The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 51 to 56.
CDT Provides Answers to Questions on Internet Neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cdt-internet-neutrality
<b>Pranesh Prakash of CIS asked David Sohn of CDT a few pointed questions on the emerging hot topic of 'Internet neutrality', and received very useful responses. Those questions and Mr. Sohn's responses are documented in this blog post.</b>
<p>As part of the Centre for Democracy and Technology's (CDT's) excellent "<a class="external-link" href="https://www.cdt.org/ask">Ask CDT</a>" initiative, we were provided the opportunity to clear up some of our doubts around "net neutrality" (which CDT prefers referring to as Internet neutrality rather than network neutrality) by asking an expert: David Sohn, CDT's Senior Policy Counsel. Reproduced below are <a class="external-link" href="https://www.cdt.org/ask#comment-2015">the questions that I asked</a> (inset and in gray), and <a class="external-link" href="https://www.cdt.org/ask#comment-2024">David's replies</a> (provided below each question). Some of the questions I asked below were doubts that I had, while some others are instances of donning the roles of devil's advocate. We hope this will be helpful in clarifying doubts that some of the readers of this blog have had as well.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>1a. "As far as I can understand, content distribution networks (CDNs) such as Akamai, don't really fall within your understanding of violations of Internet neutrality. Why not? In what cases is 'spending more to get faster speeds' permitted for content hosts? Since not only specialised companies like Akamai, but regular Tier 1 companies like Level3 and AT&T also engage in CDN-like behaviour, does it make it more liable to illicit/underhand/non-transparent service differentiation techniques?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>1a. That's correct, CDNs don't violate either Internet neutrality
principles or the FCC's recent rules. I talked about this at <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cdt.org/blogs/david-sohn/neutrality-and-caching">some length
in a blog post a couple years ago</a>. The short
answer is that Internet neutrality does not aim to guarantee that all
online content and services will work equally well, but rather to
prevent ISPs from exercising "gatekeeper" control with respect to their
subscribers. Thus, content providers who have money can purchase various
advantages -- for example, more or better servers, upgraded software, or
caching services from a CDN such as Akamai. Significantly, things like
servers and caching are available from competitive sources; no supplier
has gatekeeper control. In contrast, priority treatment on the
transmission facilities serving any given Internet user is an advantage
that only that user's ISP could provide. Another difference is that when
one content provider purchases caching, it doesn't slow anybody else's
traffic (indeed, it could speed it up, since it may help reduce overall
network congestion). By contrast, when an ISP designates favoured traffic
for priority transmission, non-favoured traffic by definition is
de-prioritized. Think about a line of "bits" waiting in a router queue
-- if you let some bits "cut in line," it inevitably lengthens the wait
for those who don't get to cut.
Given CDT's general comfort level with CDNs and the existence of
competitive offerings in the marketplace, I'm not too concerned about
who provides the service (Akamai, Level3, AT&T, etc.). It doesn't seem
to be a case of the ISP leveraging its unique control over access to
subscribers.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>1b. "A large part of the claims of Internet neutrality supporters are founded on the basis of 'dumb networks', which can also be seen as a reformulation of the end-to-end principle. A question arises, which is often posed by the likes of Dave Farber, Bob Kahn and Robert Pepper: why should we stick dogmatically to the end-to-end principle when embedding 'intelligence' in the core is/will soon be a viable option <strong class="moz-txt-star"><span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span>without<span class="moz-txt-tag">*</span></strong> jeopardising the simplicity of the Internet? If you are fine with CDNs, then are you fine with a partial supplanting of the dogmatism of the end-to-end principle (because, after all, CDNs are in a sense, intelligence in the core rather than in the edges)?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>1b. I don't think that supporting Internet neutrality requires a
dogmatic opposition to any and all built-in "intelligence" in the
network. Certainly a strong case can be made for handling certain
network management matters, such as some cyber security issues, at the
network level. I get concerned on neutrality grounds not by the mere
existence of "intelligence" in the core, but by the use of that
intelligence to make judgments and decisions about which applications
and services are most important or most in need of special treatment --
as opposed to remaining application-agnositic or, in the alternative,
leaving the decision to end users. Intelligence that is put in the
service of end users, allowing the users themselves to make judgments
about what to prioritize, does not concern me at all. But if the
network-level intelligence results in broader reliance on centralized
evaluation and categorization of the type or content of Internet
communications, and centralized decisions about what to favor or
disfavor, then I think it poses a neutrality problem. The bottom line
is, the idea that networks could benefit from some built-in intelligence
does not argue for giving ISPs unbounded discretion to discriminate
among traffic. Indeed, a network that empowered users themselves to
determine the relative priority levels of their traffic based on their
individual needs would be far "smarter" than on in which ISPs make
broad, across-the-board choices.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>2. "What is the bright-line rule that separates some IP-based networks that are 'private' (and hence free to do as they please), and others that are part of the 'Internet' (and hence need to follow Internet neutrality)? Where does IPTV fall? (While answering that question, think not only of present-day IPTV, but keep in mind its potential applications.) Where do 'walled gardens' of the WWW fall?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>2. In CDT's view, Internet access service provides a general-purpose
ability to send and receive data communications across the Internet.
Other services could be exempt from neutrality rules if they serve
specific and limited functional purposes and have limited impact on the
technical performance of Internet traffic. CDT's comments to the FCC
went into considerable detail -- see, for example, <a class="external-link" href="http://www.cdt.org/comments/fcc-comments-specialized-and-application-openness-principles-mobile-wireless-platforms">the comments we filed
in October</a>.
The FCC rules took a similar but not identical tack, saying that
Internet access services are services that provide the capability to
send and receive data "from all or substantially all Internet endpoints"
or that provide a functional equivalent of such a service. In any event,
the question of how clear the line is between Internet access services
that are subject to neutrality rules and other services that are not is
an important one that will bear close watching over time.
As for IPTV, it offers a specific function -- access to video
programming -- rather than general purpose access to the entire
Internet. So IPTV can be distinguished from Internet service. As for
"walled gardens," it likely would depend how large the garden is. If the
garden seeks to offer a wide enough variety of sites that it can be used
as a substitute for Internet access, then the FCC could choose to apply
neutrality rules. At some point, a garden can become big and
general-purpose enough that it is effectively serving as a non-neutral
version of an Internet access service. That kind of end-run around
neutrality rules shouldn't be allowed.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>3a. "Should Internet neutrality be kept at the level of non-enforceable (but still important) enunciation of principles, or should they be enforceable laws? In either case, who has the authority to regulate Internet neutrality, given the non-territoriality of the 'Internet' (and especially keeping in mind the direction that ICANN's been taking with things like the Affirmation of Commitments). Why should the FCC have such powers? Why should any American governmental body have such powers?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>3a. It is important to have some enforceable rules. The FCC enunciated
principles back in its 2005 broadband Policy Statement -- but when the
agency tried to act after Comcast violated those principles, a court
ruled that the FCC had no ability to do so. Enunciated principles are of
little value if ISPs are free to violate them without consequence. For
U.S. Internet users, I think the FCC is an appropriate agency in which
to lodge the authority to police neutrality violations; the FCC has a
long history of working to ensure that providers of physical
communications infrastructure do not abuse their position. And since the
focus is on the provisions of physical communications connections, I
don't the the territoriality issue you raise is a major problem. The
United States has the authority to establish rules for companies
providing last-mile communications links to U.S.-based subscribers. The
Internet is of course a global medium, but the endpoint connections have
a clear geographic location.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>3b. "If Internet neutrality is really about ensuring fair competition (so an ISP doesn't promote one company's content), then why not just allow competition law / anti-trust law to ensure that fair competition? What are the lacunae in global competition laws that necessitate the separate articulation of 'Internet neutrality' principles/rules?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>3b. The ability of antitrust law to protect Internet openness is pretty
limited. Absent a clear anticompetitive motive, network operators likely
could curtail Internet openness in a variety of ways without running
afoul of antitrust law. Antitrust’s prohibition against anticompetitive
conduct is a far cry from any kind of affirmative policy to preserve the
Internet’s uniquely open network structure. Nor can antitrust law take
into account the major non-economic reasons for maintaining an open
Internet, such as the impact on independent speech and civic
empowerment. Finally, as a practical matter, antitrust cases tend to
drag on for many years. Individual innovators and small startup
companies – key beneficiaries of Internet openness – are unlikely to be
in a position to bring antitrust cases against major network operators.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>4a. "One of the strongest arguments of anti-Internet neutrality folks is that adoption of Internet neutrality principles/rules will ensure that it is only the consumers who foot the bill for bandwidth consumption, and bandwidth hogs (like NetFlix) don't ever pay. This, they say, is unfair on consumers. How do you respond to this?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>4a. First, I question the statement that "bandwidth hogs like NetFlix
don't ever pay." For starters, NetFlix buys a huge amount of bandwidth
connecting its servers to the Internet. Once on the Internet, its
traffic is carried onward pursuant to peering agreements between the
ISPs and backbone providers. When NetFlix traffic volume grows, it may
trigger new payment demands between carriers, as we've seen in the
recent dispute between Comcast and Level3. But the bottom line is,
nobody is forced to carry any traffic they haven't contractually agreed
to handle. Of course, it is true that NetFlix doesn't make payments to
(for example) AT&T for delivering NetFlix traffic to AT&T's customers.
That might seem unfair if you think of NetFlix as a "bandwidth hog"
eating up AT&T's capacity. I believe that is the wrong way to think
about it. NetFlix has no ability to forcefeed traffic onto AT&T's
network. Every bit it sends was requested by an AT&T subscriber. So if
there are "bandwidth hogs" here, they are the end users -- they are the
ones that pull all those bits onto AT&T's network. And they have already
paid AT&T for the ability to get those bits. I would add that when
individual users choose to download huge volumes, I have no problem with
the ISP charging them more.
Second, you suggest that it may be unfair to ask consumers to foot the
full bill for their connectivity. But the Internet is such an open and
innovation-friendly platform precisely because it is so user-driven.
This user-centric focus could change if ISPs start thinking of
themselves as providing services not just to end user subscribers, but
also to non-subscribers such as large online content providers to whom
the ISPs do not directly provide bandwidth. The ISPs would then have
divided loyalties; rather than just focusing on empowering users, they
would be collecting fees to steer users in particular directions. Sure,
in other contexts there are examples of "two-sided markets" in which end
users foot only part of the bill. Newspapers are often cited. But
including paid advertising in newspapers doesn't have much impact in how
the overall product is perceived or presented to users. In contrast,
ISPs charging content providers for special transmission priority would
be akin to a newspaper in which advertisers pay not just to place ads,
but also to influence where the substantive articles appear -- which
ones go on the front page and which on the interior, for example. In
turn, content providers of all stripes would need to think about
striking deals with multiple ISPs -- something that is not necessary
today. In the end, turning the Internet into a two-sided market would
make the medium dramatically less open, less innovative, and less
empowering of users.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="moz-txt-citetags"></span>4b. "If a consumer wants a faster connection (to access content faster), she can get that by paying the ISP more and getting more bandwidth. If a business wants a faster connection (to deliver content faster), it can get that by paying the ISP more bandwidth. However, certain kinds of paying for faster delivery of content are sought to be curbed. Where should we draw that line? And Why should we hold on so dearly to a certain model of accounting for costs?"</p>
</blockquote>
<p>4b. Consumers and businesses should be able to pay their respective ISPs
for more bandwidth. I think that is very different from paying other
people's ISPs for preferential treatment. The latter arrangement turns
ISPs into gatekeepers with respect to their subscribers -- because once
the quality of delivery depends on which content providers have struck a
deal with the subscribers' ISP, every content provider needs to
negotiate with that ISP in order to keep up with its competitors. We
hold on to the Internet's model of accounting for costs because it is
part of what makes the Internet such an open, innovative environment:
content providers and innovators don't face the hurdle of having to
negotiate deals with all their users' ISPs.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cdt-internet-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cdt-internet-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraneshNet NeutralityInternet Governance2012-06-04T05:56:46ZBlog Entryବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାର କୋକୁଆ ଆଣିବ ଫେସବୁକର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38
<b>This opinion piece in Odia on Facebook's Free Basics App was published in Your Story. The post highlights several user security and privacy that Free Basics is violating apart from violating net neutrality. It also brings the parallel of Airtel Zero and Free Basics with the Grameenphone project by Mozilla in Bangladesh and the worldwide Wikipedia Zero projects.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This was published in <a class="external-link" href="http://odia.yourstory.com/read/3b6116b8ee/-">Your Story</a> on January 5, 2016.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ (Free Basics) ଭାରତରେ ଆସିବା ଆଗରୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଭିତରେ ନିଜ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାକୁ ନେଇ କୋକୁଆ ଭୟ ଖେଳିଲାଣି । ମାଗଣା ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶରେ ଫେସବୁକ, ଫେସବୁକର ସହପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଓ ବାକି କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ମାଗଣାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବାର ଆଳରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଏ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଅଭାବ ସଙ୍ଗେ ଖେଳୁନାହିଁ ତ? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ନାଆଁରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ହୋଇଯିବେ କି? ଏମିତି ଅଗଣିତ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରୁଥିବା ବେଳେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ ଏହାକୁ ଭାରତରେ ସାମୟିକ ଭାବେ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_Facebook.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Facebook" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଗତ ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ସାରା ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ । ସାରା ଦେଶରୁ ଲୋକେ ନିଆଁରେ ପତଙ୍ଗ ଝାସ ଦେଲା ଭଳି ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ “ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ’ (Free Basics) ବିରୋଧରେ ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ଧରଣର ମତ ଦେଇଚାଲିଛନ୍ତି । ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ମୋଦିଙ୍କ ଆମେରିକା ଗସ୍ତକାଳରେ ସେ ସେଠାରେ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗେ ଭେଟି ଫେସବୁକର ମିଳିତ ସହଯୋଗରେ ଭାରତରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ଓ ସୂଚନା ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ବାବଦରେ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିଥିଲେ । ଆଉ ଫେସବୁକକୁ ଏହା ଭାରତରେ ନିଜର ଚେର ମୋଟା କରିବାକୁ ଏକ ଭଲ ବାଟ ଦେଖାଇଲା । ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ମାର୍କ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ବାବଦରେ ଘୋଷଣା କରିବାର ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ନ ବିତୁଣୁ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ପାଖରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରି ଲକ୍ଷ ପାଖାପାଖି ଇମେଲ ଏହାକୁ ରୋକିବା ଲାଗି ପହଞ୍ଚି ସାରିଲାଣି । ଜନନେତା ଓ ଇନଫୋସିସର ସହ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ମିଡ଼ିଆନାମାର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା , ଭେଞ୍ଚର କ୍ୟାପିଟାଲିଷ୍ଟ , ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଆକ୍ଟିଭିଷ୍ଟ , ଙ୍କ ଯାଏ ସଭିଏଁ ଏହା ପଛରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଲାଭକରୀ ମନୋଭାବ ନିହିତ ଅଛି ବୋଲି କଡ଼ା ନିନ୍ଦା କରି ଲେଖିଲେଣି । ତେବେ କ’ଣ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ? କାହିଁକି ଏତେ ବିବାଦ ଏ ସରଳ ସୁବିଧା ବିରୋଧରେ?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/Freebasics.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Freebasics" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫେସବୁକ୍ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ଊଣା ଅଧିକେ ସଭିଏଁ ଜାଣୁଥିବେ ସେ କେଡ଼େ ଅଠାକାଠି! ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରାୟ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ହେଲେ ଯୁବବର୍ଗ । ତେବେ କି ଯୁବା କି ବୁଢ଼ା ଫେସବୁକରେ ପ୍ରାୟ ଲୋକେ କେବଳ ମଜାମଉଜ ଲାଗି ଆସିଥାନ୍ତି । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ଖୁବ୍ କମ୍ ସମୟରେ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ମିଶିବା, ଗପିବା ଓ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ମଉଜ ପାଇ ଅନେକେ ଫେସବୁକ ପ୍ରେମରେ ପଡ଼ିଯାଆନ୍ତି । ସରଳ ଭାଷାରେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏକ ହାଟ ବଜାର । ଲୋକେ ସେଠି କିଛି ସମୟ କାଟିବା ପାଇଁ, ଚିହ୍ନା-ଅଚିହ୍ନା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସହ ମିଶିବା ପାଇଁ, ଆଳାପ-ଆଲୋଚନା ପାଇଁ ଏକାଠି ହୁଅନ୍ତି । ଅଧିକାଂଶ ଆଲୋଚନା କେବଳ ମଉଜ ପାଇଁ ହେଲାବେଳେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ଆଲୋଚନା ମଧ୍ୟ ହୋଇଥାଏ । ଫେସବୁକ ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ଲାଭକରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ଏହାର ଆଉ ଏକ ସହ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ହେଲା ହ୍ୱାଟସ୍ଅପ୍ । ଏହା ଅନଲାଇନ ଚାଟିଂ ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯାଏ । ଫଟୋ ଭିଡ଼ିଓରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ସାଧାରଣ ଚାଟିଂ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଏହା ଖୁବ୍ ଜଣା ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ନିକଟରେ ଫେସବୁକ Internet.org ନାମକ ଏକ ସହ-ସଙ୍ଗଠନ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିଛି । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ହେଲା ଏ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଡଟ ଅର୍ଗ ଅଧୀନରେ ଏକ ଯୋଜନା । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ଫେସବୁକର ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ସବୁକୁ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶମାନଙ୍କରେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକପ୍ରିୟ କରିବା ଲାଗି ସେସବୁକୁ ବିନାମୂଲ୍ୟରେ ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ । ଭାରତ ସମେତ ଜଗତର ୩୦ଟି ଦେଶରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣା ସୀମିତ ଫେସବୁକ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବା ଏହାର ଉଦ୍ଦେଶ୍ୟ । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ମଧ୍ୟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହେବ । ତେବେ ଏଠାରେ ଅନେକ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରେ । ଏ ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା କି ନା ତା’ର ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ କିଏ ନେବ - ଫେସବୁକ ନା ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ? ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଅଧୁନା କିଛି ଦେଶରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହୋଇଥିବାବେଳେ ଫିଲିପାଇନ୍ସରେ ରହୁଥିବା ଜଣେ ଭାରତୀୟ ଜିତେଶ ଗୋସ୍ୱାମୀ ନିକଟରେ ନିଜେ ନିଜ ମୋବାଇଲରେ ସେଠାର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଇନଷ୍ଟଲ କରି ଯାହା ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି ତା’ ଭାରି ଚିନ୍ତାର ବିଷୟ । ସାଧାରଣ ଫେସବୁକର ଅଧାରୁ ଅଧିକ ସୁବିଧା ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ନାହିଁ । ଏଥିରେ ଫେସବୁକ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଭିଡ଼ିଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ଦେଖିହେବନି କି ଖବର ଆଦି ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପଢ଼ିହେବନି । ପୁଣି ମାଗଣାରେ ମିଳିବାକୁ ଥିବା ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବାଛିବାରେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏକଚାଟିଆ ଅଧିକାର ରହିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କ’ଣ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ନ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ତାହା ଫେସବୁକ ନିର୍ଣ୍ଣୟ କରିବ ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_FB.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="FB" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଆଉ ‘ଗରିବ ମାଇପ ସବୁରି ଶାଳୀ’ ନ୍ୟାୟରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣା ତିଅଣର ସୁଆଦ ଚଖାଇ ଫେସବୁକ ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗାଇବା ଆଳରେ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ରଖିବ । ଫେସବୁକ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ, Mozilla ଭଳି ଖୋଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ବ୍ୟବହାର କରେନାହିଁ କି ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ତିଆରି ନୁହେଁ । ଏହା ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ ଏକ ଲାଭକାରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ତେଣୁ ଫେସବୁକର ସବୁ କାମ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ପାଇଁ । ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ମନ ଜିଣିବା ପାଇଁ ଓ ନିଜର ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ସଂଖ୍ୟା ବଢ଼ାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏହା ଫେସବୁକର ଏକ ମସୁଧା ବୋଲି ଅନେକ ଚିନ୍ତାଶୀଳ ଲୋକେ ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ଏକଚାଟିଆ କାମ ନେଟ ନିଉଟ୍ରାଲିଟି ବା ନେଟ ସମାନତାର ପକ୍ଷପାତୀ । ପକ୍ଷପାତ ନ କରି ସବୁ ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସମାନ ଭାବେ ଗଣିବା ନେଟ ସମାନତା ନାମରେ ଜଣା ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଥିବା ନାନାଦି ଭୁଲ ବିଷୟକୁ ଭଲ ଭାବେ ତନଖି କରିବା ପାଇଁ ନିକଟରେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ କିଛିକାଳ ପାଇଁ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି । ଚତୁର ଫେସବୁକ କେବେ ଚାଷୀମାନଙ୍କୁ ପାଣିପାଗ ଜାଣିବାରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ତ କେବେ ଅଭାବୀ ଭାରତୀୟଙ୍କୁ ପରସ୍ପର ସହ ଯୋଡ଼ିବାରେ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ବୋଲି ଦେଶସାରା ସହର ବଜାର ସବୁଠି ଜୋରଦାର ପ୍ରଚାର ଚଳାଇଥିଲା । ସବୁ ଖବରକାଗଜରେ ପୂରା ଫରଦ ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ଆଉ ସବୁ ବସ୍ ରହିବା ସ୍ଥାନରେ ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ ହୋର୍ଡିଂ । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ସଭିଙ୍କୁ ଅନୁରୋଧ ଥିଲା ଏକ ନମ୍ବରକୁ ମିସକଲ ଦେଇ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ସମର୍ଥନ କରିବା ପାଇଁ । ଏ ପ୍ରଚାର ପ୍ରସାରରେ ୧୦୦ କୋଟିରୁ ଅଧିକ ବୋଧେ ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚ ହୋଇଥିବ । କେଉଁଠୁ ଆଦାୟ ହେବ ଏ ପଇସା ?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସର ମାଗଣା ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବାର ଏ ଆଳ ବିରୋଧରେ ଝଡ଼ ଉଠିଛି । ଫେସବୁକର ମିସକଲ୍ ଅଭିଯାନର କଡ଼ା ଜବାବ ଦେବା ପାଇଁ <a href="http://savetheinternet.in/">http://savetheinternet.in</a> ଓ <a href="http://fsmi.in/">http://fsmi.in</a> ନାମକ ଦୁଇଟି ୱେବସାଇଟ ପକ୍ଷରୁ ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କୁ ସଚେତନ କରାଯାଇ ଟ୍ରାଇ ପାଖକୁ ଇମେଲ ପଠାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଅନୁରୋଧ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା। ଫେସବୁକର କୋଟିକୋଟି ଟଙ୍କା ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚର ମିସକଲ ଅଭିଯାନରୁ ୧୦ଲକ୍ଷ ସମର୍ଥନ ମିଳିଥିବାବେଳେ ବିନା ପଇସାରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରିଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଇମେଲ ଜରିଆରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ବିରୋଧ କରି ଟ୍ରାଇକୁ ଇମେଲ କରିଛନ୍ତି । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ସମର୍ଥନ ସଂଗ୍ରହକୁ ଟ୍ରାଇର ସଭାପତି ଆରଏସ୍ ଶର୍ମା ଘୋର ନିନ୍ଦା କରି କହିଛନ୍ତି, ଏଯାବତ୍ ଫେସବୁକ ଯେଉଁ ୧୪ ଲକ୍ଷ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ପ୍ରଭାବିତ କରି ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ମିସକଲ୍ ଜରିଆରେ ସମର୍ଥନ ଆଣିଛି ତା’ ମୂଲ୍ୟହୀନ । ୧୦୦ କୋଟି ଟଙ୍କାର କି ଅପଚୟ! ସେତିକି ପଇସାରେ ଶହେ ହଜାର ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିବା ସୁଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ଆହୁରି ଭଲ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଲୁଚି ରହିଥିବା ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ ବିପଦଟି ହେଲା ଫେସବୁକର ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହ କାରସାଦି । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କି କି ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିଲେ, କାହା ସଙ୍ଗେ ଗପିଲେ ସେସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଅଗୋଚରରେ ଟିକିନିଖି କରି ହିସାବ ରଖିଥାଏ । ସଳଖେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ବାପୁଡ଼ାର ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ବୋଲି କିଛି ରହିବ ନାହିଁ । ଫେସବୁକ ଆରମ୍ଭରୁ ଶବ୍ଦସମ୍ଭାରରେ ଭରା ଏକ ଲମ୍ବା ବିବରଣୀରେ ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ କୌଣସି ଅଭିଯୋଗ ନାହିଁ ବୋଲି ଖୁବ୍ ଚତୁର ଭାବେ ତାଙ୍କଠୁ ଅନୁମତି ନେଇଯାଏ । ଅନଭିଜ୍ଞ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଟିର ପାଠଘର ଯାହା ସେଥିରେ ସେ ଏ ଫିକର ବୁଝିବ ବା କିପରି? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଓକିଲ ଇବେନ ମଗଲେନ ଓ ମିସି ଚୌଧୁରୀ ଏକ ଲେଖାରେ ଦୁହେଁ ତନ୍ନ ତନ୍ନ କରି ବିଶ୍ଳେଷଣ କରିଛନ୍ତି ଏ କଥା । ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ଉଠେ ଯେ ଫେସବୁକ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ବେପରୁଆ ଅପସାହସ କରିବ କି ?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ଏହିଭଳି ଆଉ ଏକ କୁଟିଳ ବିଷୟ ଥିଲା ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ । ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ ଆଉ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଭିତରେ ବଡ଼ ସମାନତା ହେଉଛି ଉଭୟ କମ୍ପାନୀ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟଙ୍କଠାରୁ ବିପୁଳ ପରିମାଣରେ ପଇସା ନେଇ ସେ ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁକୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ମାଗଣା ଯୋଗାଇଥାନ୍ତି । ଏଥିରେ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଖେ ପହଞ୍ଚୁଥିବା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁଙ୍କ ସିଧାସଳଖ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନିହିତ ଥାଏ । ପାଠକଙ୍କୁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ କରିବାର ତୁଚ୍ଛା ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ତଳେ ଯେ ଏତେ ଫନ୍ଦି ରହିଛି ତାହା ପାଠକ ବାପୁଡ଼ା ବା ଜାଣିବ କେମନ୍ତେ ? ଆଉ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ଫିକର ସହଜେ ଧରାପଡ଼ିବ ବୋଲି ଫେସବୁକ ଭଳି କମ୍ପାନୀ ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶକୁ ଥୋପ କରିଛି ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ତେବେ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବା କିଛି ନୂଆ ନୁହେଁ । ଅତୀତରେ ବାଂଲାଦେଶରେ Mozilla (ଫାୟାରଫକ୍ସ ଭଳି ନାନାଦି ଖୋଲା ଓଫ୍ଟଓଏର ପରିଚାଳନା କରୁଥିବା ସଙ୍ଗଠନ) <a href="http://m.grameenphone.com/bn/node/2757">ଗ୍ରାମୀଣଫୋନ</a> ନାମକ ଯୋଜନା ଜରିଆରେ ୫ ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ଦିନକୁ ୨୦ ଏମ୍ବିର ଡାଟା ଦେବା ସାରା ଜଗତରେ ଆଲୋଚନା ବିଷୟ ହୋଇଥିଲା । Mozilla ଓ ମୋବାଇଲ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଟେଲିନର ଏଥିପାଇଁ ପ୍ରଶଂସାର ପାତ୍ର ହୋଇଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ଦେଶରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବିଷୟରେ ଜାଣିବାକୁ ପାଉନଥିବାରୁ ଏସ୍ଏମ୍ଏସ୍ ଓ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ ଅନ୍ଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ <a href="http://or.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CS">ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ</a>, <a href="https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero">ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଜିରୋ</a> ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣାରେ ଯୋଗାଇଦିଆଯାଉଛି । ଭାରତରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ପରୀକ୍ଷାମୂଳକ ଭାବେ ଏହି ସୁବିଧା କେତେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଦିଆଯାଇଛି । ତେବେ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ପାଇଁ ଏହିଭଳି ଉଦ୍ୟମ ସବୁରି ଆଦର ପାଆନ୍ତି । କିନ୍ତୁ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଜଗତର ହିତ ନାମରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କ ଗରିବୀକୁ ଥୋପ କରି ଫେସବୁକ୍ର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ କେବଳ ନିନ୍ଦା ପାଇଛି ।</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ନିକଟରେ ଭର୍ଜରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/4/10712026/facebook-android-research-trust">ଏକ ଲେଖା</a>ରେ ଫେସବୁକ କାଳିମାଭରା ଆଉ ଏକ କଥା ନଜରକୁ ଆସିଛି । ଫେସବୁକ ଅତୀତରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ ଅଲଗା ଅଲଗା ଅନୁଭୂତିର ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ ଛାଡ଼ିଥାଏ । ଅର୍ଥାତ ଜଣଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ କେବଳ ତାଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗମାନଙ୍କ ଦୁଃଖଭରା ପୋଷ୍ଟସବୁ ଲଗାତର ଆସୁଥିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ମୁଡ଼ ଜାଣିବା ଗବେଷଣା ନାଁରେ ଏ କୁଟିଳ ଚିନ୍ତା ଯେ କେତେ ଘାତକ ତାହା ସହଜେ ଅନୁମେୟ । ଫେସବୁକର ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଏମିତି ନୀତି ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ଅଜଣା ଓ ଏସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଗୋପନୀୟତା, ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ତଥ୍ୟ ଓ ନିରାପତ୍ତାକୁ ପାଦରେ ଦଳି ଦେଲାଭଳି । <strong>ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସମର୍ଥନ ପାଇବାକୁ ହେଲେ କିଛି ପରିମାଣରେ ସଚ୍ଚା ହେବାକୁ ଯେ ପଡ଼ିବ ଏ କଥାଟି ଫେସବୁକ ଏବେଠୁ ହେଜିଲେ ଆଗକୁ ମଙ୍ଗଳ ହେବ ।</strong></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaFree BasicsOdia WikipediaNet NeutralityAccess to Knowledge2016-01-28T07:24:19ZBlog EntryAccess at the cost of Net neutrality?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality
<b>In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Suhrith Parthasarathy was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality/article7735242.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on October 8, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/facebook-rings-reliance-communications-for-free-data-access/article6878396.ece">formalised a partnership</a> with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as “Internet.org,” has now been <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/facebook-rebrands-internetorg-platform-as-free-basics-by-facebook/article7686680.ece">rebranded</a> as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos, though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, which includes, quite naturally, <a href="http://facebook.com" target="_blank">facebook.com</a>. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally available mobile data prohibitive.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Neutrality, an interpretive concept</b><br /> On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come together to launch a website “<a href="http://savetheinternet.in" target="_blank">savetheinternet.in</a>” with a view to defending Internet freedom — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the principle of network (or Net) neutrality.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term, views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any technical qualifications.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/trai-seeks-views-to-regulate-netbased-calling-messaging-apps/article7039815.ece">released a draft consultation paper </a>seeking the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation. Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/policy-proposes-storage-of-all-messages-mandatory-for-90-days/article7674762.ece">supposedly pernicious impact </a>of applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative, the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them, whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or another, within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, contrary to helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be actively promoting an unequal Internet.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual <i>carte blanche</i> to discriminate between different applications. Though these companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year, <a href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/airtel-launches-platform-offering-free-access-to-certain-apps/article7077204.ece">Airtel announced Airtel Zero</a>, an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also highlights certain telling concerns.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least, some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal. This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous process.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained. It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by constraints imposed by the service provider.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Laudable end, unethical means</b><br /> This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions lie in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. According to them, negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is this: at what cost?</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — and must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties could well be put to grave danger.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">(<i>Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court.</i>)</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-10-09T01:18:31ZNews ItemA Megacorp’s Basic Instinct
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct
<b>Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Arindam Mukherjee was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.outlookindia.com/article/a-megacorps-basic-instinct/296510">published in Outlook</a> on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.<br /><br />In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.<br /><br />TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Of course, many of the experts <i>Outlook</i> spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told <i>Outlook</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaTelecomFree BasicsTRAINet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-04T13:53:05ZNews Item‘A Good Day for the Internet Everywhere': India Bans Differential Data Pricing
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere
<b>India distinguished itself as a global leader on network neutrality on February 8, when regulators officially banned “differential pricing”, a process through which telecommunications service providers could or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services offered based on content.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was published by <a class="external-link" href="https://globalvoices.org/2016/02/09/a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere-india-bans-differential-data-pricing/">Global Voices </a>on February 9, 2016</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In short, this means that Internet access in India will remain an open field, where users should be guaranteed equal access to any website they want to visit, regardless of how they connect to the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In their ruling, <a href="http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/WhatsNew/Documents/Regulation_Data_Service.pdf"><span>Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) commented:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TRAIFreesInternet?src=hash"><span>#TRAIFreesInternet</span></a> | Key take aways from TRAI’s ruling on Net Neutrality <a href="https://t.co/xlFsLb3bZ6"><span>pic.twitter.com/xlFsLb3bZ6</span></a></p>
<p>— CNN-IBN News (@ibnlive) <a href="https://twitter.com/ibnlive/status/696746896556032000"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision of the Indian government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside. In support of the move, the World Wide Web Foundation's Renata Avila, also a Global Voices community member, <a href="http://webfoundation.org/2016/02/worlds-biggest-democracy-bans-zero-rating/?platform=hootsuite"><span>wrote:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">A blow for Facebook's “Free Basics”</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the new rules should long outlast this moment in India's Internet history, the ruling should immediately force Facebook to cancel the local deployment of “Free Basics”, a smart phone application that offers free access to Facebook, Facebook-owned products like WhatsApp, and a select suite of other websites for users who do not pay for mobile data plans.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook's efforts to deploy and promote Free Basics as what they described as a remedy to India's lack of “digital equality” has encountered significant backlash. Last December, technology critic and Quartz writer<a href="http://qz.com/582587/mark-zuckerberg-cant-believe-india-isnt-grateful-for-facebooks-free-internet/"><span> Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying:</span></a></p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">When TRAI solicited public comments on the matter of differential pricing, Facebook responded with an aggressive <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2015/12/17/save-free-basics/" target="_blank"><span>advertising campaign </span></a>on bill boards and in television commercials across the nation. It also embedded a campaign inside Facebook, asking users to write to TRAI in support of Free Basics.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">TRAI <a href="http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/facebooks-free-basics-campaign-slammed-by-indian-regulator-1539261" target="_blank"><span>criticized</span></a> Facebook for what it seemed to regard as manipulation of the public. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and open Internet advocates including non-profits like the <a href="http://www.fsmi.in/" target="_blank"><span>Free Software Movement of India</span></a> and the <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/" target="_blank"><span>Savetheinternet.in</span></a> campaign. The latter two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by bringing public opinion where Savetheinternet.in alone facilitated a campaign in which citizens sent over <a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech%20news/Net-neutrality-Trai-gets-24-lakh-comments-on-differential-data-pricing-paper/articleshow/50493525.cms" target="_blank"><span>2.4 million emails</span></a> to TRAI urging the agency to put a stop to differential pricing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Alongside these efforts, <a href="http://blog.savetheinternet.in/startups-pm-letter/" target="_blank"><span>500 Indian startups</span></a> including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to India's prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality" target="_blank"><span>net neutrality</span></a>—on the Indian Republic Day January 26.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Stand-up comedians like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSxB1mD7SdE&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank"><span>Abish Mathew</span></a> and groups like <a href="https://youtu.be/AAQWsTFF0BM" target="_blank"><span>All India Bakchod</span></a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/UCwaKje44fQ" target="_blank"><span>East India Comedy</span></a> created humorous and informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Had differential pricing been officially legalized, it would have adversely affected startups and content-based smaller companies, who most likely could never manage to pay higher prices to partner with service providers to make their service available for free. This would have paved the way for tech-giants like Facebook to capture the entire market. And this would be no small gain for a company like Facebook: India represents the world's largest market of Internet users after the US and China, where Facebook remains blocked.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet responds</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There have been mixed responses on social media, both supporting and opposing. Among open Internet advocates both in India and the US, the response was celebratory:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p dir="ltr">This order shows the power of citizen involvement in policymaking. Policymakers are forced to listen if citizens engage. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a></p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/696720959974211586"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>I think this is not just a good day for the Internet in India. It's a good day for the Internet everywhere <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/TRAI?src=hash"><span>#TRAI</span></a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/savetheinternet?src=hash"><span>#savetheinternet</span></a></p>
<p>— Anja Kovacs (@anjakovacs) <a href="https://twitter.com/anjakovacs/status/696657952946565121"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>India is now the global leader on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a>. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US. <a href="https://t.co/D6g68k2xaI"><span>https://t.co/D6g68k2xaI</span></a></p>
<p>— Josh Levy (@levjoy) <a href="https://twitter.com/levjoy/status/696716845290655744"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are also those like <a href="https://www.facebook.com/rajkiran.panuganti/posts/10153961592211457"><span>Panuganti Rajkiran</span></a> who opposed the ruling:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>A terrible decision.. The worst part here is the haves deciding for the have nots what they can have and what they cannot.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>When you buy a car, it's fulfilment of aspiration. After that, the next guy who buys a car is just traffic. Let's regulate. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a></p>
<p>— Ramesh Srivats (@rameshsrivats) <a href="https://twitter.com/rameshsrivats/status/696737409136926721"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="https://www.facebook.com/soumya.manikkath/posts/10153386837235920"><span>Soumya Manikkath</span></a> says:</p>
<blockquote style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>So all is not lost in the world, for the next two years at least. Do come back with a better plan, dear Facebook, and we'll rethink, of course.</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ruling leaves an open pathway for companies to offer consumers free access to the Internet, provided that this access is truly open and does not limit one's ability to browse any site of her choosing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Bangalore-based Internet policy expert Pranesh Prakash noted that this work must continue until India is truly — and equally — connected:</p>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" style="text-align: justify; ">
<p>The pro-<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash"><span>#NetNeutrality</span></a> campaign shouldn't rest until every poor family in India has full and free access to the Internet. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ZeroRating?src=hash"><span>#ZeroRating</span></a></p>
<p>— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) <a href="https://twitter.com/pranesh/status/696732814083907584"><span>February 8, 2016</span></a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-02-25T01:21:27ZBlog Entry#NetNeutrality, Data Protection Laws among topics at ITechLaw Conference
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference
<b>The who’s-who of the technology law sector convened at the ITechLaw India International Conference held from January 27-29 in Bangalore.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The last three days saw panel discussions being held on a varied set of topics related to technology law. The debates were led by a number of Indian and international legal professionals from law firms, companies and policy houses.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On Day 2, some of the panel discussions included Commercialization of Data, Aggregator Model – Licensing and Regulatory Issues Faced by Shared Economy Models, Digital Underworld, and Legal Challenges faced in New Media and Entertainment, among others.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The speakers present at these sessions included lawyers like <span><a href="http://barandbench.com/former-mmb-legal-partner-talha-salaria-sets-own-firm-lawyers-work-says-time-right/">Talha Salaria</a></span>, Founder of Lawyers at Work; JSA Partner Sajai Singh; Trilegal Partner <span><a href="http://barandbench.com/lawyers-tend-to-be-the-last-to-adapt-to-technological-changes-trilegals-rahul-matthan/">Rahul Matthan</a></span>; MCM Law Partner Samuel Mani, apart from a host of In-House counsel from Intel, Amazon, IBM, Cognizant et al.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The highlight of Day 3 was a debate on Net Neutrality; Deepali Liberhan from Facebook, Pranesh Prakash from Centre for Internet and Society and <span><a href="http://wp.me/p6ZY6N-1so" target="_blank">Rohan George from Samvad Partners</a></span> were among the panelists.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more info, <a class="external-link" href="http://barandbench.com/itechlaw-net-neutrality/">click here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-30T09:21:20ZNews Item