, told reporters in New Delhi. Some Internet companies’ plans to offer free WiFi at public venues, like Google Inc.’s <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-16/data-too-dear-set-youtube-to-download-in-india-while-you-sleep" title="Data Too Dear? Set YouTube to Download in India While You Sleep">project</a> with Indian Railways, are not affected by this ruling, he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For Free Basics, one or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans. In India, Facebook had tied up with Reliance Communications Ltd., though the service was suspended in December as the government solicited comments from proponents and opponents.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook bought daily full-page <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/india-facebook-s-fight-to-be-free" title="Facebook’s Fight to Be Free">ads</a> in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-eds, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Entrepreneurs, business people and activists took to Twitter to share their views after the decision came out on Monday.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Great to see TRAI backing <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash" target="_blank" title="Click to view webpage.">#</a><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash" target="_blank" title="Click to view webpage.">NetNeutrality</a>,” Kunal Bahl, founder of Snapdeal.com, one of India’s biggest e-commerce sites, said. “Let’s keep the Internet free and independent.”</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
</ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsTRAINet NeutralityFacebookInternet Governance2016-02-15T02:18:54ZNews ItemFacebook’s Free Basics hits snag in India
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india
<b>Indian regulators have dealt a major blow to Facebook’s controversial Free Basics online access plan by forbidding so-called differential pricing by internet companies, in effect banning the programme in the country. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by James Crabtree with additional reporting by Tim Bradshaw was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/08fadf8e-ce5b-11e5-986a-62c79fcbcead.html#axzz40CQUxGze">Financial Times</a> on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ee3ec02-b840-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb.html#axzz3zZqe7eDy" title="‘Free Basics’ row presents India dilemma for Facebook - FT.com">Free Basics</a>, a plan to make access to parts of the internet free, has been at the centre of <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/537834e8-e3f2-11e4-9a82-00144feab7de.html" title="Facebook’s Internet.org effort hits India hurdle">a fierce row in the country</a> between the social network and local start-ups and advocates for net neutrality — the idea that all web traffic should be treated equally and technology companies should not be allowed to price certain kinds of content differently from others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Last December, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ordered Facebook to put its Free Basics programme on hold pending a review.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Monday, Trai published the results of its deliberations, introducing a complete ban on any form of differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling is the latest in a series of regulatory battles pitting net neutrality campaigners against telecom and internet companies, and is likely to be viewed as a test case for other emerging markets in which programmes similar to Facebook’s are yet to be challenged in the courts.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also marks the most significant setback yet for Free Basics, which <a href="http://www.ft.com/topics/organisations/Facebook_Inc" title="Facebook news headlines - FT.com">Facebook</a> founder Mark Zuckerberg launched in 2014 as the centrepiece of plans to help poorer people access the internet in emerging economies. It operates in more than 30 countries.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook had launched a high-profile public campaign to defend its programme, which offered stripped-down access to sites such as BBC News or Facebook’s own app to customers of Reliance Communications, the US company’s local telecoms partner.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But critics attacked the programme as an attempt to become a gatekeeper for tens of millions of internet users.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a post to his Facebook page on Monday, Mr <a href="https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10102641883915251" title="Mark Zuckerberg post - Facebook.com">Zuckerberg said</a> the company “won’t give up on” finding new ways to boost internet access in India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“While we’re disappointed with today’s decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet,” he wrote.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Trai’s ruling was welcomed by anti-Facebook campaigners, a group that included the founders of many Indian start-ups including online retailers such as Flipkart, Paytm and restaurant search service Zomato, which had declined to offer their services as part of the Free Basics platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Analysts also hailed the Indian regulator’s ruling as a landmark. “This is the most broad and the most stringent set of regulations on differential pricing which exists anywhere in the world,” said Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, a think-tank.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1a6cc092-4faf-11e4-a0a4-00144feab7de.htmlaxzz3zXMPWWz9" title="Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg plays the long game in India">India</a> has become an increasingly important focus for the company’s global business, with the country becoming its second-largest market by users last year.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaFree BasicsNet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-15T02:33:26ZNews ItemInternet Freedom
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-february-14-2016-sunil-abraham-vidushi-marda-internet-freedom
<b>The modern medium of the web is an open-sourced, democratic world in which equality is an ideal, which is why what is most important is Internet freedom. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.asianage.com/editorial/internet-freedom-555">Asian Age</a> on February 14, 2016.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What would have gone wrong if India’s telecom regulator Trai had decided to support programmes like Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel’s Zero Rating instead of issuing the regulation that prohibits discriminatory tariffs? Here are possible scenarios to look at in case the discriminatory tarrifs were allowed as they are in some countries.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Possible impact on elections</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook would have continued to amass its product — eyeballs. Indian eyeballs would be more valuable than others for three reasons 1. Facebook would have an additional layer of surveillance thanks to the Free Basics proxy server which stores the time, the site url and data transferred for all the other destinations featured in the walled garden 2. As part of Digital India, most government entities will set up Facebook pages and a majority of the interaction with citizens would happen on the social media rather than the websites of government entities and, consequently, Facebook would know what is and what is not working in governance 3. Given the financial disincentive to leave the walled garden, the surveillance would be total.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What would this mean for democracies? Eight years ago, Facebook began to engineer the News Feed to show more posts of a user’s friends voting in order to influence voting behavior. It introduced the “I’m Voting” button into 61 million users’ feeds during the 2010 US presidential elections to increase voter turnout and found that this kind of social pressure caused people to vote. Facebook has also admitted to populating feeds with posts from friends with similar political views. During the 2012 Presidential elections, Facebook was able to increase voter turnout by altering 1.9 million news feeds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian eyeballs may not be that lucrative in terms of advertising. But these users are extremely valuable to political parties and others interested in influencing elections. Facebook’s notifications to users when their friends signed on to the “Support Free Basics” campaign was configured so that you were informed more often than with other campaigns. In other words, Facebook is not just another player on their platform. Given that margins are often slim, would Facebook be tempted to try and install a government of its choice in India during the 2019 general elections?</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">In times of disasters</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most people defending Free Basics and defending forbearance as the regulatory response in 2015/16 make the argument that “95 per cent of Internet users in developing countries spend 95 per cent of their time on Facebook”.<br /><br />This is not too far from the truth as LirneAsia demonstrated in 2012 with most people using Facebook in Indonesia not even knowing they were using the internet. In other words, they argue that regulators should ignore the fringe user and fringe usage and only focus on the mainstream. The cognitive bias they are appealing to is smaller numbers are less important.<br /><br />Since all the sublime analogies in the Net Neutrality debate have been taken, forgive us for using the scatological. That is the same as arguing that since we spend only 5% of our day in toilets, only 5% of our home’s real estate should be devoted to them.<br /><br />Everyone agrees that it is far easier to live in a house without a bedroom than a house without a toilet. Even extremely low probabilities or ‘Black Swan’ events can be terribly important! Imagine you are an Indian at the bottom of the pyramid. You cannot afford to pay for data on your phone and, as a result, you rarely and nervously stray out of the walled garden of Free Basics.<br /><br />During a natural disaster you are able to use the Facebook Safety Check feature to mark yourself safe but the volunteers who are organising both offline and online rescue efforts are using a wider variety of platforms, tools and technologies.<br /><br />Since you are unfamiliar with the rest of the Internet, you are ill equipped when you try to organise a rescue for you and your loved ones.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Content and carriage converge</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some people argue that TRAI should have stayed off the issue since the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is sufficient to tackle Net Neutrality harms. However it is unclear if predatory pricing by Reliance, which has only 9% market share, will cross the competition law threshold for market dominance? Interestingly, just before the Trai notification, the Ambani brothers signed a spectrum sharing pact and they have been sharing optic fibre since 2013.<br /><br />Will a content sharing pact follow these carriage pacts? As media diversity researcher, Alam Srinivas, notes “If their plans succeed, their media empires will span across genres such as print, broadcasting, radio and digital. They will own the distribution chains such as cable, direct-to-home (DTH), optic fibre (terrestrial and undersea), telecom towers and multiplexes.”<br /><br />What does this convergence vision of the Ambani brothers mean for media diversity in India? In the absence of net neutrality regulation could they use their dominance in broadcast media to reduce choice on the Internet? Could they use a non-neutral provisioning of the Internet to increase their dominance in broadcast media? When a single wire or the very same radio spectrum delivers radio, TV, games and Internet to your home — what under competition law will be considered a substitutable product? What would be the relevant market? At the Centre for Internet and Society (CI S), we argue that competition law principles with lower threshold should be applied to networked infrastructure through infrastructure specific non-discrimination regulations like the one that Trai just notified to protect digital media diversity.<br /><br />Was an absolute prohibition the best response for TRAI? With only two possible exemptions — i.e. closed communication network and emergencies - the regulation is very clear and brief. However, as our colleague Pranesh Prakash has said, TRAI has over regulated and used a sledgehammer where a scalpel would have sufficed. In CIS’ official submission, we had recommended a series of tests in order to determine whether a particular type of zero rating should be allowed or forbidden. That test may be legally sophisticated; but as TRAI argues it is clear and simple rules that result in regulatory equity. A possible alternative to a complicated multi-part legal test is the leaky walled garden proposal. Remember, it is only in the case of very dangerous technologies where the harms are large scale and irreversible and an absolute prohibition based on the precautionary principle is merited.<br /><br />However, as far as network neutrality harms go, it may be sufficient to insist that for every MB that is consumed within Free Basics, Reliance be mandated to provide a data top up of 3MB.<br /><br />This would have three advantages. One, it would be easy to articulate in a brief regulation and therefore reduce the possibility of litigation. Two, it is easy for the consumer who is harmed to monitor the mitigation measure and last, based on empirical data, the regulator could increase or decrease the proportion of the mitigation measure.<br /><br />This is an example of what Prof Christopher T. Marsden calls positive, forward-looking network neutrality regulation. Positive in the sense that instead of prohibitions and punitive measures, the emphasis is on obligations and forward-looking in the sense that no new technology and business model should be prohibited.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">What is Net neutrality?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to this principle, all service providers and governments should not discriminate between various data on the internet and consider all as one. They cannot give preference to one set of apps/ websites while restricting others.</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>2006</b>: TRAI invites opinions regarding the regulation of net neutrality from various telecom industry bodies and stakeholders<b>Feb. 2012</b>: Sunil Bharti Mittal, CEO of Bharti Airtel, suggests services like YouTube should pay an interconnect charge to network operators, saying that if telecom operators are building highways for data then there should be a tax on the highway</li>
<li><b>July 2012</b>: Bharti Airtel’s Jagbir Singh suggests large Internet companies like Facebook and Google should share revenues with telecom companies.</li>
<li><b>August 2012</b>: Data from M-Lab said You Broadband, Airtel, BSNL were throttling traffic of P2P services like BitTorrent</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2013</b>: Killi Kiruparani, Minister for state for communications and technology says government will look into legality of VoIP services like Skype</li>
<li><b>June 2013</b>: Airtel starts offering select Google services to cellular broadband users for free, fixing a ceiling of 1GB on the data</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2014</b>: Airtel operations CEO Gopal Vittal says companies offering free messaging apps like Skype and WhatsApp should be regulated</li>
<li><b>August 2014</b>: TRAI rejects proposal from telecom companies to make messaging application firms share part of their revenue with the carriers/government</li>
<li><b>Nov. 2014</b>: Trai begins investigation on Airtel implementing preferential access with special packs for WhatsApp and Facebook at rates lower than standard data rates</li>
<li><b>Dec. 2014</b>: Airtel launches 2G, 3G data packs with VoIP data excluded in the pack, later launches VoIP pack.</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2015</b>: Facebook launches Internet.org with Reliance communications, aiming to provide free access to 38 websites through single app</li>
<li><b>March 2015</b>: Trai publishes consultation paper on regulatory framework for over the top services, explaining what net neutrality in India will mean and its impact, invited public feedback</li>
<li><b>April 2015</b>: Airtel launches Airtel Zero, a scheme where apps sign up with airtle to get their content displayed free across the network. Flipkart, which was in talks for the scheme, had to pull out after users started giving it poor rating after hearing about the news</li>
<li><b>April 2015</b>: Ravi Shankar Prasad, Communication and information technology minister announces formation of a committee to study net neutrality issues in the country</li>
<li><b>23 April 2015</b>: Many organisations under Free Software Movement of India protested in various parts of the country. In a counter measure, Cellular Operators Association of India launches campaign , saying its aim is to connect the unconnected citizens, demanding VoIP apps be treated as cellular operators</li>
<li><b>27 April 2015</b>: Trai releases names and email addresses of users who responded to the consultation paper in millions. Anonymous India group, take down Trai’s website in retaliation, which the government could not confirm</li>
<li><b>Sept. 2015</b>: Facebook rebrands Internet.org as Free Basics, launches in the country with massive ads across major newspapers in the country. Faces huge backlash from public</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2016:</b> Trai rules in favour of net neutrality, barring telecom operators from charging different rates for data services.</li>
</ul>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The writers work at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-february-14-2016-sunil-abraham-vidushi-marda-internet-freedom'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-february-14-2016-sunil-abraham-vidushi-marda-internet-freedom</a>
</p>
No publisherSunil Abraham and Vidushi MardaSocial MediaFree BasicsTRAINet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-15T02:51:10ZBlog Entry