The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 25.
Surveillance in India: Policy and Practice
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice
<b>The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy organized a brainstorming session on net neutrality on February 8, 2017 and a public seminar on surveillance in India the following day on February 9, 2017 in New Delhi. Pranesh Prakash gave a talk. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh presented a narrative of the current state of surveillance law, our knowledge of current surveillance practices (including noting where programmes like Natgrid, CMS, etc. fit in), and charted a rough map of reforms needed and outstanding policy research questions.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash is a Policy Director at - and was part of the founding team of - the Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit organisation that engages in research and policy advocacy. He is also the Legal Lead at Creative Commons India and an Affiliated Fellow at the Yale Law School's Information Society Project, and has been on the Executive Committee of the NCUC at ICANN. In 2014, he was selected by Forbes India for its inaugural "30 under 30" list of young achievers, and in 2012 he was recognized as an Internet Freedom Fellow by the U.S. government.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">His research interests converge at the intersections of technology, culture, economics, law, and justice. His current work focuses on interrogating, promoting, and engaging with policymakers on the areas of access to knowledge (primarily copyright reform), 'openness' (including open government data, open standards, free/libre/open source software, and open access), freedom of expression, privacy, digital security, and Internet governance. He is a prominent voice on these issues, with the newspaper Mint calling him “one of the clearest thinkers in this area”, and his research having been quoted in the Indian parliament. He regularly speaks at national and international conferences on these topics. He has a degree in arts and law from the National Law School in Bangalore, and while there he helped found the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, and was part of its editorial board for two years.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/workshop-on-net-neutrality">Click here</a> to see the agenda for the brainstorming session on net neutrality.</p>
<hr />
<h3>Video <br /> <iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6KfyQ7y6TNE" width="560"></iframe></h3>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaVideoNet NeutralityInternet GovernanceSurveillance2017-03-15T01:05:07ZNews ItemResponses to Trai’s consultation paper on free data contain some good suggestions
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions
<b>Trai has announced that it will come up with a final consultation paper on ‘Free Data’, and also a pre-consultation paper on Net Neutrality by the end of this month.</b>
<p>The blog post by Asheeta Regidi was <a class="external-link" href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/responses-to-trais-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions-329846.html">published by FirstPost's Tech 2</a> on August 15, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/ConDis/20773_0.aspx" rel="nofollow"><b>pre-consultation paper on Free Data</b></a> (the Consultation Paper), which was issued in May 2016, asked for options where free data could be provided for accessing certain websites or apps without violating the <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Discriminatory Tariff Regulations</b></a> issued earlier in February. The objective of the paper is to maximise internet penetration, and make internet available even to the poorest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The models suggested in the Consultation Paper are a reward of free data for certain internet uses, zero data charges for accessing certain content, and refunding data charges in a manner similar to refund of LPG subsidies. These models are very similar to plans like <a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/how-trai-regulations-will-impact-existing-services-such-as-free-basics-airtel-zero-298486.html"><b>Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero, which were banned</b></a> by the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While it is clear that Trai has no intention of withdrawing the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, the Consultation Paper does appear to open up the doors to net neutrality violations again. Here’s a look at the comments and counter-comments that have come in response to this paper.</p>
<p><a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/free_basics_motorist2.jpg"><img alt="A motorist rides past a hoarding advertising Facebook's Free Basics. Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-329868 size-full" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/free_basics_motorist2.jpg" width="640" /></a></p>
<div class="prodtxtinf">A motorist rides past a hoarding advertising Facebook’s Free Basics. Image: Reuters</div>
<div class="prodtxtinf"></div>
<div class="prodtxtinf">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Large TSPs and TSP associations want content-based free data schemes</b><br /> The <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/List_SP.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>response of large TSPs</b></a> like Vodafone, Idea and so on are quite predictable. They, alongwith most of the TSP associations such as ACTO, COAI and AUSPI, are in support of the idea of free access to certain sites. They, in fact, point out the similarities between the proposed models and the similar models brought out by them, such as Airtel’s One Touch Internet and Reliance’s Facebook Tap. They have also asked for a withdrawal of the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, on the grounds that they hamper the innovation and forbearance capabilities of the TSPs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">They do, however, take issue with the fact that a TSP agnostic platform, or a platform which is completely independent of the TSPs, is to be given the power to decide how the lower prices or discounts are to be provided. They allege that there is nothing to prevent such a platform from acting as a gatekeeper in itself. They argue that TSPs are in a better position to perform this function, since they are subject to strict regulatory and licensing requirements from Trai.</p>
<a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bengaluru_outsourcing.jpg"><img alt="Employees at an outsourcing centre in Bengaluru Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-329870 size-full" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bengaluru_outsourcing.jpg" width="640" /></a>
<div class="prodtxtinf">Employees at an outsourcing centre in Bengaluru Image: Reuters</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Smaller TSPs and other companies fear net neutrality violations</b><br /> Smaller TSPs like Atria, Citicom and MTS are against content based free data proposal, mostly on the grounds that the models suggested violate net neutrality. They point out that allowing content based free data in any form will give an unfair advantage to large TSPs and content providers. Smaller companies and start-ups will be left in the lurch since they will not have the financial capabilities to effectively compete with such schemes. These entities also share the fear of the TSPs that there is nothing to stop a TSP agnostic platform from also acting as a gatekeeper.</p>
<a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Mumbai_telecom.jpg"><img alt="Commuters with their smartphones in a Mumbai local. Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-321780" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Mumbai_telecom.jpg" width="640" /></a>
<div class="prodtxtinf">Commuters with their smartphones in a Mumbai local. Image: Reuters</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Some alternative suggestions for free data schemes which do not violate net neutrality</b><br /> The approach suggested by Trai will, to a large extent, only benefit existing users of the internet, since a basic internet access of some sort is required before the users can enjoy the benefits of a rewards or a refund. Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), in its comments, points to research that found that only 12 percent of the users of zero rating services abroad (no data charges for certain websites), started using it because of the zero rating. Clearly, these schemes are not achieving the objective of increasing internet usage, and an alternative solution is required.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Many of the responses came up with alternative suggestions for free data schemes which can increase internet usage without violating net neutrality. Some of these suggestions are listed below:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>The <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Digital_Empowerment_Foundation.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Digital Empowerment Foundation</b></a> suggests the provision of free data quotas or packs, which would give a limited amount of data free of charge to all consumers. Any data usage above the basic pack will be charged at normal rates. It also suggests making such packs mandatory as a part of the TSP licensing terms or alternatively subsidising the cost of these packs through other benefits to the TSPs.</li>
<li><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/TSP/Sistema_Shyam_Teleservices_Ltd.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>MTS</b></a> suggests that content providers be allowed free internet access for a limited time or quantity, such as 30 minutes per day, or 100MB per day, to certain groups, like low income groups.</li>
<li><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Mozilla.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Mozilla</b></a> and <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Software_Freedom_Law_Center.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>SFLC</b></a> suggest the ‘equal rating’ system, where a small amount of data per day is made available free of charge to all internet users, over and above whatever other packs they may have purchased.</li>
<li>The <a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/Companies_n_Organizations/Center_For_Internet_and_Society.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Centre for Internet and Society</b></a> suggests that the government allow TSPs to provide free internet to all, at a lower speed, and in return exempt the TSPs from the USO contributions in their license fees. This will ensure free data to all without differentiating based on content.</li>
<li>SFLC also suggests an increase in free public Wi-Fi hotspots, like the kind being made available in Indian railway stations, to increase internet accessibility without content-based discrimination.</li>
<li><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/TSP/MTNL.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>MTNL</b></a> suggests that if content-based free data is to be allowed, the government should determine what constitutes the basic services to be allowed for free, such as railway booking services, and not leave this to the understanding of the TSPs.</li>
<li>MTS also suggests that content providers be allowed to give data-based rewards for certain activity, such as watching associated advertisements.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://trai.gov.in/Comments_FreeData/TSP/Atria_Convergence.pdf" rel="nofollow"><b>Atria</b></a> suggests that if free data is to be allowed, first establish a negative list of what cannot be done, such as no throttling of speeds.</li>
</ul>
<a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/anonymous_internet_censorship_protest.jpg"><img alt="Anonymous protests against Internet laws in Mumbai. Image: Reuters" class="wp-image-329869 size-full" height="360" src="http://tech.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/anonymous_internet_censorship_protest.jpg" width="640" /></a>
<div class="prodtxtinf" style="text-align: justify; ">Anonymous protests against Internet laws in Mumbai. Image: Reuters</div>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>First establish ground rules of net neturality</b><br /> One common aspect of most of the comments to the Consultation Paper was the confusion regarding Trai’s stance on net neutrality. Many entities, including the large TSPs, pointed out the contradiction between this Consultation Paper and the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This paper gives the impression that the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations were issued not to prevent content based discrimination, but to prevent telecom service providers from becoming ‘gatekeepers’. In reality, that is not the main fear of the people, but the fear that net neutrality will be affected. The culprits might be anyone, whether it is the TSP, the content provider or the TSP agnostic platform suggested by Trai. It needs to modify its approach, and first lay down the fundamental rules on net neutrality. Any other regulations must first comply with these rules.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the motives of Trai are laudible, it is hoped that Trai will look into the several suggestions made that will achieve the dual targets of maximum internet penetration as well as securing net neutrality.</p>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaTRAINet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-08-17T03:05:57ZNews ItemReply to RTI filed with BSNL regarding Network Neutrality and Throttling
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-filed-with-bsnl-regarding-network-neutrality-and-throttling
<b>As part of its work on Network Neutrality, the Centre for Internet and Society through Tarun Krishnakumar had filed a Right To Information (RTI) application with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL), a state-owned teleco holding a market share of 65 per cent in the Indian land line and broadband markets — regarding its position on and adherence to Network Neutrality principles.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The application — targeted at easing the information asymmetry between internet service providers (ISPs) and consumers — elicited responses that provide interesting insights into the functioning of ISPs in India.</p>
<p>The application queried BSNL about its:</p>
<ul>
<li>Adherence to net neutrality / non-discrimination principles</li>
<li>Throttling on the basis of content</li>
<li>Throttling on the basis of protocol</li>
<li>Limiting traffic / speeds for pornographic websites</li>
<li>Limiting traffic / speeds for P2P / torrent connection</li>
</ul>
<ul>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In its reply, BSNL denied all forms of throttling on the basis of content and reaffirmed that it is bound by the terms of its ISP license granted by the Department of Telecommunications. The application and response are below:</p>
<p> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: center; "><a name="application"></a><b><span>Application</span>:</b></h3>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center; "><b><span>Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005</span></b></p>
<p>To,</p>
<p>Sh. Suresh Kumar<br />Addl.GM (MIS) & CPIO ,BSNL Co.<br />R. No. -29, IR Hall<br />Eastern Court, Janpath<br />New Delhi – 110001</p>
<p><b>Date of application</b>: 08-10-2014</p>
<p align="center" style="text-align: center; "><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>Subject: Network Neutrality / Throttling / Data discrimination policies of BSNL</b></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Please provide information as to the policies of BSNL / decisions taken in respect of the following questions. Please supply where possible a copy of the relevant documents, minutes of meeting, position papers etc.</p>
<ol>
<li>Does BSNL support the principle of net neutrality and non-discrimination of data?</li>
<li>Does BSNL regulate internet traffic flows depending on the type of content being accessed by the user on its broadband connections?</li>
<li>Does BSNL regulate internet traffic flows depending on the type of protocol being used by the user on its broadband connections?</li>
<li>Please provide details of the various types of content/protocols for which BSNL regulates traffic and the nature of such regulations, restrictions as the case may be.</li>
<li>Please provide a list of traffic for which BSNL engages in limiting internet speed or throttling.</li>
<li>Does BSNL limit internet traffic or upload/download speeds for pornographic websites and content?</li>
<li>Does BSNL limit internet traffic or upload/download speeds for Peer-to-peer or torrent connections?</li>
</ol>
<p>Please provide copies of all documents that pertain to BSNL’s policies and decisions in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is certified that I am a citizen of India and that I do not fall within the BPL category. I am enclosing Rupees thirty (Rs. 30) towards the application fee and photocopying costs under the RTI Act for the information and documents requested. Kindly inform me at the address stated below if any further fees are required to be paid.</p>
<p><b>Applicant</b>:</p>
<p>Tarun Krishnakumar<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br />No.194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage,<br />Bangalore - 560071</p>
<p> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: center; "><span>RESPONSE FROM BSNL:</span></h3>
<div style="text-align: center; "><span><br /></span></div>
<p>To,</p>
<p>Sh. Tarun Krishnakumar<br />Centre for Internet and Society<br />No. 194, 2<sup>nd</sup> C Cross Road, Domulur II stage,<br />Bengaluru – 560071</p>
<p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Subject: Supply of Information under RTI ACT – 2005</span></p>
<p>Case of Shri. Tarun Krishnakumar – reg.</p>
<p>Ref: - 1. No. BSNL/BBNW/RTI Act/Vol II/2012-13/52 dtd 28.10.2014</p>
<p>2. No. 23-744/14-RTI dtd 21.10.2014</p>
<p>With reference to the above subject, for the point wise information furnished as below:</p>
<ol>
<li>BSNL is following the guidelines as per the ISP License Agreement of DOT.</li>
<li>NO, BSNL is NOT regulating the Internet traffic flow based on content.</li>
<li>NO, BSNL is not regulating the Internet traffic flow based on the type of protocol.</li>
<li>Not Applicable</li>
<li>Not Applicable</li>
<li>NO</li>
<li>NO</li>
<li>The documents relating to above are available on DOT’s website http://dot.gov.in</li>
</ol>
<p>(Sd/-)</p>
<p>DE Admin and APIO<br />O/o General Manager<br />BBNW, BSNL,<br />5<sup>th</sup> floor, BG (E), TE Building,<br />Lazar Road, Fraser Town,<br />Bengaluru – 560005<br />Tel No. 080 - 25808878</p>
<p>Copy to:</p>
<ol>
<li>The Addl. GM (A) & CPIP O/o CGM, BBNW, New Delhi for information pl.</li>
</ol>
<p>The scanned version of the reply is available <a class="external-link" href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/250739602/BSNL-Reply-on-Net-Neutrality">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-filed-with-bsnl-regarding-network-neutrality-and-throttling'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/reply-to-rti-filed-with-bsnl-regarding-network-neutrality-and-throttling</a>
</p>
No publishertarunInternet AccessNet NeutralityInternet GovernanceInformation Technology2014-12-22T14:45:03ZBlog EntryRegulatory Perspectives on Net Neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulatory-perspectives-on-net-neutrality
<b>In this paper Pranesh Prakash gives an overview on why India needs to put in place net neutrality regulations, and the form that those regulations must take to avoid being over-regulation.</b>
<p>With assistance by Vidushi Marda (Programme Officer, Centre for Internet and Society) and Tarun Krishnakumar (Research Volunteer, Centre for Internet and Society). <i>I would like to specially thank Vishal Misra, Steve Song, Rudolf van der Berg, Helani Galpaya, A.B. Beliappa, Amba Kak, and Sunil Abraham for extended discussions, helpful suggestions and criticisms. However, this paper is not representative of their views, which are varied.</i></p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today, we no longer live in a world of "roti, kapda, makaan", but in the world of "roti, kapda, makaan aur broadband". <a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> This is recognized by the National Telecom Policy IV.1.2, which states the need to "recognise telecom, including broadband connectivity as a basic necessity like education and health and work towards 'Right to Broadband'."<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> According to the IAMAI, as of October 2014, India had 278 million internet users. <a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> Of these, the majority access Internet through their mobile phones, and the WEF estimates only 3 in 100 have broadband on their mobiles.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> Thus, the bulk of our population is without broadband. Telecom regulation and net neutrality has a very important role in enabling this vision of Internet as a basic human need that we should aim to fulfil.</p>
<h1><a name="h.49zh04wwxm9l"></a> <b>1. Why should we regulate the telecom sector? </b></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All ICT regulation should be aimed at achieving five goals: achieving universal, affordable access; <a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a> ensuring and sustaining effective competition in an efficient market and avoiding market failures; protecting against consumer harms; ensuring maximum utility of the network by ensuring interconnection; and addressing state needs (taxation, security, etc.). Generally, all these goals go hand in hand, however some tensions may arise. For instance, universal access may not be provided by the market because the costs of doing so in certain rural or remote areas may outweigh the immediate monetary benefits private corporations could receive in terms of profits from those customers. In such cases, to further the goal of universal access, schemes such as universal service obligation funds are put in place, while ensuring that such schemes either do not impact competition or very minimally impact it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is clear that to maximise societal benefit, effective regulation of the ICT sector is a requirement, which otherwise, due to the ability of dominant players to abuse network effect to their advantage, is inherently prone towards monopolies. For instance, in the absence of regulation, a dominant player would charge far less for intra-network calls than inter-network calls, making customers shift to the dominant network. This kind of harm to competition should be regulated by the ICT regulator. However, it is equally true that over-regulation is as undesirable as under-regulation, since over-regulation harms innovation - whether in the form of innovative technologies or innovative business models. The huge spurt of growth globally of the telecom sector since the 1980s has resulted not merely from advancements in technology, but in large part from the de-monopolisation and deregulation of the telecom sector.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a> Similarly, the Internet has largely flourished under very limited technology-specific regulation. For instance, while interconnection between different telecom networks is heavily regulated in the domestic telecom sector, interconnection between the different autonomous systems (ASes) that make up the Internet is completely unregulated, thereby allowing for non-transparent pricing and opaque transactions. Given this context, we must ensure we do not over-regulate, lest we kill innovation.</p>
<h1 style="text-align: justify; "><a name="h.psqblglrgt68"></a> <b>2. Why should we regulate Net Neutrality? And whom should we regulate?</b></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We wouldn't need to regulate Net Neutrality if ISPs were not "<b>gatekeepers</b>" for last-mile access. "Gatekeeping" occurs when a single company establishes itself as an exclusive route to reach a large number of people and businesses or, in network terms, nodes. It is not possible for Internet services to reach the customers of the telecom network without passing through the telecom network. The situation is very different in the middle-mile and for backhaul. Even though anti-competitive terms may exist in the middle-mile, especially given the opacity of terms in "transit agreements", a packet is usually able to travel through multiple routes if one route is too expensive (even if that is not the shortest network path, and is thus inefficient in a way). However, this multiplicity of routes is not possible in the last mile.</p>
<p>This leaves last mile telecom operators (ISPs) in a position to unfairly discriminate between different Internet services or destinations or applications, while harming consumer choice. This is why we believe that promoting the five goals mentioned above would require regulation of last-mile telecom operators to prevent unjust discrimination against end-users and content providers.</p>
<p>Thus, <b> net neutrality is the principle that we should regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic. </b></p>
<h1><a name="h.79auvw7dxb9s"></a> <b>3. How should we regulate Net Neutrality?</b></h1>
<h2><a name="h.288fq19cym4p"></a> 3.1. What concerns does Net Neutrality raise? What harms does it entail?</h2>
<p>Discriminatory practices at the level of access to the Internet raises the following set of concerns:</p>
<p>1. Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of association, freedom of assembly, and privacy.</p>
<p>2. Harm to effective competition</p>
<p>a. This includes competition amongst ISPs as well as competition amongst content providers.</p>
<p>b. Under-regulation here may cause harm to innovation at the content provider level, including through erecting barriers to entry.</p>
<p>c. Over-regulation here may cause harm to innovation in terms of ISP business models.</p>
<p>3. Harm to consumers</p>
<p>a. Under-regulation here may harm consumer choice and the right to freedom of speech, expression, and communication.</p>
<p>b. Over-regulation on this ground may cause harm to innovation at the level of networking technologies and be detrimental to consumers in the long run.</p>
<p>4. Harm to "openness" and interconnectedness of the Internet, including diversity (of access, of content, etc.)</p>
<p>a. Exceptions for specialized services should be limited to preserve the open and interconnectedness of the Internet and of the World Wide Web.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It might help to think about Net Neutrality as primarily being about two overlapping sets of regulatory issues: preferential treatment of particular Internet-based services (in essence: content- or source-/destination-based discrimination, i.e., discrimination on basis of 'whose traffic it is'), or discriminatory treatment of applications or protocols (which would include examples like throttling of BitTorrent traffic, high overage fees upon breaching Internet data caps on mobile phones, etc., i.e., discrimination on the basis of 'what kind of traffic it is').</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> Situations where the negative or positive discrimination happens on the basis of particular content or address should be regulated through the use of competition principles, while negative or positive discrimination at the level of specific class of content, protocols, associated ports, and other such sender-/receiver-agnostic features, should be regulated through regulation of network management techniques </b> . The former deals with instances where the question of "in whose favour is there discrimination" may be asked, while the latter deals with the question "in favour of what is there discrimination".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In order to do this, a regulator like TRAI can use both hard regulation - price ceilings, data cap floors, transparency mandates, preventing specific anti-competitive practices, etc. - as well as soft regulation - incentives and disincentives.</p>
<h3><a name="h.y84hsu73ibky"></a> 3.1.1 Net Neutrality and human rights</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Any discussion on the need for net neutrality impugns the human rights of a number of different stakeholders. Users, subscribers, telecom operators and ISPs all possess distinct and overlapping rights that are to be weighed against each other before the scope, nature and form of regulatory intervention are finalised. The freedom of speech, right to privacy and right to carry on trade raise some of the most pertinent questions in this regard.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For example, to properly consider issues surrounding the practice of paid content-specific zero-rating from a human rights point of view, one must seek to balance the rights of content providers to widely disseminate their 'speech' to the largest audiences against the rights of consumers to have access to a diverse variety of different, conflicting and contrasting ideas.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This commitment to a veritable marketplace or free-market of ideas has formed the touchstone of freedom of speech law in jurisdictions across the world as well as finding mention in pronouncements of the Indian Supreme Court. Particular reference is to be made to the dissent of Mathew, J. in<i>Bennett Coleman v. Union of India</i><a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></a><i> </i>and of the majority <i>Sakal Papers v. Union of India</i><a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup></a> which rejected the approach.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, the practice of deep-packet inspection, which is sometimes used in the process of network management, raises privacy concerns as it seeks to go beyond what is "public" information in the header of an IP packet, necessary for routing, to analysing non-public information. <a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"><sup><sup>[9]</sup></sup></a></p>
<h2><a name="h.yjyiwnikxizu"></a> 3.2 What conditions and factors may change these concerns and the regulatory model we should adopt?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the principles relating to Net Neutrality remain the same in all countries (i.e., trying to prevent gatekeepers from unjustly exploiting their position), the severity of the problem varies depending on competition in the market, on the technologies, and on many other factors. One way to measure fair or stable allocation of the surplus created by a network - or a network-of-networks like the Internet - is by treating it as a convex cooperation game and thereupon calculating that game's Shapley value:<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"><sup><sup>[10]</sup></sup></a> in the case of the Internet, this would be a game involving content ISPs, transit ISPs, and eyeball (i.e., last-mile) ISPs. The Shapley value changes depending on the number of competitors there are in the market: thus, the fair/stable allocation when there's vibrant competition in the market is different from the fair/stable allocation in a market without such competition. That goes to show that a desirable approach when an ISP tries to unjustly enrich itself by charging other network-participants may well be to increase competition, rather than directly regulating the last-mile ISP. Further, it shows that in a market with vibrant last-mile competition, the capacity of the last-mile ISP to unjustly are far diminished.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In countries which are remote and have little international bandwidth, the need to conserve that bandwidth is high. ISPs can regulate that by either increasing prices of Internet connections for all, or by imposing usage restrictions (such as throttling) on either heavy users or bandwidth-hogging protocols. If the amount of international bandwidth is higher, the need and desire on part of ISPs to indulge in such usage restrictions decreases. Thus, the need to regulate is far higher in the latter case, than in the former case.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The above paragraphs show that both the need for regulation and also the form that the regulation should take depend on a variety of conditions that aren't immediately apparent.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, the framework that the regulator sets out to tackle issues relating to Net Neutrality are most important, whereas the specific rules may need to change depending on changes in conditions. These conditions include:</p>
<p>● last-mile market</p>
<p>○ switching costs between equivalent service providers</p>
<p>○ availability of an open-access last-mile</p>
<p>○ availability of a "public option" neutral ISP</p>
<p>○ increase or decrease in the competition, both in wired and mobile ISPs.</p>
<p>● interconnection market</p>
<p>○ availability of well-functioning peering exchanges</p>
<p>○ availability of low-cost transit</p>
<p>● technology and available bandwidth</p>
<p>○ spectrum efficiency</p>
<p>○ total amount of international bandwidth and local network bandwidth</p>
<p>● conflicting interests of ISPs</p>
<p>○ do the ISPs have other business interests other than providing Internet connectivity? (telephony, entertainment, etc.)</p>
<h2><a name="h.1yozvmhaur7z"></a> 3.3 How should we deal with anti-competitive practices?</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Anti-competitive practices in the telecom sector can take many forms: Abuse of dominance, exclusion of access to specific services, customer lock-in, predatory pricing, tying of services, cross-subsidization, etc., are a few of them. In some cases the anti-competitive practice targets other telecom providers, while in others it targets content providers. In the both cases, it is important to ensure that ensure that telecom subscribers have a competitive choice between effectively substitutable telecom providers and an ability to seamlessly switch between providers.</p>
<h3><a name="h.smm9g46xsi3q"></a> 3.3.1 Lowering Switching Costs</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI has tackled many of these issues head on, especially in the mobile telephony space, while competitive market pressures have helped too:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">● <b>Contractual or transactional lock-in</b>. The easiest way to prevent shifting from one network to another is by contractually mandating a lock-in period, or by requiring special equipment (interoperability) to connect to one's network. In India, this is not practised in the telecom sector, with the exception of competing technologies like CDMA and GSM. Non-contractual lock-ins, for instance by offering discounts for purchasing longer-term packages, are not inherently anti-competitive unless that results in predatory pricing or constitutes an abuse of market dominance. In India, switching from one mobile provider to another, though initiated 15 years into the telecom revolution, is in most cases now almost as easy as buying a new SIM card.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"><sup><sup>[11]</sup></sup></a> TRAI may consider proactive regulation against contractual lock-in.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">● <b>Number of competitors</b>. Even if switching from one network to another is easy, it is not useful unless there are other equivalent options to switch to. In the telecom market, coverage is a very important factor in judging equivalence. Given that last mile connectivity is extremely expensive to provide, the coverage of different networks are very different, and this is even more true when one considers wired connectivity, which is difficult to lay in densely-populated urban and semi-urban areas and unprofitable in sparsely-populated areas. The best way to increase the number of competitors is to make it easier for competitors to exist. Some ways of doing this would be through enabling spectrum-sharing, lowering right-of-way rents, allowing post-auction spectrum trading, and promoting open-access last-mile fibre carriers and to thereby encourage competition on the basis of price and service and not exclusive access to infrastructure.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">● <b>Interconnection and mandatory carriage</b>. The biggest advantage a dominant telecom player has is exclusive access to its customer base. Since in the telecom market, no telco wants to not connect to customers of another telco, they do not outright ban other networks. However, dominant players can charge high prices from other networks, thereby discriminating against smaller networks. In the early 2000s, Airtel-to-Airtel calls were much cheaper than Airtel-to-Spice calls. However, things have significantly changed since then. TRAI has, since the 2000s, heavily regulated interconnection and imposed price controls on interconnection ("termination") charges.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"><sup><sup>[12]</sup></sup></a> Thus, now, generally, inter-network calls are priced similarly to intra-network calls. And if you want cheaper Airtel-to-Airtel calls, you can buy a special (unbundled) pack that enables an Airtel customer to take advantage of the fact that her friends are also on the same network, and benefits Airtel since they do not in such cases have to pay termination charges. Recently, TRAI has even made the interconnection rates zero in three cases: landline-to-landline, landline-to-cellular, and cellular-to-landline, in a bid to decrease landline call rates, and incentivise them, allowing a very low per call interconnection charges of 14 paise for cellular-to-cellular connections. <a href="#_ftn13" name="_ftnref13"><sup><sup>[13]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">○ With regard to Net Neutrality, we must have a rule that <b> no termination charges or carriage charges may be levied by any ISP upon any Internet service. No Internet service may be discriminated against with regard to carriage conditions or speeds or any other quality of service metric. In essence <i>all</i> negative discrimination should be prohibited. </b> This means that Airtel cannot forcibly charge WhatsApp or any other OTT (which essentially form a different "layer") money for the "privilege" of being able to reach Airtel customers, nor may Airtel slow down WhatsApp traffic and thus try to force WhatsApp to pay. There is a duty on telecom providers to carry any legitimate traffic ("common carriage"), not a privilege. It is important to note that consumer-facing TSPs get paid by other interconnecting Internet networks in the form of <i>transit charges</i> (or the TSP's costs are defrayed through peering). There shouldn't be any separate charge on the basis of content (different layer from the carriage) rather than network (same layer as the carriage). This principle is especially important for startups, and which are often at the receiving end of such discriminatory practices.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">● <b>Number Portability</b>. One other factor that prevents users from shifting between one network and another is the fact that they have to change an important aspect of their identity: their phone number (this doesn't apply to Internet over DSL, cable, etc.). At least in the mobile space, TRAI has for several years tried to mandate seamless mobile number portability. The same is being tried by the European Commission in the EU. <a href="#_ftn14" name="_ftnref14"><sup><sup>[14]</sup></sup></a> While intra-circle mobile number portability exists in India - and TRAI is pushing for inter-circle mobile number portability as well<a href="#_ftn15" name="_ftnref15"><sup><sup>[15]</sup></sup></a> - this is nowhere as seamless as it should be.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">● <b>Multi-SIM phones</b>. The Indian market is filled with phones that can accommodate multiple SIM cards, enabling customers to shift seamlessly between multiple networks. This is true not just in India, but most developing countries with extremely price-sensitive customers. Theoretically, switching costs would approach zero if in a market with full coverage by <i>n</i> telecom players every subscriber had a phone with <i>n </i>SIM slots with low-cost SIM cards being available.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The situation in the telecom sector with respect to the above provides a stark contrast to the situation in the USA, and to the situation in the DTH market. In the USA, phones get sold at discounts with multi-month or multi-year contracts, and contractual lock-ins are a large problem. Keeping each of the above factors in mind, the Indian mobile telecom space is far more competitive than the US mobile telecom space.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Further, in the Indian DTH market, given that there is transactional lock-in (set-top boxes aren't interoperable in practice, though are mandated to be so by law<a href="#_ftn16" name="_ftnref16"><sup><sup>[16]</sup></sup></a>), there are fewer choices in the market; further, the equivalent of multi-SIM phones don't exist with respect to set-top boxes. Further, while there are must-carry rules with respect to carriage, they can be of three types: 1) must mandatorily provide access to particular channels<a href="#_ftn17" name="_ftnref17"><sup><sup>[17]</sup></sup></a> (positive obligation, usually for government channels); 2) prevented from not providing particular channels (negative obligation, to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and political censorship); and 3) must mandatorily offer access to at least a set number of channels (positive obligation for ensuring market diversity). <a href="#_ftn18" name="_ftnref18"><sup><sup>[18]</sup></sup></a> Currently, only (1) is in force, since despite attempts by TRAI to ensure (3) as well.<a href="#_ftn19" name="_ftnref19"><sup><sup>[19]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If the shifting costs are low and transparency in terms of network practice is reported in a standard manner and well-publicised, then that significantly weakens the "<b>gatekeeper effect</b>", which as we saw earlier, is the reason why we wish to introduce Net Neutrality regulation. This consequently means, as explained above in section 3.2, that <b> <i> despite the same Net Neutrality principles applying in all markets and countries, the precise form that the Net Neutrality regulations take in a telecom market with low switching costs would be different from the form that such regulations would take in a market with high switching costs. </i> </b></p>
<h3><a name="h.glaa2bev2dhk"></a> 3.3.2 Anti-competitive Practices</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some potential anti-competitive practices, which are closely linked, are cross-subsidization, tying (anti-competitive bundling) of multiple services, and vertical price squeeze. All three of these are especial concerns now, with the increased diversification of traditional telecom companies, and with the entry into telecom (like with DTH) of companies that create content. Hence, if Airtel cross-subsidizes the Hike chat application that it recently acquired, <a href="#_ftn20" name="_ftnref20"><sup><sup>[20]</sup></sup></a> or if Reliance Infocomm requires customers to buy a subscription to an offering from Reliance Big Entertainment, or if Reliance Infocomm meters traffic from another Reliance Big Entertainment differently from that from Saavn, all those would be violative of the <b>principle of non-discrimination by gatekeepers</b>. This same analysis can be applied to all unpaid deals and non-commercial deals, including schemes such as Internet.org and Wikipedia Zero, which will be covered later in the section on zero-rating.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While we have general rules such as sections 3 and 4 of the Competition Act, <b> we do not currently have specific rules prohibiting these or other anti-competitive practices, and we need Net Neutrality regulation that clearly prohibit such anti-competitive practices so that the telecom regulator can take action for non-compliance </b> . We cannot leave these specific policy prescriptions unstated, even if they are provided for in <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1153878/">section 3 of the Competition Act</a>. These concerns are especial concerns in the telecom sector, and the telecom regulator or arbitrator should have the power to directly deal with these, instead of each case going to the Competition Commission of India. This should not affect the jurisdiction of the CCI to investigate and adjudicate such matters, but should ensure that TRAI both has suo motu powers, and that the mechanism to complain is made simple (unlike the current scenario, where some individual complainants may fall in the cracks between TRAI and TDSAT).</p>
<h3><a name="h.yd0ptbr561l8"></a> 3.3.3 Zero-rating</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since a large part of the net neutrality debate in India involves zero-rating practices, we deal with that in some length. Zero-rating is the practice of not counting (aka "zero-rating") certain traffic towards a subscriber's regular Internet usage. The <b> zero-rated traffic could be zero-priced or fixed-price; capped or uncapped; subscriber-paid, Internet service-paid, paid for by both, or unpaid; content- or source/destination-based, or agnostic to content or source/destination; automatically provided by the ISP or chosen by the customer </b> . The motivations for zero-rating may also be varied, as we shall see below. Further, depending on the circumstances, zero-rating could be competitive or anti-competitive. 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While, as explained in the section on interconnection and carriage above, negative discrimination at the network level should be prohibited, that leaves open the question of positive discrimination. It follows from section 3.1 that the right frame of analysis of this question is harm to competition, since the main harm zero-rating is, as we shall see below, about discriminating between different content providers, and not discrimination at the level of protocols, etc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Whether one should allow for any form of positive discrimination at the network level or not depends on whether positive discrimination of (X) has an automatic and unfair negative impact on all (~X). That, in turn, depends on whether (~X) is being subject to unfair competition. As Wikipedia notes, "unfair competition means that the gains of some participants are conditional on the losses of others, when the gains are made in ways which are illegitimate or unjust." <b> Thus, positive discrimination that has a negative impact on effective competition shall not be permitted, since in such cases it is equivalent to negative discrimination ("zero-sum game") </b> . <b> Positive discrimination that does not have a negative impact on effective competition may be permitted, especially since it results in increased access and increases consumer benefit, as long as the harm to openness and diversity is minimized </b> .</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While considering this, one should keep in mind the fact that startups were, 10-15 years ago, at a huge disadvantage with regard to wholesale data purchase. The marketplaces for data centres and for content delivery networks (which speed up delivery of content by being located closer, in network terms, to multiple last-mile ISPs) were nowhere near as mature as they are today, and the prices were high. There was a much higher barrier to startup entry than there is today, due to the prices and due to larger companies being able to rely on economies of scale to get cheaper rates. Was that unfair? No. There is no evidence of anti-competitive practices, nor of startups complaining about such practices. Therefore, that was fair competition, despite specific input costs that were arguably needed (though not essential) for startups to compete being priced far beyond their capacity to pay.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Today the marketplace is very different, with a variety of offerings. CDNs such as Cloudflare, which were once the preserve of rich companies, even have free offerings, thus substantially lowering barriers for startups that want faster access to customers across the globe.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Is a CDN an essential cost for a startup? No. But in an environment where speed matters and customers use or don't use a service depending on speed; and where the startup's larger competitors are all using CDNs, a startup more or less has to. Thankfully, given the cheap access to CDNs these days, that cost is not too high for a startup to bear. If the CDN market was not competitive enough, would a hypothetical global regulator have been justified in outright banning the use of CDNs to 'level' the playing field? No, because the hypothetical global regulator instead had the option to (and would have been justified in) regulating the market to ensure greater competition.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b> A regulator should not prohibit an act that does not negatively impact access, competition, consumer benefit, nor openness (including diversity), since that would be over-regulation and would harm innovation. </b></p>
<h4><a name="h.3j3bch9mpwr2"></a> 3.3.3.1 Motivations for Zero-Rating</h4>
<h5><a name="h.pxa0ovwqncfy"></a> 3.3.3.1.1 Corporate Social Responsibility / Incentivizing Customers to Move Up Value Chain</h5>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There exist multiple instances where there is no commercial transaction between the OTT involved and the telecom carrier, in which zero-priced zero-rating of specific Internet content happens. We know that there is no commercial transaction either through written policy (Wikipedia Zero) or through public statements (Internet.org, a bouquet of sites). In such cases, the telecom provider would either be providing such services out of a sense of public interest, given the social value of those services, or would be providing such services out of self-interest, to showcase the value of particular Internet set the same time.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The apprehended risk is that of such a scheme creating a "walled garden", where users would be exposed only to those services which are free since the <i>search and discovery costs</i> of non-free Internet (i.e., any site outside the "walled garden") would be rather high. This risk, while real, is rather slim given the fact that the economic incentives for those customers who have the ability to pay for "Internet packs" but currently do not find a compelling reason to do so, or out of both a sense of public interest and self-interest of the telecom providers works against this.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="h.gzz6numa7y24"></a> In such non-commercial zero-priced zero-rating, a telecom provider would only make money if and only if subscribers start paying for sites outside of the walled garden. If subscribers are happy in the walled garden, the telecom provider starts losing money, and hence has a strong motivation to stop that scheme. If on the other hand, enough subscribers start becoming paying customers to offset the cost of providing the zero-priced zero-rated service(s) and make it profitable, that shows that despite the availability of zero-priced options a number of customers will opt for paid access to the open Internet and the open Web, and the overall harms of such zero-priced zero-rating would be minimal. Hence, the telecom providers have an incentive to keep the costs of Internet data packs low, thus encouraging customers who otherwise wouldn't pay for the Internet to become paying customers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is the potential of consumer harm when users seek to access a site outside of the walled garden, and find to their dismay that they have been charged for the Internet at a hefty rate, and their prepaid balance has greatly decreased. This is an issue that TRAI is currently appraised of, and a suitable solution would need to be found to protect consumers against such harm.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All in all, given that the commercial interests of the telecom providers align with the healthy practice of non-discrimination, this form of limited positive discrimination is not harmful in the long run, particularly because it is not indefinitely sustainable for a large number of sites. Hence, it may not be useful to ban this form of zero-priced zero-rating of services as long as they aren't exclusive, or otherwise anti-competitive (a vertical price-squeeze, for instance), and the harm to consumers is prohibited and the harm to openness/diversity is minimized.</p>
<h5><a name="h.2xvaoc7t0zmu"></a> 3.3.3.1.2 Passing on ISP Savings / Incentivizing Customers to Lower ISP's Cost</h5>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Suppose, for instance, an OTT uses a CDN located, in network distance terms, near an eyeball ISP. In this case, the ISP has to probably pay less than it would have to had the same data been located in a data centre located further away, given that it would have fewer interconnection-related charges.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hence the monetary costs of providing access to different Web destinations are not equal for the ISP. This cost can be varied either by the OTT (by it locating the data closer to the ISP - through a CDN, by co-locating where the ISP is also present, or by connecting to an Internet Exchange Point which the ISP is also connected to - or by it directly "peering" with the ISP) or by the ISP (by engaging in "transparent proxying" in which case the ISP creates caches at the ISP level of specific content (usually by caching non-encrypted data the ISP's customers request) and serves the cached content when a user requests a site, rather than serving the actual site). None of the practices so far mentioned are discriminatory from the customer's perspective with regard either to price or to prioritization, though all of them enable faster speeds to specific content. Hence none of the above-mentioned practices are considered even by the most ardent Net Neutrality advocates to be violations of that principle. <a href="#_ftn21" name="_ftnref21"><sup><sup>[21]</sup></sup></a> However, if an ISP zero-rates the content to either pass on its savings to the customer<a href="#_ftn22" name="_ftnref22"><sup><sup>[22]</sup></sup></a> or to incentivize the customer to access services that cost the ISP less in terms of interconnection costs, that creates a form of price discrimination for the customer, despite it benefiting the consumer.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The essential economic problem is that the cost to the ISP is variable, but the cost to the customer is fixed. Importantly, this problem is exacerbated in India where web hosting prices are high, transit prices are high, peering levels are low, and Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are not functioning well. <a href="#_ftn23" name="_ftnref23"><sup><sup>[23]</sup></sup></a> These conditions create network inefficiencies in terms of hosting of content further away from Indian networks in terms of network distance, and thus harms consumers as well as local ISPs. In order to set this right, zero-rating of this sort may be permitted as it acts as an incentive towards fixing the market fundamentals. However, once the market fundamentals are fixed, such zero-rating may be prohibited.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="h.fpfvyrxp6pif"></a> This example shows that the desirability or otherwise of discriminatory practices depends fully on the conditions present in the market, including in terms of interconnection costs.</p>
<h5><a name="h.uc9je2dcrwpx"></a> 3.3.3.1.3 Unbundling Internet into Services ("Special Packs")</h5>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since at least early 2014, mobile operators have been marketing special zero-rating "packs". These packs, if purchased by the customer, allow capped or in some instances uncapped, zero-rating of a service such as WhatsApp or Facebook, meaning traffic to/from that service will not be counted against their regular Internet usage.</p>
<p>For a rational customer, purchasing such a pack only makes sense in one of two circumstances:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">● The person has Internet connectivity on her Internet-capable phone, but has not purchased an "Internet data pack" since she doesn't find the Internet valuable. Instead, she has heard about "WhatsApp", has friends who are on it, and wishes to use that to reduce her SMS costs (and thereby eat into the carriage provider's ability to charge separately for SMSes). She chooses to buy a WhatsApp pack for around ₹25 a month instead of paying ₹95 for an all-inclusive Internet data pack.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">● The person has Internet connectivity on her Internet-capable phone, and has purchased an "Internet data pack". However, that data pack is capped and she has to decide between using WhatsApp and surfing web sites. She is on multiple WhatsApp groups and her WhatsApp traffic eats up 65% of her data cap. She thus has to choose between the two, since she doesn't want to buy two Internet data packs (each costing around ₹95 for a month). She chooses to buy a WhatsApp pack for ₹25 a month, paying a cumulative total of ₹120 instead of ₹190 which she would have had to had she bought two Internet data packs. In this situation, "unbundling" is happening, and this benefits the consumer. Such unbundling harms the openness and integrity of the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If users did not find value in the "special" data packs, and there is no market demand for such products, they will cease to be offered. Thus, assuming a telco's decision to offer such packs is purely customer-demand driven - and not due to deals it has struck with service providers - if Orkut is popular, telcos would be interested in offering Orkut packs and if Facebook is popular, they would be interested in offering a Facebook pack. Thus, clearly, <b>there is nothing anti-competitive about such customer-paid zero-rating packs, whereas they clearly enhance consumer benefit</b>. Would this increase the popularity of Orkut or Facebook? Potentially yes. But to prohibit this would be like prohibiting a supermarket from selectively (and non-collusively) offering discounts on popular products. Would that make already popular products even more popular? Potentially, yes. But that would not be seen as a harm to competition but would be seen as fair competition. This contravenes the "openness" of the Internet (i.e., the integral interconnected diversity that an open network like the Internet embodies) as an independent regulatory goal. The Internet, being a single gateway to a mind-boggling variety of services, allows for a diverse "long tail", which would lose out if the Internet was seen solely as a gateway to popular apps, sites, and content. However, given that this is a choice exercised freely by the consumer, such packs should not be prohibited, as that would be a case of over-regulation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The one exception to the above analysis of competition, needless to say, is if that these special packs aren't purely customer-demand driven and are the product of special deals between an OTT and the telco. In that case, we need to ensure it isn't anti-competitive by following the prescriptions of the next section.</p>
<h5><a name="h.f0rfoerqprro"></a> 3.3.3.1.4 Earning Additional Revenues from Content Providers</h5>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With offerings like Airtel Zero, we have a situation where OTT companies are offering to pay for wholesale data access used by their customers, and make accessing their specific site or app free for the customer. From the customer's perspective, this is similar to a toll-free number or a pre-paid envelope or free-to-air TV channel being offered on a particular network.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, from the network perspective, these are very different. Even if a customer-company pays Airtel for the toll-free number, that number is accessible and toll-free across all networks since the call terminates on Airtel networks and Airtel pays the connecting network back the termination charge from the fee they are paid by the customer-company. This cannot happen in case of the Internet, since the "call" terminates outside of the reach of the ISP being paid for zero-rating by the OTT company; hence unless specific measures are taken, zero-rating has to be network-specific.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The comparison to free-to-air channels is also instructive, since in 2010 TRAI made recommendations that consumers should have the choice of accessing free-to-air channels à-la-carte, without being tied up to a bouquet.<a href="#_ftn24" name="_ftnref24"><sup><sup>[24]</sup></sup></a> This would, in essence, allow a subscriber to purchase a set-top box, and without paying a regular subscription fee watch free-to-air channels. <a href="#_ftn25" name="_ftnref25"><sup><sup>[25]</sup></sup></a> However, similar to toll-free numbers, these free-to-air channels are free-to-air on all MSO's set-top boxes, unlike the proposed Airtel Zero scheme under which access to a site like Flipkart would be free for customers on Airtel's network alone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hence, these comparisons, while useful in helping think through the regulatory and competition issues, <i>should not</i> be used as instructive exact analogies, since they aren't fully comparable situations.</p>
<h5><a name="h.pyn97x5b6nfq"></a> 3.3.3.1.5 Market Options for OTT-Paid Zero-Rating</h5>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As noted above, a competitive marketplace already exists for wholesale data purchase at the level of "content ISPs" (including CDNs), which sell wholesale data to content providers (OTTs). This market is at present completely unregulated. The deals that exist are treated as commercial secrets. It is almost certain that large OTTs get better rates than small startups due to economies of scale.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, at the eyeball ISP level, it is a single-sided market with ISPs competing to gain customers in the form of end-users. With a scheme like "Airtel Zero", this would get converted into a double-sided market, with a gatekeeper without whom neither side can reach the other being in the middle creating a two-sided toll. This situation is ripe for market abuse: this situation allows the gatekeeper to hinder access to those OTTs that don't pay the requisite toll or to provide preferential access to those who pay, apart from providing an ISP the opportunity to "double-dip".</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One way to fix this is to prevent ISPs from establishing a double-sided market. The other way would be to create a highly-regulated market where the gatekeeping powers of the ISP are diminished, and the ISP's ability to leverage its exclusive access over its customers are curtailed. A comparison may be drawn here to the rules that are often set by standard-setting bodies where patents are involved: given that these patents are essential inputs, access to them must be allowed through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licences. Access to the Internet and common carriers like telecom networks, being even more important (since alternatives exist to particular standards, but not to the Internet itself), must be placed at an even higher pedestal and thus even stricter regulation to ensure fair competition.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A marketplace of this sort would impose some regulatory burdens on TRAI and place burdens on innovations by the ISPs, but a regulated marketplace harms ISP innovation less than not allowing a market at all.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At a minimum, such a marketplace must ensure non-exclusivity, non-discrimination, and transparency. Thus, at a minimum, a telecom provider cannot discriminate between any OTTs who want similar access to zero-rating. Further, a telecom provider cannot prevent any OTT from zero-rating with any other telecom provider. To ensure that telecom providers are actually following this stipulation, transparency is needed, as a minimum.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Transparency can take one of two forms: transparency to the regulator alone and transparency to the public. Transparency to the regulator alone would enable OTTs and ISPs to keep the terms of their commercial transactions secret from their competitors, but enable the regulator, upon request, to ensure that this doesn't lead to anti-competitive practices. This model would increase the burden on the regulator, but would be more palatable to OTTs and ISPs, and more comparable to the wholesale data market where the terms of such agreements are strictly-guarded commercial secrets. On the other hand, requiring transparency to the public would reduce the burden on the regulator, despite coming at a cost of secrecy of commercial terms, and is far more preferable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Beyond transparency, a regulation could take the form of insisting on standard rates and terms for all OTT players, with differential usage tiers if need be, to ensure that access is truly non-discriminatory. This is how the market is structured on the retail side.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Since there are transaction costs in individually approaching each telecom provider for such zero-rating, the market would greatly benefit from a single marketplace where OTTs can come and enter into agreements with multiple telecom providers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Even in this model, telecom networks will be charging based not only on the fact of the number of customers they have, but on the basis of them having exclusive routing to those customers. Further, even under the standard-rates based single-market model, a particular zero-rated site may be accessible for free from one network, but not across all networks: unlike the situation with a toll-free number in which no such distinction exists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To resolve this, the regulator may propose that if an OTT wishes to engage in paid zero-rating, it will need to do so across all networks, since if it doesn't there is risk of providing an unfair advantage to one network over another and increasing the gatekeeper effect rather than decreasing it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, all forms of competitive Internet service-paid zero-priced zero-rating, even when they don't harm competition, innovation amongst content providers, or consumers, will necessarily harm openness and diversity of the Internet. For instance, while richer companies with a strong presence in India may pay to zero-rate traffic for their Indian customers, decentralized technologies such as XMPP and WebRTC, having no central company behind them, would not, leading to customers preferring proprietary networks and solutions to such open technologies, which in turn, thanks to the network effect, leads to a vicious cycle. <b> These harms to openness and diversity have to be weighed against the benefit in terms of increase in access when deciding whether to allow for competitive OTT-paid zero-priced zero-rating, as such competition doesn't exist in a truly level playing field </b> . Further, it must be kept in mind that there are forms of zero-priced zero-rating that decrease the harm to openness / diversity, or completely remove that harm altogether: that there are other options available must be acknowledged by the regulator when considering the benefit to access from competitive OTT-paid zero-priced zero-rating.</p>
<h5><a name="h.huy1gfie05he"></a> 3.3.3.1.6 Other options for zero-rating</h5>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are other models of zero-priced zero-rating that either minimize the harm is that of ensuring free Internet access for every person. This can take the form of:<a href="#_ftn26" name="_ftnref26"><sup><sup>[26]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>● A mandatorily "leaky" 'walled garden':</p>
<p>○ The first-degree of all hyperlinks from the zero-rated OTT service are also free.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">○ The zero-rated OTT service provider has to mandatorily provide free access to the whole of the World Wide Web to all its customers during specified hours.</p>
<p>○ The zero-rated OTT service provider has to mandatorily provide free access to the whole of the World Wide Web to all its customers based on amount on usage of the OTT service.<a href="#_ftn27" name="_ftnref27"><sup><sup>[27]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>● Zero-rating of all Web traffic</p>
<p>○ In exchange for viewing of advertisements</p>
<p>○ In exchange for using a particular Web browser</p>
<p>○ At low speeds on 3G, or on 2G.</p>
<h4><a name="h.ncpm1d9hru2b"></a> 3.3.3.2. What kinds of zero-rating are good</h4>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The majority of the forms of zero-rating covered in this section are content or source/destination-based zero-rating. Only some of the options covered in the "other options for zero-rating" section cover content-agnostic zero-rating models. Content-agnostic zero-rating models are not harmful, while content-based zero-rating models always harm, though to varying degrees, the openness of the Internet / diversity of OTTs, and to varying degrees increase access to Internet-based services. Accordingly, here is an hierarchy of desirability of zero-priced zero-rating, from most desirable to most harmful:</p>
<p>1. Content- & source/destination-agnostic zero-priced zero-rating.<a href="#_ftn28" name="_ftnref28"><sup><sup>[28]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>2. Content- & source/destination-based non-zero-priced zero-rating, without any commercial deals, chosen freely & paid for by users. <a href="#_ftn29" name="_ftnref29"><sup><sup>[29]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>3. Content- & source/destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, without any commercial deals, with full transparency. <a href="#_ftn30" name="_ftnref30"><sup><sup>[30]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p>4. Content- & source/destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, on the basis of commercial deal with partial zero-priced access to all content, with non-discriminatory access to the same deal by all with full transparency.<a href="#_ftn31" name="_ftnref31"><sup><sup>[31]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5. Content- & source/destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, on the basis of a non-commercial deal, without any benefits monetary or otherwise, flowing directly or indirectly from the provider of the zero-rated content to the ISP, with full transparency. <a href="#_ftn32" name="_ftnref32"><sup><sup>[32]</sup></sup></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, across all telecom networks, with standard pricing, non-discriminatory access, and full transparency.</p>
<p>7. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, with standard pricing, non-discriminatory access, and full transparency.</p>
<p>8. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, with non-discriminatory access, and full transparency.</p>
<p>9. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, with non-discriminatory access, and transparency to the regulator.</p>
<p>10. Content- & source-destination-based zero-priced zero-rating, without any regulatory framework in place.</p>
<h3><a name="h.f8vwrsnhu1fj"></a> 3.3.4 Cartels and Oligopoly</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While cartels and oligopolies may have an impact on Net Neutrality, they are not problems that any set of anti-discrimination rules imposed on gatekeepers can fix. Further, cartels and oligopolies don't directly enhance the ability of gatekeepers to unjustly discriminate if there are firm rules against negative discrimination and price ceilings and floors on data caps are present for data plans. Given this, TRAI should recommend that this issue be investigated and the Competition Commission of India should take this issue up.</p>
<h1><a name="h.1ckcvcwez55d"></a> <b>3.4 Reasonable Network Management Principles</b></h1>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reasonable network management has to be allowed to enable the ISPs to manage performance and costs on their network. However, ISPs may not indulge in acts that are harmful to consumers in the name of reasonable network management. Below are a set of guidelines for when discrimination against classes of traffic in the name of network management are justified.</p>
<p>● Discrimination between classes of traffic for the sake of network management should only be permissible if:</p>
<p>○ there is an intelligible differentia between the classes which are to be treated differently, and</p>
<p>○ there is a rational nexus between the differential treatment and the aim of such differentiation, and</p>
<p>○ the aim sought to be furthered is legitimate, and is related to the security, stability, or efficient functioning of the network, or is a technical limitation outside the control of the ISP<a href="#_ftn33" name="_ftnref33"><sup><sup>[33]</sup></sup></a>, and</p>
<p>○ the network management practice is the least harmful manner in which to achieve the aim.</p>
<p>● Provision of specialized services (i.e., "fast lanes") is permitted if and only if it is shown that</p>
<p>○ The service is available to the user only upon request, and not without their active choice, and</p>
<p>○ The service cannot be reasonably provided with "best efforts" delivery guarantee that is available over the Internet, and hence requires discriminatory treatment, or</p>
<p>○ The discriminatory treatment does not unduly harm the provision of the rest of the Internet to other customers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These principles are only applicable at the level of ISPs, and not on access gateways for institutions that may in some cases be run by ISPs (such as a university network, free municipal WiFi, at a work place, etc.), which are not to be regulated as common carriers.</p>
<p>These principles may be applied on a case-by-case basis by a regulator, either <i>suo motu</i> or upon complaint by customers.</p>
<div>
<hr />
<div id="ftn1">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><sup><sup>[1]</sup></sup></a> Report of the <i>Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, </i>(19 May 2011), http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn2">
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><sup><sup>[2]</sup></sup></a> Available at http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/NTP%202012.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn3">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><sup><sup>[3]</sup></sup></a> IAMAI, <i>India to Cross 300 million internet users by Dec 14, </i>(19 November, 2014), http://www.iamai.in/PRelease_detail.aspx?nid=3498&NMonth=11&NYear=2014.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn4">
<p align="left"><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><sup><sup>[4]</sup></sup></a> World Economic Forum, <i>The Global Information Technology Report 2015, </i>http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Global_IT_Report_2015.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn5">
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><sup><sup>[5]</sup></sup></a> http://www.ictregulationtoolkit.org/4.1#s4.1.1</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn6">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><sup><sup>[6]</sup></sup></a> <i>See</i> R.U.S. Prasad, <i>The Impact of Policy and Regulatory Decisions on Telecom Growth in India</i> (July 2008), http://web.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=system/files/shared/pubs/papers/pdf/SCID361.pdf.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn7">
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"><sup><sup>[7]</sup></sup></a> 1973 AIR 106</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn8">
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"><sup><sup>[8]</sup></sup></a> 1962 AIR 305</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn9">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"><sup><sup>[9]</sup></sup></a> "When ISPs go beyond their traditional use of IP headers to route packets, privacy risks begin to emerge." Alissa Cooper, <i>How deep must DPI be to incur privacy risk? </i>http://www.alissacooper.com/2010/01/25/how-deep-must-dpi-be-to-incur-privacy-risk/</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn10">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"><sup><sup>[10]</sup></sup></a> Richard T.B. Ma & Vishal Misra, <i>The Public Option: A Non-Regulatory Alternative to Network Neutrality</i>, http://dna-pubs.cs.columbia.edu/citation/paperfile/200/netneutrality.pdf</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn11">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"><sup><sup>[11]</sup></sup></a> Mobile number portability was launched in India on January 20, 2011 in the Haryana circle. See <a href="http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pm-launches-nationwide-mobile-number-portability/1/127176.html"> http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pm-launches-nationwide-mobile-number-portability/1/127176.html </a> . Accessed on April 24, 2015.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn12">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"><sup><sup>[12]</sup></sup></a> For a comprehensive list of all TRAI interconnection regulations & subsequent amendments, see http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/Regulation/0_1_REGULATIONS.aspx.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn13">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref13" name="_ftn13"><sup><sup>[13]</sup></sup></a> See Telecommunication Interconnection Usage Charges (Eleventh Amendment) Regulations, 2015 (1 of 2015), available at http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/Regulation/0_1_REGULATIONS.aspx.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn14">
<p align="left"><a href="#_ftnref14" name="_ftn14"><sup><sup>[14]</sup></sup></a> Article 30 of the Universal Service Directive, Directive 2002/22/EC.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn15">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref15" name="_ftn15"><sup><sup>[15]</sup></sup></a> See Telecommunication Mobile Number Portability (Sixth Amendment) Regulations, 2015 (3 of 2015), available at http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/Regulation/0_1_REGULATIONS.aspx.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn16">
<p align="left"><a href="#_ftnref16" name="_ftn16"><sup><sup>[16]</sup></sup></a> The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Seventh) (The Direct to Home Services) Tariff Order, 2015 (2 of 2015).</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn17">
<p align="left"><a href="#_ftnref17" name="_ftn17"><sup><sup>[17]</sup></sup></a> Section 8, Cable Television Networks Act, 1995.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn18">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref18" name="_ftn18"><sup><sup>[18]</sup></sup></a> <i>TRAI writes new rules for Cable TV, Channels, Consumers, </i> REAL TIME NEWS, (August 11, 2014), http://rtn.asia/rtn/233/1220_trai-writes-new-rules-cable-tv-channels-consumers.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn19">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref19" name="_ftn19"><sup><sup>[19]</sup></sup></a> An initial requirement for all multi system operators to have a minimum capacity of 500 channels was revoked by the TDSAT in 2012. For more details, see http://www.televisionpost.com/cable/msos-not-required-to-have-500-channel-headends-tdsat/.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn20">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref20" name="_ftn20"><sup><sup>[20]</sup></sup></a> Aparna Ghosh, <i>Bharti SoftBank Invests $14 million in Hike, </i>LIVE MINT, (April 2, 2014), http://www.livemint.com/Companies/nI38YwQL2eBgE6j93lRChM/Bharti-SoftBank-invests-14-million-in-mobile-messaging-app.html.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn21">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref21" name="_ftn21"><sup><sup>[21]</sup></sup></a> Mike Masnick, <i>Can We Kill This Ridiculous Shill-Spread Myth That CDNs Violate Net Neutrality? They Don't</i>, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140812/04314528184/can-we-kill-this-ridiculous-shill-spread-myth-that-cdns-violate-net-neutrality-they-dont.shtml.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn22">
<p align="left"><a href="#_ftnref22" name="_ftn22"><sup><sup>[22]</sup></sup></a> Mathew Carley, What is Hayai's stance on "Net Neutrality"?, https://www.hayai.in/faq/hayais-stance-net-neutrality?c=mgc20150419</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn23">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref23" name="_ftn23"><sup><sup>[23]</sup></sup></a> Helani Galpaya & Shazna Zuhyle, <i>South Asian Broadband Service Quality: Diagnosing the Bottlenecks</i>, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1979928</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn24">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref24" name="_ftn24"><sup><sup>[24]</sup></sup></a> DTH players told to offer pay channels on la carte basis, HINDU BUSINESS LINE (July 22, 2010), http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/dth-players-told-to-offer-pay-channels-on-la-carte-basis/article999298.ece.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn25">
<p><a href="#_ftnref25" name="_ftn25"><sup><sup>[25]</sup></sup></a> The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Fourth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2010.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn26">
<p><a href="#_ftnref26" name="_ftn26"><sup><sup>[26]</sup></sup></a> These suggestions were provided by Helani Galpaya and Sunil Abraham, based in some cases on existing practices.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn27">
<p align="left"><a href="#_ftnref27" name="_ftn27"><sup><sup>[27]</sup></sup></a> This is what is being followed by the Jana Loyalty Program: <a href="http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/05/06/with-a-new-loyalty-program-mobile-app-marketplace-jana-pushes-deeper-into-the-developing-world/"> http://www.betaboston.com/news/2015/05/06/with-a-new-loyalty-program-mobile-app-marketplace-jana-pushes-deeper-into-the-developing-world/ </a></p>
</div>
<div id="ftn28">
<p><a href="#_ftnref28" name="_ftn28"><sup><sup>[28]</sup></sup></a> Example: free Internet access at low speeds, with data caps.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn29">
<p><a href="#_ftnref29" name="_ftn29"><sup><sup>[29]</sup></sup></a> Example: special "packs" for specific services like WhatsApp.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn30">
<p><a href="#_ftnref30" name="_ftn30"><sup><sup>[30]</sup></sup></a> Example: zero-rating of all locally-peered settlement-free traffic.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn31">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref31" name="_ftn31"><sup><sup>[31]</sup></sup></a> Example: "leaky" walled gardens, such as the Jana Loyalty Program that provide limited access to all of the Web alongside access to the zero-rated content.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn32">
<p><a href="#_ftnref32" name="_ftn32"><sup><sup>[32]</sup></sup></a> Example: Wikipedia Zero.</p>
</div>
<div id="ftn33">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref33" name="_ftn33"><sup><sup>[33]</sup></sup></a> A CGNAT would be an instance of such a technology that poses network limitations.</p>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulatory-perspectives-on-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/regulatory-perspectives-on-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshTelecomNet NeutralityInternet GovernanceICT2015-07-18T02:46:30ZBlog EntryPeople voice their support for net neutrality, say Internet a utility not a luxury
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-april-13-2015-people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury
<b>As the campaign and support for net neutrality is picking up, Politicians, celebrities and a cross section of people are voicing their support for it. Net neutrality means all data and sites are treated and charged equally be it mobile app or any other app.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The blog post was <a class="external-link" href="http://ibnlive.in.com/news/people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury/539585-3.html">published in IBN Live</a> on April 13, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to AIB whose video on net neutrality has gone viral, more than one lakh emails have been sent to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) through the website <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank">savetheinternet.in.</a> This is in response to the regulator's call for public consultation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MK Stalin, DMK treasurer:</b> The Internet is changing India. For the first time there is a platform that gives equal opportunity for everyone to gain knowledge and reap economic benefits. TRAI, the government telecom regulatory body is proposing to change this by allowing telecom companies to allow preferential access to websites. If this is allowed, companies will be allowed to charge extra for commonly used services like Whatsapp, YouTube, web based voice calling and many more. This will also allow telcos to allow preferential treatment of websites, allowing the big companies to destroy start-ups and internet based small business by blocking or slowing them down. This goes against the very concept of the Internet where every legal website or service is considered equal. This attempt to increase the profits of the telecom companies by surrendering social gains should be condemned. I request the TRAI to dismiss this proposal and let the Internet continue to be a neutral medium which serves our country and community instead of a select few companies.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Tathagata Satpathy, Dhenkanal MP:</b> My concern was that why should TRAI get involved with private profit making companies and give them the facility to become a profiteering company. While saying this we must remember that Internet is not free anywhere in the world. That is accepted. My issue is with TRAI which has not even bothered to reply to my letter, I do not know why TRAI is getting involved and it has put itself in a situation where its interntions are suspect.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Nikhil Pahwa, Editor and publisher of Medianama:</b> Startups may have to get license to provide services in India. Another outcome is communications firms will buy license. Third outcome is TRAI will allow ISP's to make some sites slow.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Pranesh Prakash, cyber security expert:</b> So what the TRAI is proposing is something that should have every single Internet user very worried. There is some truth at least to what companies like Airtel etc. are saying which is that there is a difference in the regular trade standard for the Internet services and the telecom operators. But the correct solution for that is not to increase and sort a new license raj for Internet services but rather to decrease those over onerous burdens.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Riteish Deshmukh, actor:</b> Net neutrality is as important as Freedom of Speech. Our Basic Right</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Siddharth Malhotra, actor:</b> Save The Internet push for net neutrality, Internet is a utility not a luxury.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Parineeti Chopra, actress:</b> Save the Internet! Net neutrality is crucial! Proud of you boyses!</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Shekhar Ravjiani, singer:</b> Time to stand up and take a stand. Time to fight for what's right. Head to savetheinternet.in to make a difference.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Raghu Ram, Ex Roadies judge:</b> PEOPLE!! Your internet and freedom are under attack in India! Listen to the AIB boys and join the fight.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-april-13-2015-people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/ibn-live-april-13-2015-people-voice-their-support-for-net-neutrality-say-internet-a-utility-not-a-luxury</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-08T01:56:28ZNews ItemPackets, net neutrality and gaming public policy outcomes
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/packets-net-neutrality-and-gaming-public-policy-outcomes
<b>Gurshabad Grover attended Prof. Vishal Misra's lecture on net neutrality at Has Geek in Bangalore on August 15, 2019.</b>
<p><iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6s2nM9HBiog" width="560"></iframe></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/packets-net-neutrality-and-gaming-public-policy-outcomes'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/packets-net-neutrality-and-gaming-public-policy-outcomes</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2019-08-28T15:15:37ZNews ItemNet neutrality: Trai receives over 2 lakh mails
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails
<b>The idea of an open internet can bring together not just worried netizens but politicians of all hues.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sandhya Soman and Jayanta Deka was <a class="external-link" href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Net-neutrality-Trai-receives-over-2-lakh-mails/articleshow/46913271.cms">published in the Times of India</a> on April 14, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On a day when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India got more than 2 lakh emails by Monday afternoon from Indian netizens annoyed by possible efforts to make internet an unequal space, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and DMK leader MK Stalin also defended net neutrality.<br /><br />While Kejriwal tweeted that "India MUST debate #NetNeutrality. I support #Saveinternet campaign www.savetheinternet.in", Stalin in his statement said that any move to allow telecom companies to give preferential access to websites would go against the concept of equality.<br /><br />Telecom minister Ravishankar Prasad, meanwhile, told media that a special DoT panel will come out with its report on net neutrality in May.<br /><br />The latest fight for net neutrality — the idea that all traffic is treated equally by internet service providers — gained momentum after Trai put up a consultation paper on the topic asking users to give their views before April 24. The paper was in response to demands from telecom companies seeking to splice up internet into various packages so they could charge users based on what websites and services they were using. The companies' specific grouse is against services like Skype, Whatsapp and Viber, which they claim are eating into their profits.<br /><br />"Net neutrality is about ensuring that ISPs don't end up harming universal access, effective competition and consumer benefit," says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society. This means that what Airtel was trying to do in December by preventing its customers from accessing WhatsApp, Skype and Viber without paying extra shouldn't be permitted, Prakash says.<br /><br />One of the worst case scenarios could be the murder of innovation, says Srinivasan Ramani, 'director, National Centre for Software Technology (now, part of C-DAC).<br /><br />"New ways of doing things are disruptive — Voice over Internet Protocol demonstrated how inexpensive voice calls could be. Video calls over the internet demonstrate what the old telephone technology could not do in a cost-effective manner, can now be done with ease," Ramani says. If ISPs get greater control over the internet they may end up killing the golden goose, he says.<br /><br />Neutrality of the internet is essential to a wide variety of users, from bloggers, entrepreneurs and to students. "A non-neutral internet is like offering a separate driving lane to people who own a Ferrari, Mercedes or any other luxury vehicle," says Harsh Agrawal, a professional blogger atshoutmeloud.com. He is clear that he can't pay telecom operators to offer better speeds to his blog. "But what if one of my competitors can afford to pay for preferential treatment for his website? It could be a huge loss to me," Agrawal says.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">E-commerce startup-founder Catherine Dohling has the same fear. "We want our website to be accessed by anyone who is interested in our products and this should not be governed by which telecom provider a person buys data from," says Dohling, co-founder of TheNorthEastStore.com.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Activists like Lobsang Tseten, who relies on digital media to reach out to people, fear that if there is no net neutrality, it could mean that a huge chunk of the NGO's grassroots base could be taken away unless users pay. "This is a very underhand way of stopping people from accessing certain websites and products," says Tseten, Asia regional coordinator of International Tibet Network.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With many biggies like Flipkart considering Airtel's Zero plan, which aims to offer free consumer browsing for such companies that sign up with the telco, start-up enthusiasts are also troubled. "An internet that is non-neutral would be a huge set-back for people like me who want to create a tech start-up. We would have to factor in a good sum of money for tie-ups with ISPs," says Rahul Kumar, an IIT-Kanpur student.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, some activists say that some nuances of what is net neutrality are getting lost as the campaign gathers steam. On Monday, several angry netizens tweeted about uninstalling Flipkart's app and actively working to get it down voted. "What we need are regulations that ensure access, competition and benefit consumers instead of proposing specific outcomes or solutions," says Prakash.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaTelecomNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-08T02:11:15ZNews ItemNet Neutrality: The argument continues
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/forbes-india-april-29-2015-deepak-ajwani-debojyoti-ghosh-net-neutrality-the-argument-continues
<b>Opposing camps pitch their views on what zero rating and differential access to the internet would mean in India.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The interview was <a class="external-link" href="http://forbesindia.com/article/special/net-neutrality-the-argument-continues/40121/1">published by Forbes India magazine</a> on April 29, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The debate on net neutrality in India is playing out on the internet, social media, television and newspapers. On one side, there are telecom service providers who believe in services such as zero rating and sponsor-enabled free access to the internet for consumers; on the other, there are proponents of free and fair access to the internet who consider variable access as a violation of the principles of net neutrality.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has launched a consultation paper, inviting views from the public to analyse the implications of the growth of internet services, apps, over-the-top services (OTTs) and consider changes required in the current regulatory framework. <br /><br />To get both sides of the argument, Forbes India spoke to Rajan Mathews, director general at the Cellular Operators Association of India, and Pranesh Prakash, policy director at The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based, non-profit, research and policy advocacy. <br /><br /><b>Q. How are zero rating and net neutrality linked? And if they are separate issues, what differentiates them?<br />Rajan Mathews: </b>Zero rating and net neutrality are two separate issues. Net neutrality is about not denying access, and about the absence of unreasonable differentiation on the part of network operators in transmitting internet traffic. Zero rating is when operators subsidise tariffs as a result of commercial arrangements with application providers who do not discriminate against the customer, but provide a benefit. Zero rating is not a net neutrality issue since access to all content and applications remains open. Such arrangements increase social welfare by transferring the cost of internet access from consumers to content providers. If a content provider deems its revenues to be substantial and wishes to engage in distribution arrangements with last-mile access providers to subsidise access to its services, it should be allowed to do so. Zero rating should be the customer’s choice.<br /><b><br />Pranesh Prakash:</b> The issues of net neutrality and zero rating are intrinsically linked. Zero rating is the practice of not counting certain traffic towards a subscriber’s regular internet usage. The motivations for zero rating are many. Unbundling is one. For example, a consumer wishes to use a WhatsApp pack as opposed to accessing WhatsApp through the regular internet pack. Self-interest is another: Showcase the internet’s value through cheap or free packs of certain internet services so that customers graduate to higher data packages. <br /><br />All forms of zero rating—zero-priced, fixed-priced, subscriber-paid or internet service provider (ISP)-paid, content-based or content provider-based—have one thing in common: They are instances of discrimination on the network. This links it to net neutrality, which, at its core, is a question about discrimination by ISPs. <br /><br />We shouldn’t only be focussed on the existing models of zero rating while regulating it, but also on the models that may emerge in the future. <br /><br /><b>Q. Zero rating is seen as an attempt to give internet access to millions of Indians who can’t afford an internet connection. Is there a different, but net-neutral, way to do this?<br />Mathews:</b> Zero rating is [offered] in the nature of a subsidy, which is prevalent and practiced in all forms of businesses. For example, MS Office is available at different rates to different consumers such as homes and businesses, students and enterprises. It is for the consumer to choose which version to buy. The same should be applicable to telecom services as well.<br /><br /><b>Prakash:</b> Just because something provides access to the bottom of the pyramid doesn’t make it something we should have. For example, predatory pricing is something that might benefit all subscribers in the short term but, over time, it harms the market, competition and consumers. Suppose all ISPs are mandated to provide internet for free to everyone; in the short run, everyone will get free internet but it’s not a sustainable business practice for ISPs. If free internet can be sustainably provided, that’s not harmful. The current debate is to evaluate if we can ensure a method where we can have competition while providing access to the bottom of the pyramid.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/forbes-india-april-29-2015-deepak-ajwani-debojyoti-ghosh-net-neutrality-the-argument-continues'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/forbes-india-april-29-2015-deepak-ajwani-debojyoti-ghosh-net-neutrality-the-argument-continues</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-09T11:35:23ZNews ItemNet Neutrality: India is a Keybattle Ground
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hardnewsmedia-august-10-2015-abeer-kapoor-net-neutrality-india-is-a-keybattle-ground
<b>Hardnews talks to Sunil Abraham, the executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), about the future of the Internet in India.</b>
<p id="stcpDiv" style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Abeer Kapoor was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2015/08/net-neutrality-india-keybattle-ground">published in Hardnews</a> on August 10, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p><span><span> </span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>There are competing definitions of net neutrality. What do you think an Indian definition of net neutrality should be?</b><br />It should be driven by an empirical understanding of the harms and benefits for Indian consumers. Any regulation should be based on evidence of harm. Forbearance should be the first option for any regulator. The second option is mandating transparency. The third option, as (Managing Director of the World Dialogue on Regulation for Network Economies Programme) William Melody says, should be raising competition before we consider other more intrusive regulatory measures such as price regulation, mandatory registration and licensing, etc. Telling network administrators how to run their networks should be the very last option we consider. Ideally, the Competition Commission of India should have started an investigation into the competition harms emerging from network neutrality violations. There are other harms emerging from network neutrality violations, such as free speech harms, diversity harms, innovation harms and privacy harms. These residual elements should have been the focus of the TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India) consultation paper process, the DoT (Department of Telecommunications) panel process and the consultations of the parliamentary standing committee.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>There are certain rights that are essential, like privacy. How do you think the right to privacy will play into the definition of Indian net neutrality?</b><br />Deep packet inspection – which is a method that is used to manage Internet traffic and walled garden access via mobile applications – causes significant privacy harms and gives rise to a range of security vulnerabilities. These cannot be directly addressed in network neutrality policy. On privacy and security, it is not clear that the Indian situation is different from the global trend, so it is unlikely that we will have an India-specific privacy language in our network neutrality policy.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Privacy harms caused by network neutrality violations have to be addressed by enacting the privacy bill into law. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has been working on this Bill for the last five or six years. The latest draft has implemented the recommendations of the Justice AP Shah Committee. The last leak of the privacy Bill revealed that the DoPT has included the nine principles identified by the <span><a href="http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_privacy.pdf">Shah Committee Report on Privacy</a></span>. We hope that the government will introduce this Bill at the earliest. Section 43A of the IT Act may also need to be amended to address all the nine privacy principles.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>The report drafted by DoT on net neutrality is ambiguous and almost reluctant to take a stand. What are the key points of this report?</b><br />The <span><a href="https://mygov.in/sites/default/files/master_image/Net_Neutrality_Committee_report.pdf">DoT panel report</a> </span>does take a stand. It clearly identifies network neutrality as a policy goal. Unfortunately, the panel did not provide its own definition of network neutrality, but instead quoted a definition submitted by civil society activists who testified before it without explicitly adopting it. The panel report examines zero rating and legitimate traffic management in quite a bit of detail and does prescribe some regulatory decision trees to the policymakers. When it comes to specialised services and walled gardens there could have been more detailed and specific recommendations. The biggest disappointment in the report is the call for licensing of those OTT (Over the Top) service providers that provide equivalent services to those provided by telcos. While the need to address regulatory arbitrage from the perspective of privacy and surveillance law may be virtuous, it may not be technically feasible to do so, especially if there is end-to-end encryption. Also, regulatory arbitrage could be addressed by reducing regulations for telcos rather than increasing them for </span><span>OTT providers.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>Do you think licensing and regulation of OTT services such as Google and WhatsApp are a necessity?</b><br />It is a myth that they exist in a regulatory vacuum. Many regulations do apply to them and a few of them do comply with Indian authorities on issues like speech regulation, legal interception and also data access. With competition law and taxation there is very little compliance. The trouble is not that there are regulatory vacuums, but rather that these services operate from foreign jurisdictions. Without offices, servers and human resources within the Indian jurisdiction it is very difficult for the courts to implement their orders, and for law enforcement to ensure compliance with Indian laws. This jurisdictional challenge affects most developing countries and not just India, and can only be solved by harmonising procedural and substantive law across jurisdictions, through the spread of soft norms, development of self-regulatory mechanisms using the multi-stakeholder models and through the creation of international law through various multilateral and pluri-lateral bodies.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>The report reduces the neutrality debate to ‘access.’ Do you think this approach is reductive?</b><br />Access is very important in the Indian context so I don’t see how that is reductive. Many observers believe that the next round in the war for network neutrality will happen in the global South. India is a key battleground – what happens here will have global impact and implications. Network neutrality policies need to consider free speech, privacy, competition, diversity and innovation goals of the markets they seek to regulate. If we are not being doctrinaire about network neutrality we could adopt what (Professor of Internet & Media Law at the University of Sussex) Chris Marsden calls forward-looking “positive net neutrality” wherein “higher QoS (Quality of Service) for higher prices should be offered on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory [FRAND] terms to all comers”. FRAND, according to Prof. Marsden, is well understood by the telcos and ISPs (Internet Service Providers) as it is the basis of common carriage. This understanding of network neutrality allows for technical and business model innovation by ISPs and telcos without the associated harms. There are zero-rating services being launched by Mozilla, Jaana, Mavin and others that are attempting to do this. I do not believe that they violate network neutrality principles, unlike Airtel Zero or Internet.org.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>While this report attempts to arrive at a middle ground between the TSPs and the OTTs, how is this going to reflect in the government’s ‘Digital India’ programme?</b><br />We know we have a policy solution when all stakeholders are equally unhappy. But we also need an elegant solution that is easy to implement. Scholars like (Associate Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University) Vishal Mishra have a theoretical solution based on the Shapley Value, that assumes a multi-sided market model, but this may not work in real life. Professor V. Sridhar of the International Institute of Information Technology, Bengaluru (IIITB) has a very elegant idea of setting a ceiling and floor for price and speed and also for insisting on a minimum QoS of the whole of the Internet. These ideas I have not heard in the American and European debate around network neutrality. I remain hopeful that the Indian middle ground will be qualitatively different, given that the structure and constraints of the Indian telecom sector are very different from that in developed countries. Ensuring network neutrality is essential to the success of Digital India. Unfortunately, the Digital India plans that we have heard so far don’t make this </span><span>explicitly clear.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>The Internet was never meant to be monetised. Do you think that private players are eating into a public good that is absolutely necessary for development?</b><br />I have never heard that statement before. <a href="http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2011/06/3992"><span>The Internet</span>, <span>after its early history, has been completely built using private capital</span></a>. The public Internet has always been monetised. Collectively, the individual entrepreneurs and enterprises that build and run the components of the Internet have created a common public good – which is the globally interconnected network. But the motivation for private capital behind maintaining and building their corner or component of this network has also been profit maximisation.</span></p>
<div id="stcpDiv">
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><b>What has contributed to the growing need to regulate and administer the Internet?</b><br />Technical advancements and business model innovations have resulted in both benefits and harms and therefore there could be a rationale for regulation. But more regulation per se is not a virtue and does not serve the interest of citizens and consumers. Expanding the regulatory scope of government infinitely will only result in failure, given the limited capacity and resources of the State. Therefore, whenever the State enters a new area of regulation it should ideally stop regulating in another area. In other words, there is no clear case that the regulation of the Internet is needed to keep growing exponentially – as evolving technologies may require specific regulation – if the resultant harms cannot be addressed using existing law. In most cases, traditional law is sufficient to deal with crimes and offences online.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p><span> </span></p>
<hr />
<p>This story is from the print issue of Hardnews: August 2015</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hardnewsmedia-august-10-2015-abeer-kapoor-net-neutrality-india-is-a-keybattle-ground'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hardnewsmedia-august-10-2015-abeer-kapoor-net-neutrality-india-is-a-keybattle-ground</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-09-20T07:08:42ZNews ItemNet neutrality: Debate rages on
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on
<b>A controversy was sparked after Bharti Airtel, the country's largest telecom operator, launched 'Airtel Zero' on Monday that allows companies to offer their applications to Airtel subscribers for free.</b>
<p>The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Business Standard on April 11, 2015. Sunil Abraham gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p><a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Net+Neutrality" target="_blank">Net neutrality </a>campaigners have raised the pitch as the <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Telecom+Regulator" target="_blank">telecom regulator </a>seeks public comments on the issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">They argue any kind of discrimination will scuttle the Internet's growth in the country. Opponents claim technology may make it difficult for the government to stop network management.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A controversy was sparked after Bharti Airtel, the country's largest telecom operator, launched 'Airtel Zero' on Monday that allows companies to offer their applications to Airtel subscribers for free. The maker of the application pays the operator for the customer's free use. "It is wrong for me to have to pay Airtel or <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Vodafone" target="_blank">Vodafone </a>money to access YouTube, <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Skype" target="_blank">Skype </a>or any site they decide to charge for," Mahesh Murthy, founder of digital marketing agency Pinstorm, wrote in a blog on Wednesday. "What we do with bandwidth must be up to us, not up to some profiteering telecom tycoon," he added. Sachin Bansal, founder of e-commerce company Flipkart.com, on the other hand, tweeted, "When foreign companies do it in India - innovation. Indians do it - violation". Flipkart may have signed up with Airtel's Zero platform.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">"Telecom companies are saying zero-rating websites (that are offered free like Facebook or Wikipedia) are cannibalising revenues from customers who used to pay for data earlier. It is also failing to convert non-data paying customers into paying ones, so it is not working for telecom companies," said a member of an <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Internet" target="_blank">Internet </a>think tank who did not wish to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India released a discussion paper on net neutrality in the last week of March and is seeking public comments by April 24 and counterviews by May 8.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Another Internet expert said people paying extra to visit select sites was like higher charges for high definition cable television. If net neutrality was restricted to price, consumers could decide what they wished to pay for, he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, if websites or apps were blocked or telecom operators bumped up internet speed for certain services, the implications for innovation would be wider, he pointed out. "If the government is attempting to make a policy, it has to be as fair as possible," he said.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Centre for Internet Society, said ensuring network neutrality might be difficult, but the government could stop censorship and discrimination. "Competition usually resolves these issues. We have competition among telecom service providers and Internet service providers. This must be protected," he added.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-surabhi-aggarwal-april-11-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages-on</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-02T08:45:03ZNews ItemNet Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution – III: Conceptions of Free Speech and Democracy
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy
<b>In this 3 part series, Gautam Bhatia explores the concept of net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the modern State, effective exercise of free speech rights is increasingly dependent upon an infrastructure that includes newspapers, television and the internet. Access to a significant part of this infrastructure is determined by money. Consequently, if what we value about free speech is the ability to communicate one’s message to a non-trivial audience, financial resources influence both <i>who </i>can speak and, consequently, <i>what </i>is spoken. The nature of the public discourse – what information and what ideas circulate in the public sphere – is contingent upon a distribution of resources that is arguably unjust and certainly unequal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are two opposing theories about how we should understand the right to free speech in this context. Call the first one of these the libertarian conception of free speech. The libertarian conception takes as given the existing distribution of income and resources, and consequently, the unequal speaking power that that engenders. It prohibits any intervention designed to remedy the situation. The most famous summary of this vision was provided by the American Supreme Court, when it first struck down campaign finance regulations, in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/1#writing-USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZO"><i>Buckley v. Valeo</i></a>: <i>“t</i><i>he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” </i>This theory is part of the broader libertarian worldview, which would restrict government’s role in a polity to enforcing property and criminal law, and views any government-imposed restriction on what people can do within the existing structure of these laws as presumptively wrong.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>We can tentatively label the second theory as the <i>social-democratic theory </i>of free speech. This theory focuses not so much on the individual speaker’s right not to be restricted in using their resources to speak as much as they want, but upon the collective interest in maintaining a public discourse that is open, inclusive and home to a multiplicity of diverse and antagonistic ideas and viewpoints. Often, in order to achieve this goal, governments regulate access to the infrastructure of speech so as to ensure that participation is not entirely skewed by inequality in resources. When this is done, it is often justified in the name of democracy: a functioning democracy, it is argued, requires a thriving public sphere that is not closed off to some or most persons.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Surprisingly, one of the most powerful judicial statements for this vision also comes from the United States. In <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/case.html"><i>Red Lion v. FCC</i></a>, while upholding the “fairness doctrine”, which required broadcasting stations to cover “both sides” of a political issue, and provide a right of reply in case of personal attacks, the Supreme Court noted:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“[Free speech requires] <i>preserv</i>[ing]<i> an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance <span style="text-decoration: underline;">monopolization of that market</span>, whether it be by the Government itself or <span style="text-decoration: underline;">a private licensee</span>…</i><i> it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here</i>.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What of India? In the early days of the Supreme Court, it adopted something akin to the libertarian theory of free speech. In <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/243002/"><i>Sakal Papers v. Union of India</i></a>, for example, it struck down certain newspaper regulations that the government was defending on grounds of opening up the market and allowing smaller players to compete, holding that Article 19(1)(a) – in language similar to what <i>Buckley v. Valeo </i>would hold, more than fifteen years later – did not permit the government to infringe the free speech rights of some in order to allow others to speak. The Court continued with this approach in its next major newspaper regulation case, <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/125596/"><i>Bennett Coleman v. Union of India</i></a>, but this time, it had to contend with a strong dissent from Justice Mathew. After noting that “<i>it is no use having a right to express your idea, unless you have got a medium for expressing it”</i>, Justice Mathew went on to hold:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“<i>What is, therefore, required is an interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) which focuses on the idea that restraining the hand of the government is quite useless in assuring free speech, if a restraint on access is effectively secured by private groups. A Constitutional prohibition against governmental restriction on the expression is effective only if the Constitution ensures an adequate opportunity for discussion… Any scheme of distribution of newsprint which would make the freedom of speech a reality by making it possible the dissemination of ideas as news with as many different facets and colours as possible would not violate the fundamental right of the freedom of speech of the petitioners. In other words, a scheme for distribution of a commodity like newsprint which will subserve the purpose of free flow of ideas to the market from as many different sources as possible would be a step to advance and enrich that freedom. If the scheme of distribution is calculated to prevent even an oligopoly ruling the market and thus check the tendency to monopoly in the market, that will not be open to any objection on the ground that the scheme involves a regulation of the press which would amount to an abridgment of the freedom of speech.</i>”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>In Justice Mathew’s view, therefore, freedom of speech is not only the speaker’s right (the libertarian view), but a complex balancing act between the listeners’ right to be exposed to a wide range of material, as well as the collective, societal right to have an open and inclusive public discourse, which can only be achieved by preventing the monopolization of the instruments, infrastructure and access-points of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Over the years, the Court has moved away from the majority opinions in <i>Sakal Papers </i>and <i>Bennett Coleman</i>, and steadily come around to Justice Mathew’s view. This is particularly evident from two cases in the 1990s: in <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/921638/"><i>Union of India v. The Motion Picture Association</i></a>, the Court upheld various provisions of the Cinematograph Act that imposed certain forms of compelled speech on moviemakers while exhibiting their movies, on the ground that “<i>to earmark a small portion of time of this entertainment medium for the purpose of showing scientific, educational or documentary films, or for showing news films has to be looked at in this context of </i><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">promoting dissemination of ideas, information and knowledge to the masses so that there may be an informed debate and decision making on public issues</span></i><i>. Clearly, the impugned provisions are designed to further free speech and expression and not to curtail it.</i>”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/304068/"><i>LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah</i></a> is even more on point. In that case, the Court upheld a right of reply in an <i>in-house </i>magazine, <i>“because fairness demanded that both view points were placed before the readers,</i><i> </i><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">however limited be their number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions and unreasonable</span></i><i> </i><i>because there was no logic or proper justification for refusing publication…</i><i> </i><i>the respondent’s fundamental right of speech and expression clearly entitled him to insist that his views on the subject should reach those who read the magazine so that they have a complete picture before them and not a one sided or distorted one</i>…” This goes even further than Justice Mathew’s dissent in <i>Bennett Coleman</i>, and the opinion of the Court in <i>Motion Picture Association</i>, in holding that not merely is it permitted to structure the public sphere in an equal and inclusive manner, but that it is a <i>requirement </i>of Article 19(1)(a).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We can now bring the threads of the separate arguments in the three posts together. In the first post, we found that public law and constitutional obligations can be imposed upon private parties when they discharge public functions. In the second post, it was argued that the internet has replaced the park, the street and the public square as the quintessential forum for the circulation of speech. ISPs, in their role as gatekeepers, now play the role that government once did in controlling and keeping open these avenues of expression. Consequently, they can be subjected to public law free speech obligations. And lastly, we discussed how the constitutional conception of free speech in India, that the Court has gradually evolved over many years, is a social-democratic one, that requires the keeping open of a free and inclusive public sphere. <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/net-neutrality-monopoly-and-the-death-of-the-democratic-internet?trk_source=homepage-lede">And if there is one thing that fast-lanes over the internet threaten, it is certainly a free and inclusive (digital) public sphere</a>. A combination of these arguments provides us with an arguable case for imposing obligations of net neutrality upon ISPs, even in the absence of a statutory or regulatory obligations, grounded within the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>For the previous post, please see: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-2.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>_____________________________________________________________________________________________________</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><i style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com</a>. Here at CIS, he will be blogging on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.</i></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy</a>
</p>
No publishergautamFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governance2014-05-27T10:21:24ZBlog EntryNet Neutrality Resources
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources
<b>Submissions by the Centre for Internet and Society to TRAI and DoT, 2015-2017.</b>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-06-29_PositionPaperonNetNeutralityinIndia" class="external-link">Submission for TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services</a> (June 29, 2015)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2016-01-07_cis_trai-submission_differential-pricing" class="external-link">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing</a> (January 7, 2016)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2016-01-14_cis_trai-counter-comments_differential-pricing" class="external-link">Counter Comments to TRAI on Differential Pricing</a> (January 14, 2016)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services-post-open-house-discussion-submission" class="external-link">TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing for Data Services: Post-Open House Discussion Submission</a> (January 25, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data</a> (June 30, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-to-trai-consultation-on-proliferation-of-broadband-through-public-wifi-networks">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Proliferation of Broadband through Public WiFi Networks</a> (August 28, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-trai-note-on-interoperable-scalable-public-wifi">Submission to TRAI Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks</a> (December 12, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-trai-submission-on-net-neutrality">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Net Neutrality</a> (April 18, 2017)</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFeaturedHomepageNet NeutralityInternet Governance2017-04-22T09:11:21ZPageNet neutrality debate rages
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages
<b>While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/net-neutrality-debate-rages/article7102338.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It’s a major victory for the proponents of net neutrality and a big setback for service provider Airtel. As the e-commerce firm Flipkart pulled out of talks on joining the controversial Airtel Zero platform, launched by Airtel last week, the debate on net neutrality has taken a fresh turn in the Indian context. In the wake of a virtual uproar in social media and following wide condemnation by votaries of net neutrality, Flipkart has to just give in. With Flipkart-induced new twist in the net neutrality game, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), mostly telecom operators, are running for cover without knowing how to deal with the evolving situation that has the potential to adversely affect their business.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game. And, they are unwilling to comment on a subject that has become an emotive issue. There are, however, voices which seek a middle path as solution to this issue.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“We are in favour of net neutrality. But this has to be defined in the Indian context. That is what TRAI is precisely doing. The debate on net neutrality is appropriate and important. All stakeholders should be able to decide what is net neutrality for India after due debate,” said Rajan Mathews, Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). “We must have a holistic approach to this issue. There should be rational debate, and we are committed for open and non-discriminatory Internet,” Mr Mathews added. A thought must go into protecting the interest of telecom operators as well, he felt.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While supporting net neutrality, analysts have voiced concern over its impact on the finances of telecos. “Net neutrality is a fair concept but it must take into account the concerns of telecom operators and ensure that their revenue and margins are not significantly impacted,” said Rajiv Gupta, Partner and Director, BCG. “Some kind of middle path needs to be achieved,” Mr Gupta said. Only a few countries so far have made net neutrality into a law. “We are yet to see whether our government’s moral support for net neutrality can translate into a law,” Mr Gupta added.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Surprisingly, Airtel which has come under flak on two occasions in last four months for alleged violation of net neutrality norms, too, has pledged its support for net neutrality! “Airtel fully supports the concept of net neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll free data platform Airtel Zero. It is a not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform that allows any application or content provider to offer their service on a toll free basis to their customers who are on our network… The statement made by Flipkart regarding their decision not to offer toll-free data service to their customers is consistent with our stand that Airtel Zero is not a tariff proposition. It is merely an open platform for content providers to provide toll free-data services,” Airtel said. Without spelling out the future of Airtel Zero, it said “The platform remains open to all companies who want to offer these toll free data services to their customers on a completely non-discriminatory basis.” Over 150 start-ups have already expressed willingness to come on board Airtel Zero.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “The need for net neutrality is very real and urgent. There are many practices that telecom companies are trying to engage in, such as blocking of WhatsApp to force customers to pay more money for it, which ought not to be allowed.” On Airtel Zero plan, he said “We should clearly separate out the issue of "zero rating" from that of "net neutrality". ``Only anti-competitive instances of zero-rating - for instance, Airtel offering it's own Hike service for free, or Airtel entering into an exclusive deal with Flipkart for zero-rating its app — are problems. Competitive zero-rating, with regulatory safeguards to ensure a fair and efficient marketplace, should be allowed, just as we allow free TV channels and allow toll-free numbers. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly,” Mr Prakash said.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>No such plans: Snapdeal</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Snapdeal said, “We have no such plans at this point, especially given the regulatory framework is unclear.’’</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Zero rating is a practice among mobile network operators, where customers are not charged for a certain volume of data by specific applications or internet services.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">An Amazon spokesperson said, “Amazon supports net neutrality - the fundamental openness of the Internet - which has been so beneficial to consumers and innovation.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier, Facebook and Reliance Communications had partnered for Internet.org. Reliance had announced in 2012 that it would offer free Facebook and WhatsApp for Rs 16 a month, without any additional data costs.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Amidst the debate on net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said a six-member panel had been constituted by the telecom department to submit its recommendations regarding the same by early next month.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Start-ups for net neutrality:</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sumit Jain, Co-Founder & CEO, CommonFloor.com</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s well acknowledged that Internet has disrupted the world of business like no other technology has in last few decades. It has enabled start-ups with hardly any capital and clout to make a mark. So by rejecting net neutrality, we will be shutting the door on the entrepreneurial aspirations of millions and will leave telcos to play the gate-keeper to a valuable resource as the Internet and challenges the democratic behaviour that Internet in known for”.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sameer Parwani, CEO & Founder, CouponDunia</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“We will stand for net neutrality. India has been in the forefront of digital world. It is the Internet that has given the country hope and aspirations to the common man to be informed and entertained. Not being able to give equal access will just make the situation anti- competitive and it will have a negative effect on the upcoming businesses.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Kashyap Vadapalli, Chief Marketing officer, Pepperfry</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Lack of net neutrality supports a monopolistic market which will adversely affect the growing start-up eco-system. While heavily funded businesses will be able to maintain their supremacy over consumers start-ups will stand to lose out heavily. We do not encourage discrimination of any sorts when it comes to consumer's access to information.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Yogendra Vasupal, Founder of Stayzilla</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Airtel Zero seems like an innovative solution to bring Internet to every person. Whether this is on a firm footing or a slippery slope will be decided by the actual implementation. The current way of individual companies buying Internet for their consumers is a slippery slope. The right way to do it would be through a central consortium formed from the e-commerce companies and who has the interests of both the start-ups in this sector and the end-users in mind. After all, Internet is all about freedom of choice. Keeping in mind that currently it would be free only if you use a particular company makes it free at the cost of the freedom of choice it offers. This is everyone's loss.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, OYO Rooms</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Net neutrality is absolutely essential for a free and competitive market especially now since there is a start-up boom in the country particularly in the online sector. Most importantly, Internet was created to break boundaries and as concerned industry players, we should maintain that. We support net neutrality and will do all needed to build this further.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-08T14:45:34ZNews ItemNet Neutrality 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 EntryNet neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict
<b>Facebook 'disappointed' with the ruling on differential pricing.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Alnoor Peermohamed appeared in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict-116020800974_1.html">Business Standard</a> on February 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has demonstrated what a forward looking and pro-<a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Net+Neutrality" target="_blank">net neutrality </a>policy looks like, experts and net neutrality advocates said after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) turned down a proposal to allow <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Differential+Pricing" target="_blank">differential pricing </a>services to function in the country.<br /> <br /> “This ruling has happened in the face of enormous lobbying on the one side by very large <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Companies" target="_blank">companies </a>and a ragtag bunch of people on the other. In spite of that, to see the right thing has prevailed, which is in the national interest and not what was masqueraded as national interest is very gratifying. This has not often taken place in policy making in India,” says Sharad Sharma, convenor, iSPIRT, a lobby group for indigenous software product firms.<br /> <br /> Net neutrality activists across the world have lauded Trai’s decision not to allow large firms such as <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Facebook" target="_blank">Facebook </a>and Airtel to divide the Internet and offer selected services for free to consumers. The one year-long fight that began when Airtel proposed to offer internet companies the chance to offer customers their services for free, ended in <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Trai" target="_blank">Trai </a>stipulating fines of Rs 50,000 a day for companies offering differential pricing services, which is capped at Rs 50 lakh.<br /> <br /> “This has resulted now in the most expensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing that exists anywhere in the world. Activists around the world would be looking to India and will definitely be using this landmark order to fight against <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Zero+Rating" target="_blank">zero rating </a>elsewhere,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a think tank.<br /> <br /> Facebook, which was one of the biggest stakeholders in the drive to allow differential pricing services in the country, said it was disappointed with the ruling. The firm has been accused of supporting net neutrality in the US, but standing in its way in India to get permissions to provide its <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Free+Basics" target="_blank">Free Basics </a>platform in India.<br /> <br /> “Our goal with Free Basics is to bring more people online with an open, non-exclusive and free platform. While disappointed with the outcome, we’ll continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the internet and the opportunities it brings,” Facebook said in a statement.<br /> <br /> Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Medianama, who ran a campaign called Savetheinternet against Facebook’s Free Basics called this a victory to the youth of India, saying “this outcome indicates what happens when young people actually participate in a governance process”.<br /> <br /> According to Pahwa, there’s far too much cynicism about governments not doing the right thing. “We hope this is the beginning of something new: of people believing that they can make a difference, and persevering towards helping form policies that ensure equity and freedom for everyone.”<br /> <br /> He added: “There are many internet-related issues that have still to be looked at, especially internet shutdowns, censorship and the encryption policy. These impact all of us, and we should be ready to voice our point of view, and the government looks like it is listening.”<br /> <br /> India’s software sector lobby group Nasscom, which had stood against Facebook’s Free Basics platform and for net neutrality in general congratulated Trai for its ruling to disallow zero-rating and differential pricing services in the country.<br /> <br /> “Our submission highlighted the importance of net neutrality principles, non-discriminatory access and transparent business models aligned to the goal of enhancing internet penetration in the country. The Trai announcement resounds with the submission made by Nasscom and we would like to congratulate Trai for enshrining the principles of net neutrality,” R Chandrashekhar, president of Nasscom, said in a statement.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-02-14T11:16:45ZNews Item