Centre for Internet and Society

Christ University Wikipedia Education Program Internship

manasarao — 2017-12-14T08:55:05Z

The Centre for Internet and Society - Access to Knowledge program, in partnership with Christ University, is announcing its annual internship program for the 1200 students enrolled in the Wikipedia Education Program. The Wikipedia Education Program at Christ University, now in its fourth year, is an effort to bring together educators and students to use Wikipedia as an educational implement. CIS-A2K conducts the internship activity for passionate Christ University students to improve the quality of the articles created or edited by their fellow WEP peers. The internship will largely involve improving upon the articles created by their peers as well as gathering community consensus based on which these articles would be moved to the main namespace.

The students will be working on Wikipedia over the course of 21 days in developing upon the content created by Christ University Wikipedia Education Program participants. The fledgling articles currently housed in the individual “sandboxes” of the WEP participants will be improved upon by the interns through addition of detailed content, images and info-boxes.

The students are selected based on three main criteria: fluency of language(written and spoken), knowledge of Wikipedia and its processes, and their personal interest levels. The applications are open from 13 to 17 December, 2017. Interested students can apply here:

https://goo.gl/forms/Ffxh3T3DRZz8Q25F3

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/christ-university-wikipedia-education-program-internship-1

The tragedy of the unused commons

Shyam Ponappa — 2018-01-05T14:50:56Z

Hope for the good sense and guts to handle it.

The article was published by Business Standard on December 6, 2017 and in the Organizing India Blogspot on the same day.

“The tragedy of the commons” as you may recall, refers in economics to the overexploitation of shared resources because of unregulated access. The tragedy results from shared resources being depleted or degraded because users pursue their own interests, contrary to the common good. This leads to unsustainable depletion or degradation. The atmosphere and oceans are examples of such shared resources.

There are also reverse situations, in which resources that are available for the benefit of society are unused, to the detriment of the common good. In such cases, there are opportunity costs from disuse that result in detriments, because the benefits of use are foregone. India’s abundant sunlight is a good example. Given its abundance, a reasonable expectation might be that extensive innovation and market organisation would be focused on harvesting this potential energy. Alas, India is a laggard in innovation relating to solar power.

Another resource that is neither depleted nor degraded by usage but underused is radio frequency spectrum. The opportunity cost for unused spectrum is therefore even greater than for a degradable mineral resource such as coal, resulting in an extreme tragedy of unused commons.

Some Issues Need Resolution

The situation today is that swathes of spectrum are unused because of our inability, perhaps unwillingness, to develop the appropriate regulations and organisation to benefit from them. This is true of all unused and underused radio frequency spectrum, although some of it is the most useful means for broadband connectivity for the majority of our rural and semi-urban population. It would also give more urban users less expensive access. For both sets, judicious use would enhance productivity and improve living conditions.
The entire thrust of the Digital India initiative requires these enabling policies and procedures, that is, the administrative rules and regulations that would enable the use of presently unused and therefore wasted spectrum. There are, of course, many other steps required than merely putting in place the regulations. The market structures and organisation have to be created under government leadership with other stakeholders in industry and civil society that would permit sustainable use of “the commons” — namely, the spectrum, if it were a shared resource instead of being apportioned in silos.

At present, private operators in this sector, except one, have too much debt, very low profitability, and insufficient network coverage. Services can be good in some locations, but countrywide, are spotty and not universally accessible. Yet, operators apparently want auctions, not now but at some time in the future (perhaps next year), for the essential resource that is the prerequisite for building the coverage that they don’t have although sorely needed, as it has been for years. While clearly impractical because of how auctions soak up capital, limiting subsequent investment in networks because of the deprivation of capital, operators reportedly want this in order to reduce competitive threats.

Another baffling aspect of our reality is that the administration and regulator took no effective action to prevent the destruction of existing market structures in the telecom sector when there was a disruptive new entrant. With overwhelming resources from unrelated activities, unsustainable strategies and tactics could be construed as jeopardising India’s current and future productivity. Meanwhile, the administration and the regulator dithered, debating theoretical concepts of what constitutes anticompetitive or predatory activity, and the judiciary remained on the sidelines.

Yet another aspect of puzzling inactivity is that there have been no steps to test certain promising technologies for permitting their use through appropriate policies in India, such as TV White Space or the development of MIMO — Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output — using arrays of antennas, yielding (a) greater throughput (b) over longer distances (c) to more users, thereby improving spectrum capacity for broadband. While initial tests for TV White Space, conducted after a delay of several years, have been promising (disclosure: the author was associated with some), proposals for larger follow-up trials have stalled. Without these, policymakers can’t even consider policies that would enable the development and use of TV White Space devices for extending optical fibre from gram panchayats to hundreds of thousands of village users.

In the press, confusing articles short on facts make policy formulation even more difficult and risky in this already technically and financially complex space. One instance is an article about Maharashtra’s Village Social Transformation initiative avoiding TV White Space because this technology has problems with security clearance, in addition to Foreign Contribution Regulation Act clearance for Microsoft’s sponsorship of the pilot. The fact that the problem in India is in getting permission to use TV White Space for purposes other than for Doordarshan’s broadcasts finds no mention. The security risk in these frequencies is the same as in other frequencies, and transmission in any band can be monitored.

Another article suggests the government is considering allocating a high-speed wireless frequency band of unused spectrum (V band or 60 GHz, which is like short-range wireless optic fibre) on a first come, first served basis “which is a gross violation of the Supreme Court order”. Somewhere down the page is a surmise that since the Broadband India Forum is advocating de-licencing of this band and foreign companies support it, this “means that it should be allocated without auction on first come, first served basis”. The Broadband India Forum in its white paper clearly recommends aligning with an international standard, the Harmonised European Standard.1
According to this, low power equipment within specified emission limits in this band doesn’t need a licence. Wi-Fi is de-licenced spectrum that is open access and not allocated. Other de-licenced spectrum would not need to be allocated either, although in India, bands such as 60 GHz could be restricted to authorised operators.

It needs government intervention to cut the Gordian knot and initiate discussions on pooling spectrum for networks and working out practicable, sustainable options. Here’s hoping good sense and guts will help to make a start.

Shyam (no-space) Ponappa at gmail dot com
1: "V band - 60 GHz: The Key to Affordable Broadband in India"
White Paper by Broadband India Forum, November 9, 2016http://www.broadbandindiaforum.com/img/White%20Paper%20on%20V-BAND%20Revised%20Final.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/business-standard-december-6-2017-shyam-ponappa-the-tragedy-of-the-unused-commons

Global Technology Summit 2017 Agenda

Admin — 2017-12-05T13:42:13Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/global-technology-summit-2017-agenda

November 2017 Newsletter

praskrishna — 2018-01-10T01:57:29Z

November 2017 Newsletter

Dear readers,

Previous issues of the newsletters can be accessed here.

Highlights
Anubha Sinha took part in the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017. She posed a question on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017. CIS also gave statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives and GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment. CIS-A2K signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Telangana Government’s IT, Electronics & Communications Department with to catalyse the development of the Wikimedia movement in Telangana and improve the state of free-licensed digital content in Telugu and Urdu. The Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India has published the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW). Nirmita Narasimhan on behalf of the Centre for Internet & Society gave comments on GIGW. The government has already set up a Nudge unit; now, it should apply the Nobel laureate's insights on auctions relating to essential infrastructure wrote Shyam Ponappa in an article in the Business Standard on November 1, 2017. DataMeet and CIS have collaborated on identifying and addressing the challenges to open up and integrate data and information in the water sector. CIS commented on the Consultation Paper on Privacy, Security and Ownership of Data in Telecom Sector published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on August 9, 2017. CIS published a report that compares laws and regulations in the United Kingdom and India to see the similarities and disjunctions in cyber security policy between them. CIS sent comments on TRAI consultation paper on promoting local telecom equipment manufacturing. The submission drew on research primarily done in the Pervasive Technologies project.

Highlights

Anubha Sinha took part in the 35th Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (“SCCR”) at Geneva from 13 November, 2017 to 18 November, 2017. She posed a question on the agenda 'Other Matters' on behalf of CIS on Day 5, 17 November, 2017. CIS also gave statements on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives and GRULAC Proposal for Analysis of Copyright in the Digital Environment.
CIS-A2K signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Telangana Government’s IT, Electronics & Communications Department with to catalyse the development of the Wikimedia movement in Telangana and improve the state of free-licensed digital content in Telugu and Urdu.
The Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India has published the Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (GIGW). Nirmita Narasimhan on behalf of the Centre for Internet & Society gave comments on GIGW.
The government has already set up a Nudge unit; now, it should apply the Nobel laureate's insights on auctions relating to essential infrastructure wrote Shyam Ponappa in an article in the Business Standard on November 1, 2017.
DataMeet and CIS have collaborated on identifying and addressing the challenges to open up and integrate data and information in the water sector.
CIS commented on the Consultation Paper on Privacy, Security and Ownership of Data in Telecom Sector published by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on August 9, 2017.
CIS published a report that compares laws and regulations in the United Kingdom and India to see the similarities and disjunctions in cyber security policy between them.
CIS sent comments on TRAI consultation paper on promoting local telecom equipment manufacturing. The submission drew on research primarily done in the Pervasive Technologies project.

CIS in the News:

Big Data for governance (Alekhya Hanumanthu; Telangana Today; November 4, 2017).
How tech is making life easier for differently-abled (Shalini Umachandrani; November 7, 2017).
India Today Conclave Next 2017: Aadhaar was rushed, says MP Rajeev Chandrashekhar (Priya Pathak; India Today; November 8, 2017).
What You Need To Worry About Before Linking Your Mobile Number With Aadhaar (Roopa Raju and Shekhar Rai; Youth Ki Awaaz; November 8, 2017).
OPINION | Data is New Oil and Human Mind the New Battlefield. India Must Wake Up Now (Lt. General (Retd.) D. S. Hooda; News18.com; November 11, 2017).
Aadhaar seeding: benefits and concerns (Shaikh Zoaib Saleem; Livemint; November 14, 2017).
Privacy issues exist even without Aadhaar (Ronald Abraham; November 15, 2017).
Advocating for Openness: Nine Ways Civil Society Groups Have Mobilized to Defend Internet Freedom (Centre for International Media Assistance; November 15, 2017).
Govt working to set up financial CERT to tackle cyber threats (Komal Gupta; Livemint; November 16, 2017).
Financial CERT to combat cyber threats, says MoS home affairs (CISO MAG; November 17, 2017).
UIDAI admits 210 government websites made Aadhaar details public (Financial Express; November 20, 2017).
India’s internet missionaries: The women Google is relying on to spread its Next Billion message (Sunny Sen; Livemint; November 21, 2017).
FCC’s plan to repeal net neutrality may not impact India (Surabhi Agarwal; Economic Times; November 23, 2017).
Indian activists slam FCC decision to ditch net neutrality (Kul Bhushan; Hindustan Times; November 23, 2017).
FCC’s plan to repeal net neutrality may not impact India (Surabhi Agarwal; Economic Times; November 23, 2017).
Why should you keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US (Subhrojit Mallick; Digit; November 24, 2017).
Cyberattacks a significant threat to democracy: Modi (Komal Gupta; Livemint; November 24, 2017).
Aadhaar verification at airports raises need for stricter data privacy regulations (Aman Sethi; Hindustan Times, November 27, 2017).
IDAP Interview Series: Interview with Nirmita Narasimhan (IDIA Law; November 27, 2017).
Govt releases white paper on data protection framework (Komal Gupta; Livemint; November 28, 2017).
Bengalureans to receive Helen Keller award (Deccan Herald; November 30, 2017).

-------------------------------------
Accessibility & Inclusion
-------------------------------------
India has an estimated 70 million persons with disabilities who don't have access to read printed materials due to some form of physical, sensory, cognitive or other disability. As part of our endeavour to make available accessible content for persons with disabilities, we are developing a text-to-speech software in 15 languages with support from the Hans Foundation. The progress made so far in the project can be accessed here.

Submission

Comments on Guidelines for Indian Government Websites (Nirmita Narasimhan; November 26, 2017).

-----------------------------------
Access to Knowledge
-----------------------------------
Our Access to Knowledge programme currently consists of two projects. The Pervasive Technologies project, conducted under a grant from the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), aims to conduct research on the complex interplay between low-cost pervasive technologies and intellectual property, in order to encourage the proliferation and development of such technologies as a social good. The Wikipedia project, which is under a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation, is for the growth of Indic language communities and projects by designing community collaborations and partnerships that recruit and cultivate new editors and explore innovative approaches to building projects.

►Copyright & Patent

35th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives (Anubha Sinha; November 15, 2017).
35th SCCR: CIS Statement on Limitations and Exceptions for Libraries and Archives (Anubha Sinha; November 17, 2017).
35th SCCR: CIS' Question to Dr. Rostama on her Study on the Impact of the Digital Environment on Copyright Legislation (Anubha Sinha; November 19, 2017).

►Wikipedia

Blog Entry

CIS-A2K signs MoU with Telangana Government (Manasa Rao; November 8, 2017).

►Openness

Our work in the Openness programme focuses on open data, especially open government data, open access, open education resources, open knowledge in Indic languages, open media, and open technologies and standards - hardware and software. We approach openness as a cross-cutting principle for knowledge production and distribution, and not as a thing-in-itself.

-----------------------------------

Internet Governance
-----------------------------------

As part of its research on privacy and free speech, CIS is engaged with two different projects. The first one (under a grant from Privacy International and IDRC) is on surveillance and freedom of expression (SAFEGUARDS). The second one (under a grant from MacArthur Foundation) is on restrictions that the Indian government has placed on freedom of expression online.

►Privacy

Blog Entries

A Comparison of Legal and Regulatory Approaches to Cyber Security in India and the United Kingdom (Divij Joshi; edited by Elonnai Hickok; November 12, 2017).
Counter Comments on TRAI's Consultation Paper on Privacy, Security and Ownership of Data in Telecom Sector (Amber Sinha; November 23, 2017).

Participation in Event

BIS International Seminar on Internet of Things (Organized by BIS; November 15, 2017; India Habitat Centre, New Delhi). Amber Sinha attended the event.
Internet Universality Indicators for a Safe, Secure and Inclusive Cyberspace for Sustainable Development (Organized by UNESCO in collaboration with the Ministry of Electronics and IT, Government of India; UNESCO Conference Room, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi; November 17, 2017). Amber Sinha attended the event.

Roundtable on Data Integrity and Privacy (Organized by Observer Research Foundation; November 18, 2017). The round table discussion was chaired by Shri Baijayant Panda, Hon'ble Member of Parliament.

►Cyber Security

Blog Entry

Breach Notifications: A Step towards Cyber Security for Consumers and Citizens (Amelia Andersdotter; November 14, 2017).

Event Organized

Roundtable on Enhancing Indian Cyber Security through Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation (Indian Islamic Centre; Lodhi Road; New Delhi; November 4, 2017).
Open House on Security Practices in FinTech (Organized by CIS and Has Geek; November 17, 2017).

Participation in Event

Multinational Cyber Security Forum at University of Haifa (Organized by Center for Cyber, Law and Policy and University of Haifa in collaboration with the Hewlett Foundation Cyber Initiative; November 5 - 7, 2017). Sunil Abraham participated in the meeting held in Israel.
Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) (Organized by GCSC; November 21, 2017; New Delhi). Pranesh Prakash participated in the event.

-----------------------------------
Telecom
-----------------------------------

CIS is involved in promoting access and accessibility to telecommunications services and resources, and has provided inputs to ongoing policy discussions and consultation papers published by TRAI. It has prepared reports on unlicensed spectrum and accessibility of mobile phones for persons with disabilities and also works with the USOF to include funding projects for persons with disabilities in its mandate:

Article

Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler's Views On Auctions (Shyam Ponappa; Business Standard; November 1, 2017).

Submission

Comments on TRAI Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing (Anubha Sinha; November 26, 2017).

-----------------------------------
Researchers at Work
-----------------------------------
The Researchers at Work (RAW) programme is an interdisciplinary research initiative driven by an emerging need to understand the reconfigurations of social practices and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa. It aims to produce local and contextual accounts of interactions, negotiations, and resolutions between the Internet, and socio-material and geo-political processes:

Articles

Digital native: Rebellion by Google Doc (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; November 4, 2017)
Digital native: Let there be life (Nishant Shah; Indian Express; November 19, 2017).

-----------------------------------

About CIS
-----------------------------------
The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. The areas of focus include digital accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge, intellectual property rights, openness (including open data, free and open source software, open standards, open access, open educational resources, and open video), internet governance, telecommunication reform, digital privacy, and cyber-security. The academic research at CIS seeks to understand the reconfigurations of social and cultural processes and structures as mediated through the internet and digital media technologies.

► Follow us elsewhere

Twitter: http://twitter.com/cis_india
Twitter - Access to Knowledge: https://twitter.com/CISA2K
Twitter - Information Policy: https://twitter.com/CIS_InfoPolicy
Facebook - Access to Knowledge: https://www.facebook.com/cisa2k
E-Mail - Access to Knowledge: a2k@cis-india.org
E-Mail - Researchers at Work: raw@cis-india.org
List - Researchers at Work: https://lists.ghserv.net/mailman/listinfo/researchers

► Support Us

Please help us defend consumer and citizen rights on the Internet! Write a cheque in favour of 'The Centre for Internet and Society' and mail it to us at No. 194, 2nd 'C' Cross, Domlur, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 5600 71.

► Request for Collaboration

We invite researchers, practitioners, artists, and theoreticians, both organisationally and as individuals, to engage with us on topics related internet and society, and improve our collective understanding of this field. To discuss such possibilities, please write to Sunil Abraham, Executive Director, at sunil@cis-india.org (for policy research), or Sumandro Chattapadhyay, Research Director, at sumandro@cis-india.org (for academic research), with an indication of the form and the content of the collaboration you might be interested in. To discuss collaborations on Indic language Wikipedia projects, write to Tanveer Hasan, Programme Officer, at tanveer@cis-india.org.

CIS is grateful to its primary donor the Kusuma Trust founded by Anurag Dikshit and Soma Pujari, philanthropists of Indian origin for its core funding and support for most of its projects. CIS is also grateful to its other donors, Wikimedia Foundation, Ford Foundation, Privacy International, UK, Hans Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, and IDRC for funding its various projects.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/newsletters/november-2017-newsletter

Wikimedia Technical Workshop at Savitribai Phule Pune University

manasarao — 2017-12-19T16:03:48Z

A Wikimedia Technical Workshop was conducted between 27- 28 November, 2017 at the Department of Mathematics, Savitribai Phule Pune University. The objective of the workshops was us to understand how Wikipedia works and what career opportunities there are related to Wikipedia and how one can contribute to and enrich the open source knowledge for the benefit of all.

On the first day, the students were given an introduction to Wikimedia projects as well as Marathi Wikipedia. They were also taught account creation and given a general introduction to Wikipedia , MediaWiki, and wikis in addition to Wikipedia structure, article structure, name spaces, common.css and common.js pages, and gagdets. In the post-lunch session the participants were given an introduction to gadgets, scripts, tool and bots.

On the second day, the participants continued where they left off by learning about advanced tools and bots like Archive Bot, Sign bot, Anti-vandalism bots as well as Phabricator. Finally, the session ended with talks about future projects and activities.

22 participants attended the event.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/wikimedia-technical-workshop-at-savitribai-phule-pune-university

Kannada Wikipedia Orientation Workshop at IISc, Bengaluru

Gopalakrishna A — 2017-12-19T16:16:29Z

A Kannada Wikipedia orientation workshop was held at the Entrepreneurship Centre, SID, Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru on 26 November, 2017. The day long event was aimed at adding content to Kannada Wikimedia projects on topics such as ecology, environment, wildlife and sciences of Karnataka. The event was organised by Gubbi Labs in conjunction with CIS-A2K. Gubbi Labs is a research collective and social collective run by environmental scientists. The event was attended was attended by 8 participants of which one member was female.

The participants created six articles and expanded one article. The impact of this workshop was the fact that participants were made aware of the importance of open access data. It helped initiate another similar workshop in Mysuru. Upon sharing the idea for projects like Wiki Loves Butterfly Idea, a participant was interested in starting a project titled 'Wiki Loves Spiders'. We are hoping to take this project forward on Kannada Wikipedia.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/kannada-wikipedia-orientation-workshop-at-iisc-bengaluru

FCC’s plan to repeal net neutrality may not impact India

Admin — 2017-11-26T11:43:59Z

India is unlikely to be impacted by the US Federal Communications Commission’s plan to repeal net neutrality regulations.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal was published in the Economic Times on November 23, 2017. Sunil Abraham quoted.

India adopted a pro-net neutrality stand by taking a tough call against zero-rated plans such as Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero last year. According to experts, the Indian telecom regulator showed great courage and conviction by battling any type of preferential treatment of internet websites. This was even after a massive campaign by Facebook in support of its Free Basics programme, which promised access to a few basic services free of cost through partnerships with selected telecom service providers.

“Our regulator now thinks of itself as a forerunner in this space, so we doubt they are going to be influenced by the American move,” said Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bengaluru. He called the proposal to withdraw the President Barack Obama era regulations “incredible” since they took almost a decade and lots of debate to be framed. Abraham said there is no evidence to suggest that India copies what the US does and there is a long way to go before the new regulations come in.

“The FCC is just one actor in this game — there are the Congress and the courts along with the Federal Trade Commission,” said Abraham, adding that the proposal is likely to be challenged at multiple levels. “I’m proposing to repeal the heavy-handed Internet regulations imposed by the Obama Administration and to return to the light-touch framework under which the Internet developed and thrived before 2015,” FCC chief Ajit Pai, who worked for Verizon Communications earlier, tweeted on Tuesday. The plan shared by Pai will be put to vote on December 14. Experts expect the plan to go through, given the Republican majority in the FCC and they fear it will allow internet service providers like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to give preference to some sites and apps in return for a fee or for their own business interests.

“If it goes through, it will take control away from the user and companies will be free to make fast lanes and favour the content they like and play the gatekeepers,” said Mishi Choudhary, president at Software Freedom Law Centre.

She said the conversation has once again moved the power back to internet service providers, which will hurt small companies on the pretext of innovation and getting away from micro managing. “It is certainly not bolstering the position of the US as a leader for free and open internet,” added Choudhary. Streaming service Netflix tweeted in response saying that it supports strong net neutrality and opposes the FCC’s proposal.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) fought a tough battle in 2016 against plans that promised select internet services to poor people by offering them free of cost. The regulator issued differential pricing regulations by which it banned what’s known as zerorating plans. “Trai showed immense foresight by releasing the rules and this is a good opportunity for India to occupy the vacuum of leadership in this space by providing the right regulatory environment,” said Choudhary.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-november-23-2017-fcc-plan-to-repeal-net-neutrality-may-not-impact-india

IDAP Interview Series: Interview with Nirmita Narasimhan

nirmita — 2017-11-26T09:56:06Z

IDIA Disability Access Programme did an interview with Nirmita Narasimhan. This interview was conducted by Madhavi Singh and Anusha Reddy. The interview was transcribed by Veda Singh, IDIA intern and student at Jindal Global Law School.

Read the original published by IDIA Law here

Our interview in this series features Nirmita Narasimhan, a Policy Director with the Centre for Internet and Society. Nirmita did her LL.B. from Campus Law Centre, Delhi University in 2002. She also holds a Bachelor’s degree in German and a Ph.D. in Music. As a part of CIS she has done extensive work on web accessibility and was involved in drafting the Indian National Policy on Universal Electronic Accessibility. She has worked closely with different departments of the Government of India to bring accessibility into their policies and programmes.

In recognition of her path-breaking work in the field of digital accessibility, she has received numerous awards such as the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (2010), the NIVH (National Institute for the Visually Handicapped) Excellence Award (2011) and the NCPEDP-Emphasis Universal Design award in 2016. She played a key role in amending the Indian Copyright Act to incorporate exceptions for people with print disabilities and launched the widely acclaimed nationwide Right to Read campaigns.

Nirmita’s experience is not just limited to policy work – she is a widely published author and has assisted national and international bodies in the creation of several reports on promoting accessibility rights of people with disabilities.

This interview was conducted by Madhavi Singh and Anusha Reddy. The interview was transcribed by Veda Singh, IDIA intern and student at Jindal Global Law School. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.

Could you please describe to us the exact nature of your disability?

I have something called Stargardt disease. For me it came when I was 9 or so. When I started, I could read with the help of a magnifying glass and I would enlarge things to read and now I completely rely on screen reading software.

Could you please describe to us the reasonable accommodation provided by your school and college, if any?

In school nothing! I used to read and write using a magnifying glass –reading was a bit of a struggle. My handwriting was really bad and people didn’t understand it. I never asked for anything. Only for my Board exams I had asked for a writer because that’s something you really can’t risk.

Most schools use boards to teach. How did you manage?

No, it just depended on the individual teacher and maybe I was also very inhibited at that time in my life. I wouldn’t go up to the teacher and simply say “please read it out.” Consequently, I always regretted that I was not good at math, because it was always on the board. I managed back then with the help of my parents and sister.

You have a large number of educational qualifications to your name. You initially studied German and Carnatic music and only pursued law later. What factors influenced you in deciding to study law?

It may not be anything glamourous as really being passionate about it. But going back to German – I really liked the language, and more so due to the teaching methods because this was the first time I was out of a classroom setting into a setting where there were 10-12 students and the teachers were really good and used unconventional methods. They were accommodative about exams. The teacher could write exams for me or tell me what to do – it was not like a fixed system. Whenever a system came into play, inaccessibility also came into play. Whenever it was an individual, and usually somebody who was not heartless, it was pretty okay.

One time in an exam, they gave a printout, and I couldn’t read it. At that time, I wrote the one answer I could, left the rest of the question, gave the paper and walked out. When the results were declared, I got an A or A+! I was shocked. I went to the teacher and said “How can you do this to me?” He said “I know that had you been able to read it, you would’ve written because I see you every day in class. That was probably wrong of us and we should have ensured that you could’ve read the paper.” I think that was a unique experience. It happens to very few people and it certainly never happens very often in one’s lifetime, unless you’re extraordinarily lucky. But these kinds of experiences during my graduation really helped get a better sense of the world.

After that I started my M.A. When you’re trying to do translation you keep referring to a dictionary. Until my M.A., I used to keep enlarging a basic dictionary into such thick volumes that I couldn’t even carry them. I realised that this couldn’t go on all my life and beyond a point I could not expect my father or mother to read out, because they did not know German and would not always be with me. So, I thought that this is not going to work out and at that time I gave the law entrance exam.

As for music, I did my diploma while I was doing my B.A. I didn’t consciously take up music immediately after my B.A. because people thought that was the obvious career for me since I had a visual disability and that really irritated me. After having finished my law, somewhere along the way I thought that so what if music is the expected career for someone who is visually impaired, it’s just something I wanted to do.

My main motive was actually not to fall into things which people expect are easy. When I was joining law many people said “You shouldn’t join law, you won’t be able to refer to anything.” I got so annoyed and would say – “Listen it’s my life, if I’m going to live for 85 years and if I waste one year in between, I have no problems. So why does it bother you? I don’t mind failure, but at least let me try. If I can’t, I’ll leave it and go back to sociology or some other subjects.” So, that’s why I got into law, and I have no regrets. It was tough for multiple reasons.

Out of all your diverse educational courses (law, Carnatic music and German) with their varied teaching methodology and course work which field do you think was the most exclusionary of people with disabilities and which one was the most accommodative?

I think it depends on the institution. It’s not fair to compare Delhi University with JNU. JNU was more open and the teachers were creative in the ways they taught, recognising individual abilities. It was completely different from DU which had approximately 80 people in a class and typically the lecturer came, gave a lecture and left. I had a good experience in JNU, because it was not bound by systems and is generally a good place to study.

The Faculty for Music and Fine Arts at DU was also very accommodative, especially so because my Guru ensured that I got what I needed. However I found studying law to be really difficult – at that time I didn’t have any books. If I would go to the library, each and every book you pick up would be underlined with a pen. If you try to scan it – at that time the technology was very slow but even if I was ready to do that, if something is underlined the scan is obsolete. How much can one human being read out to you – a constitutional law book is of 300-1000 pages? You have to refer to so many books!

So, I couldn’t read any book, I didn’t know where to start. Then I was actually forced to rely on these dukkhis. I think the main reason they were useful is that they weren’t underlined, I could purchase them, tear them and scan them. By that time I had also been introduced to computers, and had bought an OCR having paid $1000 for it at that time. Even after that since the paper quality was not good I couldn’t read much.

I know this is probably an awful thing to say, and though I would’ve loved to have a more nuanced understanding of the law but it required me to read a lot which I was unable to do – not because I didn’t want to but because I just couldn’t.

You were an exceptional student – topper of your batch and a gold medalist. To what extent was your hunger for success fueled by your desire to demonstrate your capabilities and to not let your vision impairment become your defining characteristic?

Is my success driven by my desire to show the world? No. Even when I did law– forget showing other people, I just needed to do something “normal” or something that other people were doing – something that is a profession, that’s it. Everything else I did was not to prove anything. After a point, I didn’t really think much about having a disability it’s just a part of who you are. I just wanted to study well.

You have worked in the field of policy research, as a lawyer in a corporate law firm as well as in advocacy, how do you think these professions are different in terms of the obstacles they pose to lawyers with disabilities? Have there been any reasonable accommodation?

Policy research is my current work. The fact that I am currently using technology and my office is pro-accessibility shows that reasonable accommodation is provided here. I tried both courts and corporate law, they were never areas I wanted to be in permanently but I thought having studied law I should have some kind of exposure. At that point of time there were a number of documents, annexures, etc. and to file them you could always hire somebody, but it wasn’t something you could have done for yourself– this was around 2002. And in the corporate field, what I found difficult was working with track changes and deadlines. I was not very excited by the work to stick it out and really prove a point. I know some people that did. I think you need to be motivated enough to tackle the issue, I was not motivated enough by the people to conquer these issues and it didn’t excite me.

You started your career in law with Mr. Rungta. Could you kindly let us know your reasons for choosing to work for a blind lawyer?

I wanted to know how he worked. If you mean whether it was difficult getting into other law firms, yes it was. I did try to ask people in firms but they were completely not open to having me. One or two said that we could have a trial – without pay however, to which I asked if they were paying other juniors, and if so then I didn’t want to join. I worked with Mr. Rungta for a few months and then moved on.

This is a problem most students face wherein employers are apprehensive of hiring people with disabilities, so what advice would you give especially to the corporate field?

I think it is a really negative attitude – people see what you cannot do and not what you can do. And at some point everyone has certain skills, and you as an employer need to be discerning– it shows how smart you are whether you can identify how to tap into that person’s skill or not.

It’s not the time for people to be telling them what they cannot do. The students already know that tasks are difficult for them – they don’t need to hear it from their employers too. So, I think there is a huge issue there. It’s for them to figure out and work with the person to see how to make it happen. It can happen! It might not be exactly the same thing that you envisaged but something can be worked out.

I never came across an employer who was willing to do this. Believe me, I’ve gone from door to door after I finished my law degree and it was a very demotivating time. I feel that it is sad especially now with the kind of technology we have. Maybe at that time I could agree and understand their concerns that I wouldn’t be able to look up case law, but things are different now. Another problem is that the student does not know the range of the work there is, hence it becomes difficult to articulate what he/she wants/can do. I think it is important, even for institutions to ensure that they help place their students, in some of these big law firms, starting from internships.

If you had to tell employers why they should hire people with disability, what would it be?

Do not judge a person merely by virtue of whether he/ she has a disability. Be fair and give them a chance as well. There are many people who became great, just because they got a break. There is great value in making your work place more inclusive and diverse. One can evolve work arounds for most issues and technology has made many things possible.

As a Policy Director with the Centre for Internet and Society, you have done extensive work on web accessibility for persons with disabilities. Given that technology has been an enabler for persons with disabilities, do you believe that the government and society (technologists/businesses/start-ups) have a responsibility to design keeping accessibility in mind from the very beginning?

Definitely, there are no two ways about it. They should, but they aren’t doing it. The first policy on accessibility was in 2009 by the NIC and it continued to remain inaccessible. The second one in 2013 was the national electronic accessibility policy. However, even today many websites are not accessible. After that policy, so many government initiatives, some 700 mobile applications, etc. came up, of which most are inaccessible.

Now everything is on mobile apps, whether private or government, so we did a lot of studies on that and wrote about it. We put together a set of guidelines and submitted them to the government to look at– otherwise there’s really no point in Digital India or Inclusive India. Of course the situation is now vastly changed, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act was passed in December 2016 and now makes compliance with accessibility standards in different domains mandatory, hopefully this will now be a game changer. It is binding not only on the government, but on the private sector as well.

It is not just a question of ‘responsibility’ –the government’s responsibility to its citizens is also not just regarding disability but about inclusiveness and the kind of society you want to be. It is about being nice and fair not just because you are responsible. It’s how you want your society to evolve.

Very often I think the most accessible products benefit everyone in society. It’s not just a person with disability that is getting benefit out of it. Do you agree?

So a lot of accessibility features came up as just a market feature, for example – in the U.S., so many people read audiobooks, they just listen while they’re driving to their place of work. Another example – those squeaky shoes children wear could help a mother who is blind know where her child is moving. You can say subtitles are for deaf persons, but for a Telugu movie, people who cannot understand Telugu also can go watch it now. I think every accessibility feature has a use. So, for society and the government accessibility should be a universal goal.

For private players a lot of times when you speak to them about accessibility they’re clueless or they think it is an expensive process which requires special knowledge. Do you have anything to say to such private entities like Flipkart, or Ola?

I think they’re not recognising the situation. If there are 1.3 billion people that are disabled in the world, there are 150 million people in India that are disabled – they need to realise that it is a huge market out there. Blind people are using Uber and not Ola. If they made their application accessible their market would grow. For Ola, for example it’ll ask me to rate my previous drive, and it only gives the option of 3 star with a screen reader – I can’t increase or decrease it. Now if I keep giving 3 stars only, I won’t get a driver the next time (laughs)! Uber and Amazon, both are entirely accessible and they’re international brands. You should ensure that your service is accessible in the starting itself when it is not expensive. Later it becomes more expensive and difficult to do. Private entities really need to look more into their diversity and it shouldn’t just be something they do for CSR, it is good business. It’s a good contribution to society.

Recently, in a move to digitise the courts in India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the integrated case management system of the Supreme Court. Given that this move could be a game changer for lawyers and litigants with disabilities, do you believe that accessibility of such platforms will be given foremost importance by the government? If not, what steps can we take to ensure that it is given importance?

The RPWD Act 2016 requires all legal services, documents etc. uploaded to be accessible. If this is not done, it would be a tragedy. Just like the case of the Digital Library of India which has over 5 lakh books, most of which are image files and inaccessible. The government should ensure that this mistake is never again replicated. The website and the documents should be accessible as per notified standards. When you’re uploading documents, sometimes you might need scanned versions in which case you must have an unofficial version or some alternative that is accessible. Even if it is for tracking new cases, or filing things through apps, it should all be accessible as per guidelines – that’s the bottom line. So, involve the experts right from the beginning.

You have worked on digitization of books and general accessibility of educational resources for persons with disabilities. What in your opinion is the most resource efficient solution to the book famine currently plaguing students with print disabilities?

Every time a publisher publishes a book, they should give an accessible PDF to the public library or they should give it to the Sugamya Pustakalaya, which is an accessible online library. They’re anyway creating a PDF, they can make it accessible. As we get more organisations to connect to the library and network, you can reach out to all the students who go to these organisations. Publishers should also consider creating and commercially selling accessible format books such as e-text and audio books.

Could you tell us about your experience so far, in interacting and working with different government departments as part of various projects? As a policy researcher and advocate with a focus on the rights of persons with disabilities, what are the biggest obstacles you face in effectively lobbying for a change?

I think the obstacles are similar to the issues that you face typically while working with the Government on any issue, not just accessibility. It’s about meeting the right person. If you’re interacting only with one person, then that person gets transferred or the other people don’t know about it. I think that they need to see accessibility as something which cuts across every issue, not just something for the disabled, and that’s not happening. One also comes across people who do not consider accessibility a priority issue.

A lot of students with disabilities in India, even after the completion of their education, are not in a position to compete with their able-bodied counterparts. They don’t possess soft skills like knowing how to spell correctly, socializing and corresponding with others and speaking correct English. How can this be addressed at a micro as well as macro level?

I think there is a need for more organisations who are trying to prepare candidates after their education to deal with a corporate situation. Otherwise you’re just suddenly taken and put in a place you don’t fully understand. People might be conscious about their English or other things. If not on the individual level, if corporates are hiring they may also consider seeking help from and supporting such organisations.

You should also have policies for accommodation of persons with disabilities. It is useful to have mentors, networks or groups where they can share experiences and exchange ideas on how they tackle different situations.

What can law colleges do to make the educational experience better for law students with disabilities?

I think starting with the college level or institutions –I feel what we learn there shapes our confidence and grasp of the subject – where it is important to ensure that at least the reading list is available as accessible digital copy. I wouldn’t even accept if they say “2 out of the 10 on the reading list are available and that’s enough for you”, if you’re giving the 10 options to other students to pick from, even these students should get such an opportunity. They must also ensure that the admission process/ entrance exam is accessible.

Just getting admission is not enough if institutions can’t provide the required resources. Once that first step is done, they should consciously have a committee of students and teachers who can help in the process of studying, getting internships, or talking on their behalf to firms or other organisations. They may also consider accessible exam practices suited to the needs of different students. There are several things that can be done, institutions should evolve processes and practices based on discussions with their students with disabilities.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/news/idap-interview-series-interview-x-with-nirmita-narasimhan

CyFy 2017 Agenda

Admin — 2017-11-26T09:11:29Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cyfy-2017-agenda

GIGW 2017

Admin — 2017-11-26T06:58:08Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/files/gigw-2017

Response to Suggestions and Comments Sent on GIGW by Committee Members

Admin — 2017-11-26T06:55:12Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/files/response-to-suggestions-and-comments-sent-on-gigw-by-committee-members

Advocating for Openness: Nine Ways Civil Society Groups Have Mobilized to Defend Internet Freedom

Admin — 2017-11-26T03:58:47Z

The debate over whether the Internet is a better tool for democratic empowerment or authoritarian control misconstrues the nature of the democratic challenges of the digital age.

The blog post by Sarah Oh was published by the Center for International Media Assistance on November 15, 2017

Key Findings

Civil society groups from the Global South are leading the charge to advocate for an Internet that remains open, pluralistic, and democratic. The nine case studies highlighted in this report demonstrate various ways groups in different countries have successfully fought for policies and norms that strengthen Internet freedom and digital rights. These strategies include awareness-raising, nonviolent direct action, regional and international coalition-building, and strategic litigation.

Media freedom advocates have been at the forefront of many Internet freedom efforts.
Threats to independent media online and freedom of expression continue to mount as authoritarian regimes become more technologically savvy.
Building broad civil society coalitions around Internet rights increases the chances of long-term success.

Introduction

The debate over whether the Internet is a better tool for democratic empowerment or authoritarian control misconstrues the nature of the democratic challenges of the digital age. The Internet is not a tool, but a complex domain of “competing forces and constraints.”1 These forces are comprised of powerful businesses, states, politicians, criminal enterprises, advocacy groups: in short, all of the elements present in any democracy. But in this cyber-democracy, forces compete in part on the shifting ground of the technological and physical infrastructure of the Internet, where some players wield more power than others with an ability to mold the terrain in their favor. Authoritarian states aware of what is at stake in the evolution of the Internet are beginning to engage in long-term and well-resourced efforts to undermine the democratic rights of citizens in this more fundamental way.

In a reference to the distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks that take down a specific website, these broader efforts represent what some have called a “distributed denial-of-democracy” (DDoD) attack aimed at reducing the utility of the Internet for genuine democratic discourse. These efforts, which are coordinated and well resourced, are often more insidious, harder to detect, and have the overall effect of undermining civic engagement and overall trust in the media ecosystem.

And while the diffuse and fast-changing nature of Internet can at times make it difficult for authoritarian regimes to exert their control, the complex interplay between technology, laws, infrastructure, and socio-political factors shaping the Internet make it equally difficult for democratic actors to counteract these DDoD strategies. As an additional obstacle, the values that underpin Internet freedom can be sidelined in the forums and governing bodies that set Internet standards by the dominance in those spaces of private tech companies concerned primarily with generating profits.

Formidable though they may be, these challenges are not insurmountable. Civil society groups from the Global South are leading the charge to advocate for an Internet that remains open, pluralistic, and democratic. The nine case studies highlighted in this report demonstrate various ways groups in different countries have successfully fought for policies and norms that strengthen Internet freedom and digital rights. These strategies include awareness-raising, nonviolent direct action, regional and international coalition-building, and strategic litigation.

Each of the following case studies corresponds to one of the nine guiding principles of a Democratic Framework to Interpret Open Internet Principles. This framework was collaboratively developed by a network of civil society groups worldwide to illuminate the ways that an open Internet is essential for the functioning of democratic societies. It was inspired by the norms and standards developed by the Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition (IRPC) of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum.

The framework is an important starting point for more effective, coordinated effort to ensure that the Internet remains a welcoming place for democratic life. Its aim is to create a consensus around the values that should shape the future development of the Internet. But moreover, it also provides an avenue for understanding and sharing knowledge on the concrete strategies that can be put into practice in different contexts to make sure that the Internet remains a level playing field. The following nine examples demonstrate how citizen groups can mobilize to enshrine such democratic principles in cyberspace.

“The debate over whether the Internet is a better tool for democratic empowerment or authoritarian control misconstrues the nature of the democratic challenges of the digital age.”

1. Freedom of Expression

In the Philippines, a cybercrime law introduced in 2012 proposed increasing penalties for libel and giving authorities unchecked power to track information online. Internet freedom activists worried several provisions of the law would infringe on freedom of expression by preventing Filipinos from freely posting content on websites, and participating in online forums and discussions without fear of being blocked or facing serious penalties. In response, pro-democracy organizations from across the political spectrum joined together to challenge the constitutionality of the law. Through protests, roundtables, and capacity building activities, they raised awareness and encouraged advocacy efforts around the dangers the law posted to freedom of expression and privacy. The Foundation for Media Alternatives (FMA ), a digital rights organization founded after the fall of the Marcos dictatorship and the Philippine Internet Freedom Alliance (PIFA), a broad nationwide coalition of pro-democracy and Internet freedom advocates, were among the organizations in the front lines on the struggle. PIFA was even one of the 20 organizations to file 15 petitions to the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the law.

Public efforts in the courts and actions in the streets contributed to the takedown of three contested provisions of the law, including provision that would allow government to block or restrict access to computer data. The Supreme Court declared these provisions unconstitutional and delayed implementation of the law. Despite public concerns about the surviving provisions, the national campaign against the cybercrime law led to a turning point for Filipino activists; it showed the power of people coming together and fighting for the importance of digital rights in the Philippines. Initially fragmented, the campaign led to a larger movement unified under the goal of protecting human rights and freedom of expression online. Thus, it took the introduction of a flawed law and active public campaigns to initiate a broader dialogue about privacy, surveillance, and digital security. Digital rights communities across Southeast Asia have been inspired by Filipino advocacy efforts, which they have understood to be an example of how to communicate the balance required between anti-cybercrime measures with fundamental rights to a public audience.

2. Freedom of Assembly and Association

Social media is an important organizing tool for journalists and advocacy groups in Uganda. Facebook, WhatsApp, and other messaging applications have been used to share political knowledge, connect leaders with supporters, and organize events — even share information about government abuses. During national ‘Walk to Work’ protests in 2011, organized to protest living costs after presidential elections, Facebook and Twitter provided a steady stream of updates from protestors, bystanders, and journalists.

Using social media, however, can have dangerous consequences for marginalized groups such as the LGBT community. The government of Uganda has been known to collect user information and prosecute individuals based on information shared on social media. Uganda is one of 76 countries where homosexuality is currently criminalized, and LGBT activists fear that their online conversations will be monitored and used against them. By posting information taken from photos and content posted on Facebook, a local tabloid exposed the identity of numerous members of the LGBT community in 2011 and again in 2014. The tabloid stories in 2011 are believed to have contributed to the killing of David Kato, a prominent gay rights activist.

Furthermore, the government has repeatedly restricted access for advocacy groups to use the Internet to share political information. In 2016, the country’s media regulator restricted the use of WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter to prevent the organizing of protests before presidential elections in February as the government had done before in 2011. In both cases, the electoral commission enforced the social media shut-down.

Civil society groups have responded in two ways. First, they have sought to deepen their digital security capacity. To protect against threats to journalists, LGBT organizations, and other groups have learned how to use Facebook and social media applications more securely and to implement other practices that increase their privacy. In the lead up to the 2016 election this included the use of virtual private networks (VPNs) to share information. Civil society groups spread information about how to use them through radio broadcasts. The fact that the hashtag #UgandaDecides trended on Twitter shows how they were able to spread their knowledge through local networks and connect with international media. Secondly, civil society groups built coalitions with international organizations to draw attention to abuses taking place in Uganda. In 2016, Access Now supported a coalition of groups to demand that the government stop the Internet shutdown as part of the #KeepitOn campaign.

3. Accessibility

In Nigeria, national broadband plans have overlooked rural communities, leaving them with low bandwidth and high-cost options for Internet access. This means that broadband and mobile data fees are unaffordable to many in Nigeria, especially the poor. Fixed-line broadband subscriptions cost an average of 39 percent of average income, and mobile broadband packages cost 13 percent. Given that approximately 80 percent of Nigerians earn below the poverty line ($2 a day or less), access to the Internet is out of reach and unaffordable for a majority of citizens in Nigeria.

The Alliance for Affordable Internet, a global coalition working on Internet affordability, works with Nigerian civil society leaders to raise awareness around this issue through thematic working groups. The consumer advocacy and pricing transparency working group, for instance, works closely with a coalition of Nigerian NGOs that have been leading campaigns to raise awareness about pricing and taxation policies that have been proposed in Nigeria. One proposed policy includes imposing a nine percent tax on voice, data, and SMS services to consumers. This policy would make the Internet dramatically more expensive for Nigerian consumers. Groups say they worry about the consequences of the proposed policy in an environment where farmers are forced to climb trees just to get a stable Internet connection.

Civil society leaders who are part of the coalition have worked to build a healthy dialogue between regulators, civil society, and the government. A key strategy, according to activists, has been encouraging groups to find constructive ways to work with government and leveraging the interests of each of these groups to protect and drive down costs for Nigerian consumers. They seek to build relationships with the regulator and to inform them about ways to better communicate with and engage consumer groups, such as sharing their content through social media rather than press releases. Another important learning has been identifying champions within government to work on these issues.

4. Privacy and Data Protection

In Burma, gaps in the law have left citizens vulnerable when it comes to privacy and data protection. Restrictions on privacy have eased since the country’s transition from military rule, but a lack of data protection laws and general lack of awareness around privacy and data protection present significant challenges for protecting an open Internet.

Messaging applications such as Viber and Facebook Messenger, for example, are the de-facto tool for communication for activists and are used to organize political events and activities. Cheaper than voice calls, far more accessible than landlines, and easier to use than email, these tools are the primary way people in Burma communicate. Activists have received harsh penalties for sharing content that may be viewed as threatening state security. These applications are often not secure, making it possible for Burma state authorities or agents of the state to intercept their conversations. During a crackdown on student protests in March 2015, mobile phones were taken by police. Activists worried at the time that information on these phones would eventually be used against them.

Observing the need to protect activists and educate them about data protection, activists in 2016 formed a coalition, Digital Rights MM. The coalition, led by Phandeeyar, Myanmar Center for Responsible Business, Myanmar ICT for Development, and Free Expression Myanmar, has led a national conversation on the issue. Drawing on expertise from the region and international organizations, 22 local Burma-based organizations have been successful in pointing out gaps when it comes to privacy and freedom of expression in the national telecommunications law, a comprehensive law that oversees the development of the telecommunications sector in Burma. They also participated in meetings with the government and launched a public facing campaign #ourvoiceourhluttaw pushing to amend 23 articles, including one on lawful interception of data.

“Messaging applications such as Viber and Facebook Messenger, for example, are the de-facto tool for communication for activists and are used to organize political events and activities.”

5. Personal Safety and Security

In Pakistan, women face threats of physical, sexual, and psychological harassment online. Leaking explicit photos and threats of blackmail are growing increasingly more common. From 2014 to 2015, more than 3,000 cybercrimes were reported to the Federal Investigation Agency and of those cases, nearly half were targeted to women on social media. Observers estimate far more cases go unreported. In fact, in workshops conducted by the The Digital Rights Foundation, many female college students reported that they did not know cyber harassment was a crime.

Online platforms are an important space for political engagement, expression, and mobilization in Pakistan. Thus, online harassment directly impacts the political participation of women, including female journalists and women politicians. In 2016 the Digital Rights Foundation established a Cyber Harassment Helpline that women can reach out to for help when they are harassed on the Internet. One of the main objective of the helpline is to help bridge the trust deficit between survivors and law enforcement agencies. An analysis of more than 400 cases showed that the most common barriers to equal participation are non-consensual use of information, impersonation, account hacking, black mailing, and receiving unsolicited messages; the most targeted groups include women, children, human rights defenders, and minority communities. The Digital Rights Foundation has also been leading efforts to strengthen legal protections for women and responding to survivors by recommendations to law enforcement agencies and the government. Pakistan has a National Response Centre for Cybercrime, but it has faced challenges serving women outside of major cities.

6. Inclusion

In India, the population of people with disabilities is estimated to be as high as 150 million people, and the recorded rates of those who are vision-impaired are among the highest in the world. Indian digital rights advocacy groups, like the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) have worked to ensure that these individuals are able to participate fully online by promoting policies that prioritize accessibility. These include the National Policy on Universal Electronics Accessibility, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and Guidelines for Indian Government Web (GIGW), which all require government information be shared in formats that are accessible. Advocacy groups, however, have successfully shown that policies alone are not enough and have taken action to ensure persons with disabilities have access to critical resources and information online.

Mobile phones in particular are a vital portal to access government services, but mobile applications remain largely inaccessible to many people with disabilities, especially those with vision disabilities. For example, CIS observed in 2015 that the MyGov, the Indian Government’s mobile citizen engagement platform and the Prime Minister’s application was highly inaccessible: screens cannot be navigated by visually impaired users and can also not be read using a screen reader. Based on this, CIS with other advocacy organizations worked on framing accessibility guidelines for mobile applications recommended to the Government of India as a standard. Advocacy groups, such as the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP), have also been appealing to the private sector to ensure products designed to serve these needs are affordable and readily available to people with disabilities. They appeal to Indian companies and policymakers by advocating for the universal appeal of assistive technology to ensure disabled communities are not left behind.

Sustained advocacy, new legal mandates applied to public and private sectors, and increased research in this domain have helped advance the issue of accessibility of mobile applications. The country’s National Informatics Centre has set up a committee to revise the GIGW to bring them up to speed with international standards.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/accessibility/news/cima-sarah-oh-november-15-2017-openness-nine-ways-civil-society-groups-have-mobilized-to-defend-internet-freedom

CIS Comments on TRAI Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

sinha — 2017-11-26T02:56:15Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) sent comments to the TRAI Consultation Paper on promoting telecom equipment manufacturing. CIS submission drew primarily from the research done in the Pervasive Technologies project.

Read TRAI's Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing

Preliminary

This submission presents comments by the Centre for Internet and Society, India ("CIS") on the Consultation Paper on Promoting Local Telecom Equipment Manufacturing dated 18.09. 2017, released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), under Department of Telecom, Ministry of Communications and Information Technologies (“the TRAI Consultation Paper”).
We commend TRAI for its efforts at seeking inputs from various stakeholders on this important and timely issue and are thankful for the opportunity to put forth our views.
We have addressed questions 3 and 5 of the TRAI Consultation Paper. Question numbers referred to in our submission correspond to those in the TRAI Consultation Paper.
Further, the Department of Industrial Planning and Promotion (DIPP) invited comments on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms on 01. 03. 2016.[1] CIS submitted a detailed response to the consultation, and our present submission will draw significantly from our earlier response[2], as well as new empirical research concluded in the since the time of the consultation.

About CIS

CIS[3] is a non-profit organisation that undertakes interdisciplinary research on internet and digital technologies from policy and academic perspectives. Our areas of focus include IP rights, openness, internet governance, telecommunication reform, free speech, intermediary liability, digital privacy, cyber-security, and accessibility for persons with diverse abilities.
We strive to maximise public benefit, useful innovation, vibrant competition and consumer welfare. This submission is consistent with our commitment to the domestic goals (as enumerated in Make in India and Digital India), and the protection of India's national interest at the international level.

Submission on the Issues for Resolution

“Q.3 Are the existing patent laws in India sufficient to address the issues of local manufacturers? If No, then suggest the measures to be adopted and amendments that need to be incorporated for supporting the local telecom manufacturing industry.”

We submit that amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 may not be preferred, presently. It may be noted that there have been no judgments concluded by Indian courts on disputes relating to licensing of SEPs, yet. Justice Bakhru’s landmark order in Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ) v. Competition Commission of India (2016) provided valuable clarity on the issue of conflict between remedies under Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 1970. As various other matters are yet to be conclusively decided, and given the complex legal questions involved around the interpretation of Patents Act, 1970 and Competition Act, 2002, and constitutional issues around the jurisdiction of regulators and the power of judicial review of the courts, we believe that it would be prudent to examine the ruling of the courts on these issues in some detail, before considering amendments.

However, to support the local telecom manufacturing industry the Government of India may adopt and implement the following measures:

Develop Model Guidelines to improve the working of Indian Standard Setting Organisations (SSOs): Given the increasing complexity and time-consuming nature of SEP litigation in India, there is a tangible threat of the abuse of the FRAND process, it might be useful for the government to make suggestions on the working of Indian SSOs. The functioning of Indian SSOs has not been satisfactory and it is suggested that the government develop Model Guidelines that may be adopted by Indian SSOs, taking into account India specific requirements. The India specific requirements include a large and exponentially growing mobile device market which has made it possible for manufacturers, patent owners and implementers alike to achieve financial gains even with a low margin. We believe that this measure will also enable the fulfillment of the objectives of the Make in India and Digital India initiatives.

We recommend that various stakeholders, including IP holders, potential licensees and users of IP, civil society organizations, academics, and, government bodies, including the Indian Patent Office, the Department of Telecommunications, the DIPP, TRAI, and, the CCI be consulted in the creation of these Model Guidelines.

In our opinion, the Model Guidelines may cover (a) the composition of the SSO; (b) the process of admitting members; (c) the process of the determination of a standard or technical specification; (d) the process of declassification of a standard or technical specification; (e) the IPR Policy; (f) resolution of disputes; (g) applicable law.
Initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and cap royalty payments: In light of the observed inadequacies in the IPR policies of various SSOs in India, as well the spate of ongoing patent infringement lawsuits around mobile technologies, we recommend that the government intervene in the setting of royalties and FRAND terms by setting up a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and apply a compulsory license with a five per cent royalty. Further, patent pools should be required to offer FRAND licenses on the same terms to both members and nonmembers of the pool.

Our motivations for this proposal are manifold. In our opinion, it is nearly impossible for potential licensees to avoid inadvertent patent infringement. As a part of our research on technical standards applicable to mobile phones sold in India, we have found nearly 322 standards so far.[4] It is submitted that carrying out patent searches for all the standards would be extremely expensive for potential licensees. Further, even if such searches were to be carried out, different patent owners, SSOs and potential licensees disagree on valuation, essentiality, enforceability, validity, and coverage of patents. In addition, some patent owners are non-practising entities and may not be members of SSOs. The patents held by them are not likely to be disclosed. More importantly, homegrown manufacturers that have no patents to leverage and may be new entrants in the market would be especially disadvantaged by such a scenario. Budget phone manufacturers, standing to incur losses either as a result of heavy licensing fees, or, potential litigation, may close down. Alternatively, they may pass on their losses to consumers, driving the now affordable phones out of their financial reach. With the objectives of Make in India and Digital India in sight, it is essential that Indian consumers continue to have access to devices within their purchasing power.

Further, how did we arrive at a cap of 5 percent? The rationale for this figure is the royalty cap imposed by India in the early 1990s. As part of regulating foreign technology agreements, the (former) Department of Industrial Development (later merged with DIPP) capped royalty rates in the early 1990s. Payment of royalties was capped at either a lump sum payment of $2 million, or, 5 percent on the royalty rates charged for domestic sale, and, 8 percent for export of goods pertaining to “high priority industries”.[5] Royalties higher than 5 percent or 8 percent, as the case may be, required securing approval from the government. While the early 1990s (specifically, 1991) was too early for the mobile device manufacturing industry to be listed among high priority industries, the public announcement by the government covered computer software, consumer electronics, and electrical and electronic appliances for home use. The cap on royalty rates was lifted by the DIPP in 2009.[6] It is submitted in the case of mobile device technology, we are witnessing a situation similar to that of the 1990s. In this sphere, most of the patent holders are multinational corporations which results in large royalty amounts leaving India. At the same time, litigation over patent infringement in India has limited the manufacture and sale of mobile devices of homegrown brands. While SEP litigation in India is indeed comparable to international SEP litigation on broader issues raised, specifically competition law concerns, but differs crucially where the parties are concerned. International SEP litigation is largely between multinational corporations with substantial patent portfolios, capable of engaging in long drawn out litigations, or engaging in other strategies including setting off against each other’s patent portfolios. Dynamics in the Indian market differ – with a larger SEP holder litigating against smaller manufacturers, many of whom are indigenous, homegrown.

In June, 2013, we had recommended to the erstwhile Hon’ble Minister for Human Resource Development[7] that a patent pool of essential technologies be established, with the compulsory licensing mechanism. Subsequently, in February, 2015, we reiterated this request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister.[8] We propose that the Government of India initiate the formation of a patent pool of critical mobile technologies and mandate a five percent compulsory license.[9] As we have stated in our request to the Hon’ble Prime Minister, we believe that such a pool would “possibly avert patent disputes by ensuring that the owners' rights are not infringed on, that budget manufacturers are not put out of business owing to patent feuds, and that consumers continue to get access to inexpensive mobile devices. Several countries including the United States issue compulsory licenses on patents in the pharmaceutical, medical, defence, software, and engineering domains for reasons of public policy, or to thwart or correct anticompetitive practices.”[10] We believe that such a measure will not be in breach of our international obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.
Increase transparency in the patent system by making patentees comply with the law: The Patents Act, 1970 requires patentees and licensees to submit a statement on commercial working of the invention to the Controller every year.[11] Form 27 under section 146(2) of the Act lists the details necessary to be disclosed for compliance of the requirement of “working”. A jurisprudential analysis reveals the rationale and objective behind this mandatory requirement. Undeniably, the scheme of the Indian patent regime makes it amply clear that “working” is a very important requirement, and the public as well as competitors have a right to access this information in a timely manner, without undue hurdles. Indeed, as the decision[12] in Natco Pharma v. Bayer Corporation[13] reveals, the disclosures in Form 27 were crucial to determining the imposition of a compulsory license on the patentee. Thus, broadly, Form 27 disclosures can critically enable willing licensees to access patent “working” information in a timely manner.

However, there has been little compliance of this requirement by the patentees, despite the Indian Patent Office (IPO) reiterating the importance of compliance through the issuance of multiple public notices[14] (suo motu and in response to a public interest litigation filed in 2011[15]), and, reminding the patentees that noncompliance is punishable with a heavy fine.[16] Findings of research submitted by one of the parties[17] in the writ of the 2011 public interest litigation Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India and others[18] reveal as follows. First, a large number of Form 27s are unavailable for download from the website of the IPO. This possibly indicates that the forms have either not been filed by the patentees with the IPO, or have not been uploaded (yet) by the IPO. Second, a large number of filings in the telecom sector remain incomplete.

In 2015, CIS queried the IPO website for Form 27s of mobile device patents to arrive at a similar conclusion. We obtained 4,916 valid Form 27s, corresponding to 3,126 mobile device patents from public online records. These represented only 20.1% of all Forms 27 that should have been filed and corresponded to only 72.5% of all mobile device patents for which Forms 27 should have been filed. Forms 27 were missing for almost all patentees, and even among Forms 27 that were obtained, almost none contained useful information regarding the working of the subject patents or fully complying with the informational requirements of the Indian Patent Rules.[19]

Further, in our study, we observed that patentees adopted drastically different positions regarding the definition of patent working, some arguing that importation of products into India or licensing of Indian suppliers constituted working, while others even went so far as to argue that the granting of a worldwide license to a non-Indian firm constituted working in India. Several significant patentees claimed that they or their patent portfolios were simply too large to enable the provision of information relating to individual patents, and instead provided gross revenue and product sale figures, together with historical anecdotes about their long histories in India.

The Indian government has made little or no effort to monitor or police compliance with Form 27 filings, undoubtedly leading to significant non-compliance. We also propose the alteration of the Form 27 template[20] to include more disclosures.[21] Presently, patentees are required to declare number of licensees and sub-licensees. We specifically propose that the format of Form 27 filings be modified to include patent pool licenses, with an explicit declaration of the names of the licensees and not just the number.
Require royalty rates to be decided on the basis of the Smallest Saleable Patent Practicing Component: Most modern telecommunication and IT devices are complex with numerous technologies working in tandem. Different studies indicate that the number of patents in the US applicable to smartphones is between 200,000 and 250,000.[22] A comprehensive patent landscape of mobile device technologies conducted by CIS reveals that nearly 4,000 patents are applicable to mobile phones sold in India.[23] It is thus extremely difficult to quantify the exact extent of interaction and interdependence between technologies in any device, in such a way that the exact contribution of the patented technology to the entire device can be determined. Thus, we submit that royalty rates for SEPs should be based on the smallest saleable patent practising component, and not on the net price of the downstream product.

The net cost of the device is almost always several times that of the chipset that implements the patented technology. Armstrong et al[24] have found that the cost of a 4G baseband chip costs up to $20 including royalties in a hypothetical $400 phone sold in the US. One of the litigating parties in the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits in India has stated that one of the reasons for preferring to leverage its patents as downstream as possible in the value chain is that it will earn the company more royalties.[25] In instances where patent exhaustion occurs much earlier in the value chain, such as in the case of the company’s cross-licenses with Qualcomm (another company that owns patents to chip technologies), the company does not try to obtain royalties from the selling prices of devices for the cross-licensed technologies. It is submitted that such market practices could be detrimental to the government’s objectives such as providing a mobile handset to every Indian by 2020 as a part of the Digital India programme.[26] It is also worth noting in this context that the mobile device is the first and only medium of access to the Internet and telecom services for a large number of Indians, and, consequently, the only gateway to access to knowledge, information and critical services, including banking.[27]

“Q.5 Please suggest a dispute resolution mechanism for determination of royalty distribution on FRAND (Fair Reasonable and Non Discriminatory) basis.”

The licensing of SEPs on FRAND terms requires the parties to negotiate “reasonable” royalty rates in good faith, and apply the terms uniformly to all willing licensees. It is our submission that if the parties cannot agree to FRAND terms, they may enter into binding arbitration. Further, if all efforts fail, there exist remedies under the Patents Act and the Competition Act, 2002 to address the issues.

Section 115 of the Patents Act empowers the court to appoint an independent scientific adviser “to assist the court or to inquire and report upon any such question of fact or of opinion (not involving a question of interpretation of law) as it may formulate for the purpose.”[28] Such an independent adviser may inform the court on the technical nuances of the matter.

Further, under the Patents Act, pending the decision of infringement proceedings the Court may provide interim relief, if the plaintiff proves first, a prima facie case of infringement; second, that the balance of convenience tilts in plaintiff’s favour; and, third, that if an injunction is not granted the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable damage. However, it is our suggestion that courts adopt a more cautious stance towards granting injunctions in the field of SEP litigation. First, in our opinion, injunctions may prove to be a deterrent to arrive at a FRAND commitment, in particular, egregiously harming the willing licensee. Second, especially in the Indian scenario, where litigating parties operate in vastly different price segments (thereby targeting consumers with different purchasing power), it is difficult to establish that “irreparable damage” has been caused to the patent owner on account of infringement. Third, we note the approach of the European Court of Justice, which prohibited the patent holder from enforcing an injunction provided a willing licensee makes an offer for the price it wishes to pay to use a patent under the condition that it deposited an amount in the bank as a security for the patent holder.[29] Fourth, we also note the approach of the Federal Trade Commission in the USA, which only authorizes patent holders to seek injunctive relief against potential licensees who have either stated that they will not license a patent on any terms, or refuse to enter into a license agreement on terms that have been set in the final ruling of a court or arbitrator.[30] Further, as Contreras (2015)[31] observes, that the precise boundaries of what constitutes as an unwilling licensee remains to be seen. We observe a similar ambiguity in Indian jurisprudence, and accordingly submit that courts should carefully examine the conduct of the licensee to injunct them from the alleged infringement.

Concluding Remarks

We are thankful to TRAI for the opportunity to make these submissions. It would be our pleasure and privilege to discuss these comments with the TRAI; and, supplement these with further submissions if necessary. We also offer our assistance on other matters aimed at developing a suitable policy framework for SEPs and FRAND in India, and, working towards the sustained innovation, manufacture and availability of mobile technologies in India.

[1] Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms, available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms (last accessed November 13, 2017)

[2] Anubha Sinha, Nehaa Chaudhari and Rohini Lakshane, “CIS’ Comments on Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Discussion Paper on Standard Essential Patents and their Availability on Frand Terms” (April 23, 2016); available at https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-department-of-industrial-policy-and-promotion-discussion-paper-on-standard-essential-patents-and-their-availability-on-frand-terms

[3] www.cis-india.org

[4] Rohini Lakshané, CIS, List of Technical Standards and IP Types (Working document), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8SgjShAjhbtaml5eW50bS01d2s/view?usp=sharing (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[5] Kumkum Sen, News on Royalty Payments Brings Cheer in New Year, available at http://www.businessstandard.com/article/economypolicy/newsonroyaltypaymentbringscheerinnewyear11001 0400044_1.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[6] See Sanjana Govil, Putting a Lid on Royalty Outflows How the RBI Can Help Reduce India’s IP Costs , available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/lidonroyaltyoutflows (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for a discussion on the introduction of royalty caps in the early 1990s, and its success in reducing the flow of money out of India.

[7] Nehaa Chaudhari, Letter for Establishment of Patent Pool for Low cost Access Devices through Compulsory

Licenses, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/letterforestablishmentofpatentpoolforlowcostaccessdevices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[8] See Rohini Lakshané, Open Letter to PM Modi, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/openlettertoprimeministermodi (last accessed 13 November, 2017) for further details of CIS’ proposal.

[9] Rohini Lakshané, FAQ: CIS’ proposal to form a patent pool of critical mobile technology, September 2015, available at http://cisindia.org/a2k/blogs/faqcisproposalforcompulsorylicensingofcriticalmobiletechnologies (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[10] Id.

[11] Section 146(2) of the Patents Act, 1970.

[12] Sai Vinod, Patent Office Finally Takes Form 27s Seriously, available at http://spicyip.com/2013/02/patentofficefinallytakesform27s.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[13] Order No. 45/2013 (Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai), available at http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/0452013.htm (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[14] Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at

http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_Form27_12Feb2013.pdf ((last accessed 13 November, 2017) and Intellectual Property India, Public Notice, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_24December2009.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[15] Supra note 11.

[16] Id.

[17] See research findings available at http://spicyip.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/FORM27WP1Rcopy.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[18] In the High Court of Delhi, W.P.(C) 5590/2015. This litigation is currently ongoing. See, illustratively, Mathews P. George, Patent Working in India: Delhi HC issues notice in Shamnad Basheer v. Union of India & Ors. – I , available at http://spicyip.com/2015/09/patentworkinginindiadelhihcissuesnoticeinshamnadbasheervunionofindiaorsi.html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[19] Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[20] Form 27, The Patents Act, available at http://ipindia.nic.in/ipr/patent/manual/HTML%20AND%20PDF/Manual%20of%20Patent%20Office%20Practice%20and%20Procedure%20%20html/Forms/Form27.pdf (last accessed November 13, 10`7).

[21] However, we came across some complaints raised by patentees and industry observers regarding the structure of the Form 27 requirement - namely, patents covering complex, multi-component products that embody dozens of technical standards and thousands of patents are not necessarily amenable to the individual-level data requested by Form 27. See Contreras, Jorge L. and Lakshané, Rohini and Lewis, Paxton, Patent Working Requirements and Complex Products (October 1, 2017). NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3004283

[22] Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. at 2015 ; See also, for e.g.,

RPX Corporation, Amendment No. 3 to Form Sl,11 Apr. 2011, at 59, available at http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1509432/000119312511101007/ds1a.htm (last accessed 22 April, 2016), quoting “Based on our research, we believe there are more than 250,000 active patents relevant to today’s

smartphones…” .; See further Steve Lohr, Apple Samsung Case Shows Smartphone as Legal Magnet, New York Times, 25 Aug. 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/technology/applesamsungcaseshowssmartphoneaslawsuitmagnet.html (last accessed November13, 2017).

[23] Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané, Patents and Mobile Devices in India: An Empirical Survey, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2756486 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[24] Ann Armstrong, Joseph J. Mueller and Timothy D. Syrett, The SmartphoneRoyalty Stack:Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones, available at https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/TheSmartphoneRoyaltyStackArmstrongMuellerSyrett.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017)

[25] Florian Mueller, Ericsson Explained Publicly why it Collects Patent Royalties from Device (Not Chipset) Makers, available at http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericssonexplainedpubliclywhyits.Html (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[26] Romit Guha and Anandita Singh Masinkotia, PM Modi’s Digital India Project:Government to Ensure that Every Indian has a Smartphone by 2019, available at http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/20140825/news/53205445_1_digitalindiaindiatodayfinancialservices (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[27] Nehaa Chaudhari, Standard Essential Patents on Low Cost Mobile Phones in India: A Case to Strengthen Competition Regulation? available at http://www.manupatra.co.in/newsline/articles/Upload/08483340C1B94BA4B6A9D6B6494391B8.pdf (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

[28] Section 115 of the Patents Act, 1970.

[29] Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v. ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland , Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 in GmbH C170/13.

[30] Third Party United States Fed. Trade Commission’s Statement on the Public Interest, In re Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, Computers and Components Thereof, U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Inv. No. 337TA745 (Jun. 6, 2012).

[31] Jorge L. Contreras, A Brief History of FRAND: Analyzing Current Debates in Standard Setting and Antitrust Through a Historical Lens , 80 Antitrust Law Journal 39 (2015), available at h ttp://ssrn.com/abstract=2374983 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2374983 (last accessed 13 November, 2017).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-comments-on-promoting-local-telecom-equipment-manufacturing

Why should you keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US

Admin — 2017-11-25T15:33:32Z

As the United State's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gears up to repeal the net neutrality laws put in place in 2015, India should sit up and take note.

The blog post by Subhrojit Mallick was published by Digit on November 24, 2017.

Back in 2014, a group of Redditors started debating net neutrality in India after Airtel announced it would charge extra for Voice Over IP (VoIP) services like Skype. Soon, that snowballed into a nation-wide campaign with over a million internet users participating. Things didn’t help when Facebook too wanted to provide a bunch of internet services for free in India through its Internet.org or Free Basics initiative. However, a year-long discussion and public outrage against the two, led the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to rule in favour of net neutrality and stop both Airtel and Facebook in their tracks of violating a free and open internet.

Fast forward three years down the line and America, the birthplace of the internet, is struggling with the problem of internet freedom. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under the Donald Trump Administration led by Chairman Ajit Pai submitted a final draft proposal yesterday to repeal the existing net neutrality laws put in force by the Obama administration in 2015. The draft proposal will be voted upon by FCC by the end of the year and considering the FCC has a Republican majority under Ajit Pai, the proposal is likely to pass.

The draft removes almost every net neutrality rule from 2015, making ISPs the gatekeepers of the internet. It states internet providers will have the freedom to implement fast and slow speed lanes, prioritise traffic and block apps and services. The only rule they have to follow -- publicly disclose when they are doing any of the things stated above.

Executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Sunil Abraham elaborated on what's on Pai's mind.

"Ajit Pai's ideology is pro-market. He believes the market will sort all problems out. According to Pai, the magic of competition will eliminate all the harms emerging from net neutrality violation," he said.

"Pai has said, you do what you want to do, but you have to disclose that to the public. You can block, throttle, have fast lanes, prioritise traffic, have discriminatory pricing, but you disclose them. If the customer doesn't like it, he can swith to another network. Pai believes the transparency requirements will allow the magic of the market to diminish and eliminate harm. His regulation of net neutrality is transparency," Abraham further added.

However, such a move will have drastic effects on the free flow of internet traffic. Telecom companies and ISPs can handpick services by charging customers to access some sites or by slowing down the speeds of others. For instance, ISPs can make consumers pay more to watch high-quality content on Netflix.

With net neutrality rules repealed, the internet will become a pay-to-play service. It will essentially divide the internet into fast and slow lanes. One will be a speedy service that could be priced higher and another, much slower and cheaper. While big players like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Netflix and the likes can easily pay the higher fees and stay unfettered, newcomers and smaller players will have it tough. Although, the move will lead to cuts in profits for everyone. A higher price to consumers will eat into the user base of these companies, while startups and new voices in the media will find entry and success prohibitive.

Although it’s true that no single ISP in the US has the entire market to itself and the market is indeed divided into a handful of players, they do operate in a de facto monopolised way. How? ISPs in the US have sliced up the entire country into areas such that users in a particular area have only one choice of service provider. That essentially leaves users at the mercy of whatever Comcast or Spectrum is offering (or not offering).

By putting the net neutrality rules in place in 2015, the US had ensured these ISPs won’t do anything grossly uncompetitive. The current rules make broadband in the country a public utility, same as electricity. And now, Ajit Pai-led FCC is about to repeal those very rules that kept them grounded.

Will the FCC ruling make apps and services expensive in other countries?

While Pai’s jurisdiction does not extend beyond the United States, his tirades against a free internet will most definitely have rippling effects across the world. More importantly, it will raise the cost of operations of companies like Netflix and Amazon who will have to hire legal experts and lobbyists to negotiate deals with service providers. That extra cost will be burdened on the US consumers of course, but since they have a large international presence, it is likely that the extra cost will trickle down to users outside the US as well.

And that’s not just the streaming companies. All the tech giants hail from the US and it is only logical that a rise in their costs of operation will have an impact on their global operations.

Although, if the level playing field in the US is disrupted, companies will look for greener pastures and if that means moving out of the US to other countries, it could happen.

How will FCC’s decision impact India?

While US is grappling with such a reality, Indians fought against it and won. Or did they? Last year, after Airtel and Facebook were asked to drop their plans for differential pricing, TRAI released a paper on net neutrality and differential pricing to finalise its views on the matter. The regulatory body released a 14-question long consultation paper seeking comments on internet traffic management from the public.

“Increasingly, concerns have been raised globally relating to discriminatory treatment of Internet traffic by access providers. These concerns relating to nondiscriminatory access have become the centre of a global policy debate. The purpose of this second stage of consultation is to proceed towards the formulation of final views on policy or regulatory interventions, where required, on the subject of NN,” the paper read.

“Net Neutrality being repealed in the US will hurt innovation in that country, and will lead to a consolidation of power with those Internet companies which have the money to partner with US carriers. This hurts Indian product startups, because it means that their apps may not be as easily available to users in the US. The Internet is one world, and we need the same Internet to be available everywhere, across the world: one Internet for the entire world,” Nikhil Pahwa, Co-Founder of Internet Freedom Foundation told Digit.

That means, essentially, the debate on net neutrality is not over in India. In fact, both RS Sharma, the Chairman of TRAI and FCC’s Ajit Pai agree on the need to bridge the digital divide. Both are exploring ways to keep the internet open while providing access to the unconnected. Thankfully, both differs on the approach to meet that goal.

Pai believes the internet should be left unregulated despite the “hypothetical harms” to the consumer. He thinks the current rules were put in place to avoid theoretical harms which were not based on hard evidence. Pai claims there should be evidence-based regulation of the internet.

Sharma, in contrast, disagrees on an evidence-based approach.

“The TRAI's view of Net Neutrality has so far been diametrically opposite to Ajit Pai's FCC, and with good reason. Net Neutrality ensures that all ISPs and telecom operators act as exchanges of data between users, and do not discriminate on the basis of the type or source of that data. This allows for permission-less innovation on the Internet, which has given us the Internet that we have today,” Pahwa added.

Will India’s stance on net neutrality change after the FCC’s decision?

Rajan Mathews, Director General of Cellular Operators Association of India believes the FCC’s decision will no doubt have some impact on the path India takes.

“I think the policymakers will look at the decision the US makes. They had taken their decision as a point of reference before and the FCC’s ruling is too large an issue to not look at it. Both the DoT (Department of Telecom) and TRAI will have to reevaluate their approach in the context of the what happens in the US,” he said.

“Net neutrality approach in both countries is still in flux and India is going to tread lightly on net neutrality issues,” he added. As per Mathews, in India, the situation is different from the US where a handful of telecom companies and ISPs wield control of the entire country. In India, there is a licensed environment which provides a minimal standard of net neutrality, which is applied across the board and everybody who is providing a similar service is made to follow similar guidelines.

However, Mathews did attribute India’s efforts to enforce net neutrality to the United States’ efforts to place the rules in the first place in 2015 under the Obama administration, when internet was deemed as a public utility, same as electricity or telephone.

“Net neutrality in India emerged from the US definition. Now that they are going to repeal it, people in India who were looking at the US as a model will evaluate the implications of the move,” Mathews elaborated.

The US is looking to implement an ex-post approach to regulating the internet wherein the ISPs and telcos will adopt a free market approach and will only be investigated if they violate a rule. India, Mathews says, is adopting an ex-ante approach where there will be some commonly accepted criteria of net neutrality, but operators will have the ability to manage their traffic to ensure quality of service.

Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Ravi Shankar Prasad also helped alleviate fears of India following suit. During the Global Summit for Cyberspace Security held yesterday, he said, "The citizens' right of accessing the internet is "non-negotiable" and the government will not allow any company to restrict people's entry to the worldwide web."

Prime Minister Narendra Modi also came in support of net neutrality in India. He tweeted, "The internet, by nature, is inclusive and not exclusive. It offers equity of access and equality of opportunity."

Pahwa, who fought hard against Airtel and Facebook to ensure the internet remains neutral, was confident the decision won’t affect India’s stance on net neutrality. However, he is apprehensive that Indian telecom companies might borrow a leaf from their US counterparts and lobby hard to repeal the rules.

“I don't think the FCC decision affects the Indian regulation in any way, because the Indian regulator TRAI has already established strong and well rooted principles for Net Neutrality regulations in India. The only thing that worries me is that Indian telecom operators will use the developments in the US to push back against Net Neutrality with renewed vigour,” he said.

So, on the face of it, while India is well insulated from the catastrophe the United States has embarked upon, it is important to watch what the US is doing closely and make sure we don’t repeat their mistakes here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/digit-subhrojit-mallick-november-24-2017-why-should-you-keep-a-close-eye-on-net-neutrality-debate-in-us

Why you should keep a close eye on the net neutrality debate in the US

Admin — 2018-01-18T14:50:52Z

As the United State's FCC Chairman Ajit Pai gears up to repeal the net neutrality laws put in place in 2015, India should sit up and take note.

The blog post by Subhrojit Mallick was published by Digital.in on November 24, 2017.

What is FCC chairman Ajit Pai doing?