Centre for Internet and Society

Financial Express hosts #NetNeutralityDebate: ‘Price discrimination can be allowed, but not for the same packet of data’

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T10:05:10Z

Trying to cut through the noise on Net Neutrality in India, FICCI in partnership with Financial Express is hosting a panel discussion titled “Decoding Net Neutrality” in New Delhi on Wednesday.

The article was published in Financial Express on April 24, 2015. Pranesh Prakash participated in the discussion.

Trying to cut through the noise on Net Neutrality in India, FICCI in partnership with Financial Express is hosting a panel discussion titled ‘Decoding Net Neutrality’ in New Delhi on Wednesday.

Moderated by Sunil Jain, the guests on the Net Neutrality debate panel are Rajya Sabha MP Rajeev Chandrasekhar, Lok Sabha MP Baijayant Jay Panda along with ICRIER chief executive Dr Rajat Kathuria, IAMAI president Dr Subho Ray, Facebook’s head of public policy for South and Central Asia Ankhi Das, COAI director general Rajan S Mathew, Com First director Dr Mahesh Uppal and Policy Director of the Centre for Internet and Society Pranesh Prakash.

Highlights of the debate:

Starting off the discussion, Rajeev Chandrasekhar said that this issue is all about market abuse and market power and not as utopian as it sounds. He said that this debate is nothing new as regulators identified the problem long ago. Chandarasekhar added, “TRAI had recognized in 2006 that there is an opportunity to abuse by access providers.”

Joining the conversation, COAI director general Rajan S Mathew said, “We have put the cart before the horse. What needs to be addressed first is online governance.”

Looking forward, ICRIER chief executive Rajat Kathuria said that we need to figure out the best way to use this privately funded public good. He added, “We still haven’t so far.”

Com First director Dr Mahesh Uppal tries to find a common ground and said, “Everyone is against ‘arbitrary commercial’ prioritisation or throttling.”

Subho Ray agreed and said, “There should be no blocking, throttling and preferential treatment.”

Facebook India’s Ankhi Das said that Internet.org is not for people who are already on the Internet. She explained, “Our objective is that it should be free and non-exclusive.”

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director of the Centre for Internet and Society intervened to add, “An universally affordable model is important. We must ensure that the diversity that Internet provides is not lost.”

Taking the conversation further, Rajeev Chandrasekhar said, “I don’t believe data packets can be discriminated except in terms of speed and bandwidth.

Rajan Mathews interjected, “We do not discriminate, we differentiate. And all businesses differentiate.”

On this point, Rajat Kathuria said, “Price discrimination is something that should be allowed within boundaries of regulation.”

The Indian Express New Media Editor Nandagopal Rajan said that, “#NetNeutralityDebate panel agrees that price discrimination can be allowed, but not for the same packet of data.”

Jay Panda, Lok Sabha MP now also joins the discussion and says, “I have come out in favour of net neutrality despite the fact that my family will be benefiting from the lack of it. Whether fragmentation is desirable on the Internet or not, it needs to be debated. I am not in favour of fragmented access to the Internet.”

Underlining his views, Jay Panda reiterated, “Spectrum may be limited but access won’t be in the future. I am against prioritizing packets over others.”

Pranesh Prakash gave an overarching view and said, “Everyone benefits from Internet. What we need to figure out is whether everyone is getting paid enough.”

Jay Panda said, “It is possible for access providers to make money.”

Rajan Mathews said, “I think it is not fair to say that telcos can influence the govt.”

On this Jay Panda quipped, “The govt has to chip in its share to make the Internet accessible to all.”

Jay Panda says govts have been behind the curve in #NetNeutralityDebate and telcos have benefitted from it.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-express-may-9-2015-financial-express-hosts-net-neutrality-debate

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

Facebook’s Free Basics hits snag in India

praskrishna — 2016-02-15T02:33:26Z

Indian regulators have dealt a major blow to Facebook’s controversial Free Basics online access plan by forbidding so-called differential pricing by internet companies, in effect banning the programme in the country.

The article by James Crabtree with additional reporting by Tim Bradshaw was published in Financial Times on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Free Basics, a plan to make access to parts of the internet free, has been at the centre of a fierce row in the country between the social network and local start-ups and advocates for net neutrality — the idea that all web traffic should be treated equally and technology companies should not be allowed to price certain kinds of content differently from others.

Last December, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ordered Facebook to put its Free Basics programme on hold pending a review.

On Monday, Trai published the results of its deliberations, introducing a complete ban on any form of differential pricing.

The ruling is the latest in a series of regulatory battles pitting net neutrality campaigners against telecom and internet companies, and is likely to be viewed as a test case for other emerging markets in which programmes similar to Facebook’s are yet to be challenged in the courts.

It also marks the most significant setback yet for Free Basics, which Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg launched in 2014 as the centrepiece of plans to help poorer people access the internet in emerging economies. It operates in more than 30 countries.

Facebook had launched a high-profile public campaign to defend its programme, which offered stripped-down access to sites such as BBC News or Facebook’s own app to customers of Reliance Communications, the US company’s local telecoms partner.

But critics attacked the programme as an attempt to become a gatekeeper for tens of millions of internet users.

In a post to his Facebook page on Monday, Mr Zuckerberg said the company “won’t give up on” finding new ways to boost internet access in India.

“While we’re disappointed with today’s decision, I want to personally communicate that we are committed to keep working to break down barriers to connectivity in India and around the world. Internet.org has many initiatives, and we will keep working until everyone has access to the internet,” he wrote.

Trai’s ruling was welcomed by anti-Facebook campaigners, a group that included the founders of many Indian start-ups including online retailers such as Flipkart, Paytm and restaurant search service Zomato, which had declined to offer their services as part of the Free Basics platform.

Analysts also hailed the Indian regulator’s ruling as a landmark. “This is the most broad and the most stringent set of regulations on differential pricing which exists anywhere in the world,” said Pranesh Prakash of the Bangalore-based Centre for Internet & Society, a think-tank.

India has become an increasingly important focus for the company’s global business, with the country becoming its second-largest market by users last year.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/financial-times-february-8-2016-james-crabtree-facebooks-free-basics-hits-snag-in-india

Facebook Shares 10 Key Facts about Free Basics. Here's What's Wrong with All 10 of Them.

sunil — 2015-12-25T14:59:10Z

Shweta Sengar of Catch News spoke to Sunil Abraham about the recent advertisement by Facebook titled "What Net Neutrality Activists won't Tell You or, the Top 10 Facts about Free Basics". Sunil argued against the validity of all the 'top 10 facts'.

Facebook has rebranded internet.org as Free Basics. After suffering from several harsh blows from the net neutrality activists in India, the social media behemoth is positioning a movement in order to capture user attention.

Apart from a mammoth two page advertisement on Free Basics on 23 December in a leading English daily, we spotted a numerous hoardings across the capital.

Unlike Facebook, Wikipedia has a rather upfront approach for raising funds. You must have noticed a pop-up as you open Wikipedia when they are in need of funds. What Facebook has done is branded Free Basics as 'free' as the basic needs of life.

The newspaper advertisement by Facebook was aimed at clearing all the doubts about Free Basics. The 10 facts highlighted a connected India and urging users to take the "first step towards digital equality."

In an interview with Catch, Sunil Abraham, Executive Director of Bangalore based research organisation, the Centre for Internet and Society, shared his thoughts on the controversial subject. Abraham countered each of Facebook's ten arguments. Take a look:

01 Free basics is open to any carriers. Any mobile operator can join us in connecting India.

Sunil Abraham: Free Basics was initially exclusive to only one telecom operator in most markets that it was available in.

The non-exclusivity was introduced only after activists in India complained. But now the arrangement is exclusive to Free Basics as a walled garden provider. But discrimination harms remain until other Internet services can also have what Facebook has from telecom operators ie. free access to their destinations.

02 We do not charge anyone anything for Free Basics. Period.

SA: As Bruce Schneier says "surveillance is the business model of the Internet". Free basics users are subject to an additional layer of surveillance ie. the data retention by the Facebook proxy server. Just as Facebook cannot say that they are ignoring Data Protection law because Facebook is a free product - they cannot say that Free Basics can violate network neutrality law because it is a free service. For ex. Flipkart should get Flipkart Basic on all Indian ISPs and Telcos.

03 We do not pay for the data consumed in Free Basics. Operators participate because the program has proven to bring more people online. Free Basics has brought new people onto mobile networks on average over 50% faster since launching the service.

SA: Facebook has been quoting statistics as evidence to influence the policy formulation process. But we need the absolute numbers and we also need them to be independently verifiable. At the very least we need the means to cross verify these numbers with numbers that telcos and ISPs routinely submit to TRAI.

Theoretical harms must be addressed through net neutrality regulation. For example, you don't have to build a single, centralised database of all Indian citizens to know that it can be compromised - from a security design perspective centralisation is always a bad idea. Gatekeeping powers given to any powerful entity will be compromised. While evidence is useful, regulation can already begin based on well established regulatory principles. After scientific evidence has been made available - the regulation can be tweaked.

04 Any developer or publisher can have their content on Free Basics. There are clear technical specs openly published here ... and we have never rejected an app or publisher who has me these tech specs.

SA: Again this was only done as a retrospective fix after network neutrality activists in India complained about exclusive arrangements. For example, the music streaming service Hungama is not a low-bandwidth destination but since it was included the technical specifications only mentions large images and video files. Many of the other sites are indistinguishable from their web equivalents clearly indicating that this was just an afterthought. At the moment Free Basics has become controversial so most developers and publishers are not approaching them so there is no way for us to verify Facebook's claim.

05 Nearly 800 developers in India have signed their support for Free Basics.

SA: I guess these are software developers working in the services industry who don't see themselves as potential competition to Facebook or any of the services within Free Basics. Also since Facebook as been completely disingenuous when it comes to soliciting support for their campaigns it is very hard to believe these claims. It has tried to change the meaning of the phrase "net neutrality" and has framed the debate in an inaccurate manner - therefore I could quite confidently say that these developers must have been fooled into supporting Free Basics.

06 It is not a walled garden: In India, 40% of people who come online through Free Basics are paying for data and accessing the full internet within the first 30 days. In the same time period, 8 times more people are paying versus staying on just

SA: Again, no absolute numbers and also no granularity in the data that makes it impossible for anyone to verify these numbers. Also there is no way to compare these numbers to access options that are respectful of network neutrality such as equal rating. If the numbers are roughly the same for equal rating and zero-rating then there is no strong case to be made for zero-rating.

07 Free Basics is growing and popular in 36 other countries, which have welcomed the program with open arms and seen the enormous benefits it has brought.

SA: Free Basics was one of the most controversial topics at the last Internet Governance Forum. A gratis service is definitely going to be popular but that does not mean forbearance is the only option for the regulator. In countries with strong civil society and/or a strong regulator, Free Basics has ran into trouble. Facebook has been able to launch Free Basics only in jurisdictions where regulators are still undecided about net neutrality. India and Brazil are the last battle grounds for net neutrality and that is why Facebook is spending advertising dollar and using it's infrastructure to win the global south.

08 In a recent representative poll, 86% of Indians supported Free Basics by Facebook, and the idea that everyone deserves access to free basic internet services.

SA: This is the poll which was framed in alarmist language where Indian were asked to choose between perpetuating or bridging the digital divide. This is a false choice that Facebook is perpetuating - with forward-looking positive Network Neutrality rules as advocated by Dr. Chris Marsden it should be possible to bridge digital divide without incurring any free speech, competition, innovation and diversity harms.

09 In the past several days, 3.2 million people have petitioned the TRAI in support of Free Basics.

SA: Obviously - since Free Basics is better than nothing. But the real choice should have been - are you a) against network neutrality ie. would you like to see Facebook play gatekeeper on the Internet OR b) for network neutrality ie. would you like to see Free Basics forced to comply with network neutrality rules and expand access without harms to consumers and innovators.

10 There are no ads in the version of Facebook on Free Basics. Facebook produces no revenue. We are doing this to connect India, and the benefits to do are clear.

SA: As someone who has watched the Internet economy since the first dot com boom - it is absolutely clear that consumer acquisition is as important as revenues. They are doing it to connect people to Facebook and as a result some people will also connect to the Internet. But India is the last market on the planet where the walled garden can be bigger than the Internet, and therefore Facebook is manipulating the discourse through it's dominance of the networked public sphere.

Bravo to TRAI and network neutrality activists for taking Facebook on.

Originally published by Catch News, on December 24, 2015.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/facebook-shares-10-key-facts-about-free-basics-heres-whats-wrong-with-all-10-of-them

Definition of Net Neutrality should be flexible: Pranesh Prakash

pranesh — 2015-06-19T01:43:04Z

Critics argue that Facebook’s Internet.org violates the principle of Net Neutrality.

The article by Sanjay Vijaykumar was published in the Hindu on May 10, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is extensively quoted.

The definition of Net Neutrality should be flexible enough to allow for experimentation with different models of providing cheaper Internet access and such experimentation needs to be regulated by the telecom regulator, Telecom and Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) according to Internet expert Pranesh Prakash.

Mr. Prakash was reacting to the business model of Boston-based start-up Jana, which said it had figured out a way to offer billions of people in the emerging world free access to the Internet, without violating the web’s open nature. The firm has launched Jana Loyalty, a product that seeks to reward its smartphone users in two ways. One, it reimburses users the cost of downloading and using an app of Jana’s clients. Two, it gives free additional data with which the user can access any content online.

“While Jana is like Internet.org, since it is Internet service-specific zero-rating, Jana Loyalty is what my colleague Sunil Abraham dubs a ‘leaky walled garden’. The walled garden (site-specific access) exists, but you also get free access to the whole of the Web in return. Given that there is no one universal definition of Net Neutrality, and given India currently doesn’t have a definition, I can’t answer if this is a violation of Net Neutrality,” said Mr. Prakash, who is Policy Director at The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based, non-profit, research and policy advocacy.

Facebook’s attempts to provide a limited version of the Internet free has been attracting criticism from supporters of Net Neutrality, especially in India. Critics argue that Facebook’s Internet.org, which offers users free access to a bouquet of pre-selected Web sites, violates the principle of Net Neutrality by choosing what is accessible and what isn’t. Facebook has reacted to this by opening up Internet.org to all developers who meet its guidelines. Mr. Prakash said the definition of Net Neturality should be flexible enough to allow for experimentation with different models of providing cheaper Internet access, including Jana Loyalty.

“However, such experimentation ought to be regulated by the telecom regulator. To minimise harm, they should be allowed on a case-by-case basis after the regulator has had an opportunity to conduct risk-benefit analysis against four goals it should seek to promote — universal and affordable access; effective competition; protection of consumers against harm; and diversity that arises from the openness and interconnectedness of the Internet,” he added.

Net neutrality is a principle that says Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all traffic and content on their networks equally.

Why now?

Late last month, Trai released a draft consultation paper seeking views from the industry and the general public on the need for regulations for over-the-top (OTT) players such as Whatsapp, Skype, Viber etc, security concerns and net neutrality. The objective of this consultation paper, the regulator said, was to analyse the implications of the growth of OTTs and consider whether or not changes were required in the current regulatory framework.

What is an OTT?

OTT or over-the-top refers to applications and services which are accessible over the internet and ride on operators' networks offering internet access services. The best known examples of OTT are Skype, Viber, WhatsApp, e-commerce sites, Ola, Facebook messenger. The OTTs are not bound by any regulations. The Trai is of the view that the lack of regulations poses a threat to security and there’s a need for government’s intervention to ensure a level playing field in terms of regulatory compliance.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-sanjay-vijaykumar-may-10-2015-pranesh-prakash-on-definition-of-net-neutrality

Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions

tarun — 2015-02-09T13:33:38Z

As part of CIS's inquiry into 'Network Neutrality' in the developing world, we have collected a set of definitions of the term from different sources. The definitions were collated and compiled by Manoj Kurbet, Maitreya Subramaniam and Tarun Krishnakumar under the guidance of Sunil Abraham.

Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions

Please feel free to get in touch if you would like to suggest definitions to be added to this working database.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/collection-of-net-neutrality-definitions

Clearing Misconceptions: What the DoT Panel Report on Net Neutrality Says (and Doesn't)

pranesh — 2015-07-21T12:36:26Z

There have been many misconceptions about what the DoT Panel Report on Net Neutrality says: the most popular ones being that they have recommended higher charges for services like WhatsApp and Viber, and that the report is an anti-Net neutrality report masquerading as a pro-Net neutrality report. Pranesh Prakash clears up these and other incorrect notions about the report in this brief analysis.

Background of the DoT panel

In January 2015, the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) formed a panel to look into "net neutrality from public policy objective, its advantages and limitations," as well the impact of a "regulated telecom services sector and unregulated content and applications sector". After spending a few months collecting both oral and written testimony from a number of players in this debate, and analysing it, on July 16 that panel submitted its report to the DoT and released it to the public for comments (till August 15, 2015). At the same time, independently, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is also considering the same set of issues. TRAI received more than a million responses in response to its consultation paper — the most TRAI has ever received on any topic — the vast majority of of them thanks in part to the great work of the Save the Internet campaign. TRAI is yet to submit its recommendations to the DoT. Once those recommendations are in, the DoT will have to take its call on how to go ahead with these two sets of issues: regulation of certain Internet-based communications services, and net neutrality.

Summary of the DoT panel report

The DoT panel had the tough job of synthesising the feedback from dozens of people and organizations. In this, they have done an acceptable job. Although, in multiple places, the panel has wrongly summarised the opinions of the "civil society" deponents: I was one of the deponents on the day that civil society actors presented their oral submissions, so I know. For instance, the panel report notes in 4.2.9.c that "According to civil society, competing applications like voice OTT services were eroding revenues of the government and the TSPs, creating security and privacy concerns, causing direct as well as indirect losses." I do not recall that being the main thrust of any civil society participant's submission before the panel. That having been said, one might still legitimately claim that none of these or other mistakes (which include errors like "emergency" instead of "emergence", "Tim Burners Lee" instead of "Tim Berners-Lee", etc.) are such that they have radically altered the report's analysis or recommendations.

The report makes some very important points that are worth noting, which can be broken into two broad headings:

On governmental regulation of OTTs

Internet-based (i.e., over-the-top, or "OTT") communications services (like WhatsApp, Viber, and the like) are currently taking advantage of "regulatory arbitrage": meaning that the regulations that apply to non-IP communications services and IP communications services are different. Under the current "unified licence" regime, WhatsApp, Viber, and other such services don't have to get a licence from the government, don't have to abide by anti-spam Do-Not-Disturb regulations, do not have to share any part of their revenue with the government, do not have to abide by national security terms in the licence, and in general are treated differently from other telecom services. The report wishes to bring these within a licensing regime.
The report distinguishes between Internet-based voice calls (voice over IP, or VoIP) and messaging services, and doesn't wish to interfere with the latter. It also distinguishes between domestic and international VoIP calls, and believes only the former need regulation. It is unclear on what bases these distinctions are made.
OTT "application services" do not need special telecom-oriented regulation.
There should a separation in regulatory terms between the network layer and the service layer. While this doesn't mean much in the short-term for Net neutrality, it will be very important in the long-term for ICT regulation, and is very welcome.

On Net neutrality

The core principles of Net neutrality — which are undefined in the report, though definitions proposed in submissions they've received are quoted — should be adhered to. In the long-run, these should find place in a new law, but for the time being they can be enforced through the licence agreement between the DoT and telecom providers.
On the contentious issue of zero-rating, a process that involves both ex-ante and ex-post regulation is envisaged to prevent harmful zero-rating, while allowing beneficial zero-rating. Further, the report notes that the supposed altruistic or "public interest" motives of the zero-rating scheme do not matter if they result in harm to competition, distort consumer markets, violate the core tenets of Net neutrality, or unduly benefit an Internet "gatekeeper".

Where does the DoT panel report go wrong?

The proposal by the DoT panel of a licensing regime for VoIP services is a terrible idea. It would presumptively hold all licence non-holders to be unlawful, and that should not be the case. While it is in India's national interest to want to hold VoIP services to account if they do not follow legitimate regulations, it is far better to do this through ex-post regulations rather than an ex-ante licensing scheme. A licensing scheme would benefit Indian VoIP companies (including services like Hike, which Airtel has invested in) over foreign companies like Viber. The report also doesn't say how one would distinguish between OTT communication services and OTT application services, when many apps such as food ordering apps, including text chat facilities. Further, VoIP need not be provided by a company: I run my own XMPP servers, which is a protocol used for both text and video/voice. Will a licensing regime force me to become a licence-holder or will it set a high bar? The DoT panel report doesn't say. Will there be a revenue-sharing mechanism, as is currently the case under the Unified Licence? If so, how will it be calculated in case of services like WhatsApp? These questions too find no answer in the report. All in all, this part of the report's analysis is found to be sadly wanting.
Many important terms are left undefined, and many distinctions that the report draws are left unexplained. For instance, it is unclear on what regulatory basis the report distinguishes between domestic and international VoIP calls — which is an unenforceable (not to mention regulatorily unimportant) distinction — or between regulation of messaging services and VoIP services, or what precisely they mean by "application-agnostic" and "application-specific" network management (since different scholars on this issue mean different things when they say "application").

What does the DoT panel report mean for consumers?

Not too much currently, since the DoT panel report is still just a set of recommendations by an expert body based on (invited) public consultations.
Does it uphold Net neutrality? The DoT panel report is clear that they strongly endorse the "core principles of Net neutrality". On the issue of "zero-rating", the panel proposes some sound measures, saying that there should be a two-part mechanism for ensuring that harmful zero-rating doesn't go through: First, telecom services need to submit zero-rating tariff proposals to an expert body constituted by DoT; and second consumers will be able to complain about the harmful usage of zero-rating by any service provider, which may result in a fine. What constitutes harm / violation of Net neutrality? The panel suggests that any tariff scheme that may harm competition, distorts the consumer market, or violates the core principles of Net neutrality is harmful. This makes sense.
Will it increase cost of access to WhatsApp and Viber? Well, one the one hand, zero-rating of those services could decrease the cost of access to WhatsApp and Viber, but that might not be allowed if the DoT panel recommendations are accepted, since that would possibly be judged to harm competition and distort the consumer markets. The DoT panel has also recommended bringing such services within a licensing framework to bridge the "regulatory arbitrage" that they are able benefit from (meaning that these services don't have to abide by many regulations that a telecom provider has to follow). Whether this will lead to WhatsApp and similar services charging depends on what kinds of regulations are placed on them, and if any costs are imposed on them. If the government decides to take the approach they took to ISPs in the late 90s (essentially, charging them Re. 1 as the licence fee), doesn't impose any revenue sharing (as they currently require of all telecom services), etc., then there needn't be any overly burdensome costs that WhatsApp-like services will need to pass on to consumers.

What misunderstandings do people have?

There are multiple news reports that the DoT panel has recommended increased charges for domestic VoIP calls, or that ISPs will now be able to double-charge. Both of these are untrue. The DoT panel's recommendations are about "regulatory arbitrage" and licensing, which need not be related to cost.
There is a fear that the exception from net neutrality of "managed services and enterprise services" is a "loophole", or that exceptions for "emergency services" and "desirable public or government services" are too vague and carry the potential of misuse. If one goes by the examples that the panel cites of managed services (e.g., services an ISP provides for a private company separately from the rest of the Internet, etc.), these fear seems largely misplaced. We must also realize the the panel report is a report, and not legislation, and the rationale for wanting exemptions from Net neutrality are clear.
The DoT panel has given the go-ahead for zero-rating. Once again, this is untrue. The panel cites instances of zero-rating that aren't discriminatory, violative of Net neutrality and don't harm competition or distort consumer markets (such as zero-rating of all Internet traffic for a limited time period). Then it goes on to state that the regulator should not allow zero-rating that violates the core principles of Net neutrality.

What's missing in the Net neutrality debate is nuance. It's become a debate in which you are either for Net neutrality or against it. However, none of the underlying components of Net neutrality — a complex mix of competition policy, innovation policy, the right to freedom of expression, etc. — are absolutes; therefore, it is clear that Net neutrality cannot be an absolute either.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/clearing-misconceptions-dot-panel-net-neutrality

CIS's Position on Net Neutrality

sunil — 2015-12-09T13:06:06Z

As researchers committed to the principle of pluralism we rarely produce institutional positions. This is also because we tend to update our positions based on research outputs. But the lack of clarity around our position on network neutrality has led some stakeholders to believe that we are advocating for forbearance. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Please see below for the current articulation of our common institutional position.

Net Neutrality violations can potentially have multiple categories of harms — competition harms, free speech harms, privacy harms, innovation and ‘generativity’ harms, harms to consumer choice and user freedoms, and diversity harms thanks to unjust discrimination and gatekeeping by Internet service providers.
Net Neutrality violations (including some those forms of zero-rating that violate net neutrality) can also have different kinds benefits — enabling the right to freedom of expression, and the freedom of association, especially when access to communication and publishing technologies is increased; increased competition [by enabling product differentiation, can potentially allow small ISPs compete against market incumbents]; increased access [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those without any access because they cannot afford it, increased access [usually to a subset of the Internet] by those who don't see any value in the Internet, reduced payments by those who already have access to the Internet especially if their usage is dominated by certain services and destinations.
Given the magnitude and variety of potential harms, complete forbearance from all regulation is not an option for regulators nor is self-regulation sufficient to address all the harms emerging from Net Neutrality violations, since incumbent telecom companies cannot be trusted to effectively self-regulate. Therefore, CIS calls for the immediate formulation of Net Neutrality regulation by the telecom regulator [TRAI] and the notification thereof by the government [Department of Telecom of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology]. CIS also calls for the eventual enactment of statutory law on Net Neutrality. All such policy must be developed in a transparent fashion after proper consultation with all relevant stakeholders, and after giving citizens an opportunity to comment on draft regulations.
Even though some of these harms may be large, CIS believes that a government cannot apply the precautionary principle in the case of Net Neutrality violations. Banning technical innovations and business model innovations is not an appropriate policy option. The regulation must toe a careful line to solve the optimization problem: refraining from over-regulation of ISPs and harming innovation at the carrier level (and benefits of net neutrality violations mentioned above) while preventing ISPs from harming innovation and user choice. ISPs must be regulated to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards consumers as well as to limit harms from unjust discrimination towards the services they carry on their networks.
Based on regulatory theory, we believe that a regulatory framework that is technologically neutral, that factors in differences in technological context, as well as market realities and existing regulation, and which is able to respond to new evidence is what is ideal.

This means that we need a framework that has some bright-line rules based, but which allows for flexibility in determining the scope of exceptions and in the application of the rules. Candidate principles to be embodied in the regulation include: transparency, non-exclusivity, limiting unjust discrimination.
The harms emerging from walled gardens can be mitigated in a number of ways. On zero-rating the form of regulation must depend on the specific model and the potential harms that result from that model. Zero-rating can be: paid for by the end consumer or subsidized by ISPs or subsidized by content providers or subsidized by government or a combination of these; deal-based or criteria-based or government-imposed; ISP-imposed or offered by the ISP and chosen by consumers; Transparent and understood by consumers vs. non-transparent; based on content-type or agnostic to content-type; service-specific or service-class/protocol-specific or service-agnostic; available on one ISP or on all ISPs. Zero-rating by a small ISP with 2% penetration will not have the same harms as zero-rating by the largest incumbent ISP. For service-agnostic / content-type agnostic zero-rating, which Mozilla terms ‘equal rating’, CIS advocates for no regulation.
CIS believes that Net Neutrality regulation for mobile and fixed-line access must be different recognizing the fundamental differences in technologies.
On specialized services CIS believes that there should be logical separation and that all details of such specialized services and their impact on the Internet must be made transparent to consumers both individual and institutional, the general public and to the regulator. Further, such services should be available to the user only upon request, and not without their active choice, with the requirement that the service cannot be reasonably provided with ‘best efforts’ delivery guarantee that is available over the Internet, and hence requires discriminatory treatment, or that the discriminatory treatment does not unduly harm the provision of the rest of the Internet to other customers.
On incentives for telecom operators, CIS believes that the government should consider different models such as waiving contribution to the Universal Service Obligation Fund for prepaid consumers, and freeing up additional spectrum for telecom use without royalty using a shared spectrum paradigm, as well as freeing up more spectrum for use without a licence.
On reasonable network management CIS still does not have a common institutional position.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services

pranesh — 2016-03-25T17:59:56Z

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-03-27_cis_trai-submission_regulation-OTTs

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data

pranesh — 2016-07-01T16:04:27Z

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) held a consultation on Free Data, for which CIS sent in the following comments.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) asked for public comments on free data. Below are the comments that CIS submitted to the four questions that it posed.

Question 1
Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.

Is There a Need for Free Data?

No, there is no need for free data, just as there is no need for telephony or Internet. However, making provisions for free data would increase the amount of innovation in the Internet and telecom sector, and there is a good probability that it would lead to faster adoption of the Internet, and thus be beneficial in terms of commerce, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and many other ways.

Thus the question that a telecom regulator should ask is not whether there is a need for TSP agnostic platforms, but whether such platforms are harmful for competition, for consumers, and for innovation. The telecom regulator ought not undertake regulation unless there is evidence to show that harm has been caused or that harm is likely to be caused. In short, TRAI should not follow the precautionary principle, since the telecom and Internet sectors are greatly divergent from environmental protection: the burden of proof for showing that something ought to be prohibited ought to be on those calling for prohibition.

Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping

TRAI wouldn’t need to regulate price discrimination or Net neutrality if ISPs were not “gatekeepers” for last-mile access. “Gatekeeping” occurs when a single entity establishes itself as an exclusive route to reach a large number of people and businesses or, in network terms, nodes. It is not possible for Internet services to reach their end customers without passing through ISPs (generally telecom networks). The situation is very different in the middle-mile and for backhaul. Even though anti-competitive terms may exist in the middle-mile, especially given the opacity of terms in “transit agreements”, a packet is usually able to travel through multiple routes if one route is too expensive (even if that is not the shortest network path, and is thus inefficient in a way). However, this multiplicity of routes is generally not possible in the last mile.¹ This leaves last mile telecom operators (ISPs) in a position to unfairly discriminate between different Internet services or destinations or applications, while harming consumer choice.

However, the aim of regulation by TRAI cannot be to prevent gatekeeping, since that is not possible as long as there are a limited number of ISPs. For instance, even by the very act of charging money for access to the Internet, ISPs are guilty of “gatekeeping” since they are controlling who can and cannot access an Internet service that way. Instead, the aim of regulation by TRAI should be to “regulate gatekeepers to ensure they do not use their gatekeeping power to unjustly discriminate between similarly situated persons, content or traffic”, as we proposed in our submission to TRAI (on OTTs) last year.

Models for Free Data

There are multiple models possible for free data, none of which TRAI should prohibit unless it would enable OTTs to abuse their gatekeeping powers.

Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data

The government may opt to require all ISPs to provide free Internet to all at a minimum QoS in exchange for exemption from paying part of their USO contributions, or the government may pay ISPs for such access using their USO contributions.

TRAI should recommend to DoT that it set up a committee to study the feasibility of this model.

ISP subsidies

ISP subsidies of Internet access only make economic sense for the ISP under the following ‘Goldilocks’ condition is met: the experience with the subsidised service is ‘good enough’ for the consumers to want to continue to use such services, but ‘bad enough’ for a large number of them to want to move to unsubsidised, paid access.

Providing free Internet to all at a low speed.
1. This naturally discriminates against services and applications such as video streaming, but does not technically bar access to them.
Providing free access to the Internet with other restrictions on quality that aren’t discriminatory with respect to content, services, or applications.

Rewards model

A TSP-agnostic rewards platform will only come within the scope of TRAI regulation if the platform has some form of agreement with the TSPs, even if it is collectively. If the rewards platform doesn’t have any agreement with any TSP, then TRAI does not have the power to regulate it. However, if the rewards platform has an agreement with any TSP, it is unclear whether it would be allowed under the Differential Data Tariff Regulation, since the clause 3(2) read with paragraph 30 of the Explanatory Memorandum might disallow such an agreement.

Assuming for the sake of argument that platforms with such agreements are not disallowed, such platforms can engage in either post-purchase credits or pre-purchase credits, or both. In other words, it could be a situation where a person has to purchase a data pack, engage in some activity relating to the platform (answer surveys, use particular apps, etc.) and thereupon get credit of some form transferred to one’s SIM, or it could be a situation where even without purchasing a data pack, a consumer can earn credits and thereupon use those credits towards data.

The former kind of rewards platform is not as useful when it comes to encouraging people to use the Internet, since only those who already see worth in using in the Internet (and can afford it) will purchase a data pack in the first place. The second form, on the other hand is quite useful, and could be encouraged. However, this second model is not as easily workable, economically, for fixed line connections, since there is a higher initial investment involved.

Recharge API

A recharge API could be fashioned in one of two ways: (1) via the operating system on the phone, allowing a TSP or third parties (whether OTTs or other intermediaries) to transfer credit to the SIM card on the phone which have been bought wholesale. Another model could be that of all TSPs providing a recharge API for the use of third parties. Only the second model is likely to result in a “toll-free” experience since in the first model, like in the case of a rewards platform that requires up-front purchase of data packs, there has to be a investment made first before that amount is recouped. This is likely to hamper the utility of such a model.

Further, in the first case, TRAI would probably not have the powers to regulate such transactions, as there would be no need for any involvement by the TSP. If anti-competitive agreements or abuse of dominant position seems to be taking place, it would be up to the Competition Commission of India to investigate.

However, the second model would have to be overseen by TRAI to ensure that the recharge APIs don’t impose additional costs on OTTs, or unduly harm competition and innovation. For instance, there ought to be an open specification for such an API, which all the TSPs should use in order to reduce the costs on OTTs. Further, there should be no exclusivity, and no preferential treatment provided for the TSPs sister concerns or partners.

“0.example” sites

Other forms of free data, for instance by TSPs choosing not to charge for low-bandwidth traffic should be allowed, as long as it is not discriminatory, nor does it impose increased barriers to entry for OTTs. For instance, if a website self-certifies that it is low-bandwidth and optimized for Internet-enabled feature phones and uses 0.example.tld to signal this (just as wap.* were used in for WAP sites and m.* are used for mobile-optimized versions of many sites), then there is no reason why TSPs should be prohibited from not charging for the data consumed by such websites, as long as the TSP does so uniformly without discrimination. In such cases, the TSP is not harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers.

OTT-agnostic free data

If a TSP decides not to charge for specific forms of traffic (for example, video, or for locally-peered traffic) regardless of the Internet service from which that traffic emanates, as as long as it does so with the end customer’s consent, then there is no question of the TSP harming competition, harming consumers, nor abusing its gatekeeping powers. There is no reason such schemes should be prohibited by TRAI unless they distort markets and harm innovation.

Unified marketplace

One other way to do what is proposed as the “recharge API” model is to create a highly-regulated market where the gatekeeping powers of the ISP are diminished, and the ISP’s ability to leverage its exclusive access over its customers are curtailed. A comparison may be drawn here to the rules that are often set by standard-setting bodies where patents are involved: given that these patents are essential inputs, access to them must be allowed through fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory licences. Access to the Internet and common carriers like telecom networks, being even more important (since alternatives exist to particular standards, but not to the Internet itself), must be placed at an even higher pedestal and thus even stricter regulation to ensure fair competition.

A marketplace of this sort would impose some regulatory burdens on TRAI and place burdens on innovations by the ISPs, but a regulated marketplace harms ISP innovation less than not allowing a market at all.

At a minimum, such a marketplace must ensure non-exclusivity, non-discrimination, and transparency. Thus, at a minimum, a telecom provider cannot discriminate between any OTTs who want similar access to zero-rating. Further, a telecom provider cannot prevent any OTT from zero-rating with any other telecom provider. To ensure that telecom providers are actually following this stipulation, transparency is needed, as a minimum.

Transparency can take one of two forms: transparency to the regulator alone and transparency to the public. Transparency to the regulator alone would enable OTTs and ISPs to keep the terms of their commercial transactions secret from their competitors, but enable the regulator, upon request, to ensure that this doesn’t lead to anti-competitive practices. This model would increase the burden on the regulator, but would be more palatable to OTTs and ISPs, and more comparable to the wholesale data market where the terms of such agreements are strictly-guarded commercial secrets. On the other hand, requiring transparency to the public would reduce the burden on the regulator, despite coming at a cost of secrecy of commercial terms, and is far more preferable.

Beyond transparency, a regulation could take the form of insisting on standard rates and terms for all OTT players, with differential usage tiers if need be, to ensure that access is truly non-discriminatory. This is how the market is structured on the retail side.

Since there are transaction costs in individually approaching each telecom provider for such zero-rating, the market would greatly benefit from a single marketplace where OTTs can come and enter into agreements with multiple telecom providers.

Even in this model, telecom networks will be charging based not only on the fact of the number of customers they have, but on the basis of them having exclusive routing to those customers. Further, even under the standard-rates based single-market model, a particular zero-rated site may be accessible for free from one network, but not across all networks: unlike the situation with a toll-free number in which no such distinction exists.

To resolve this, the regulator may propose that if an OTT wishes to engage in paid zero-rating, it will need to do so across all networks, since if it doesn’t there is risk of providing an unfair advantage to one network over another and increasing the gatekeeper effect rather than decreasing it.

Question 2

Whether such platforms need to be regulated by the TRAI or market be allowed to develop these platforms?

In many cases, TRAI would have no powers over such platforms, so the question of TRAI regulating does not arise. In all other cases, TRAI can allow the market to develop such platforms, and then see if any of them violates the Discriminatory Data Tariffs Regualation. For government-incentivised schemes that are proposed above, TRAI should take proactive measure in getting their feasibility evaluated.

Question 3

Whether free data or suitable reimbursement to users should be limited to mobile data users only or could it be extended through technical means to subscribers of fixed line broadband or leased line?

Spectrum is naturally a scarce resource, though technological advances (as dictated by Cooper’s Law) and more efficient management of spectrum make it less so. However, we have seen that fixed-line broadband has more or less stagnated for the past many years, while mobile access has increased. So the market distortionary power of fixed-line providers is far less than that of mobile providers. However, competition is far less in fixed-line Internet access services, while it is far higher in mobile Internet access. Switching costs in fixed-line Internet access services are also far higher than in mobile services. Given these differences, the regulation with regard to price discrimination might justifiably be different.

All in all, for this particular issue, it is unclear why different rules should apply to mobile users and fixed line users.

Question 4

Any other issue related to the matter of Consultation.

None.

In India’s mobile telecom sector, according to a Nielsen study, an estimated 15% of mobile users are multi-SIM users, meaning the “gatekeeping” effect is significantly reduced in both directions: Internet services can reach them via multiple ISPs, and conversely they can reach Internet services via multiple ISPs. See Nielsen, ‘Telecom Transitions: Tracking the Multi-SIM Phenomena in India’, http://www.nielsen.com/in/en/insights/reports/2015/telecom-transitions-tracking-the-multi-sim-phenomena-in-india.html↩

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data

CDT Provides Answers to Questions on Internet Neutrality

pranesh — 2012-06-04T05:56:46Z

Pranesh Prakash of CIS asked David Sohn of CDT a few pointed questions on the emerging hot topic of 'Internet neutrality', and received very useful responses. Those questions and Mr. Sohn's responses are documented in this blog post.

As part of the Centre for Democracy and Technology's (CDT's) excellent "Ask CDT" initiative, we were provided the opportunity to clear up some of our doubts around "net neutrality" (which CDT prefers referring to as Internet neutrality rather than network neutrality) by asking an expert: David Sohn, CDT's Senior Policy Counsel. Reproduced below are the questions that I asked (inset and in gray), and David's replies (provided below each question). Some of the questions I asked below were doubts that I had, while some others are instances of donning the roles of devil's advocate. We hope this will be helpful in clarifying doubts that some of the readers of this blog have had as well.

1a. "As far as I can understand, content distribution networks (CDNs) such as Akamai, don't really fall within your understanding of violations of Internet neutrality. Why not? In what cases is 'spending more to get faster speeds' permitted for content hosts? Since not only specialised companies like Akamai, but regular Tier 1 companies like Level3 and AT&T also engage in CDN-like behaviour, does it make it more liable to illicit/underhand/non-transparent service differentiation techniques?"

1a. That's correct, CDNs don't violate either Internet neutrality principles or the FCC's recent rules. I talked about this at some length in a blog post a couple years ago. The short answer is that Internet neutrality does not aim to guarantee that all online content and services will work equally well, but rather to prevent ISPs from exercising "gatekeeper" control with respect to their subscribers. Thus, content providers who have money can purchase various advantages -- for example, more or better servers, upgraded software, or caching services from a CDN such as Akamai. Significantly, things like servers and caching are available from competitive sources; no supplier has gatekeeper control. In contrast, priority treatment on the transmission facilities serving any given Internet user is an advantage that only that user's ISP could provide. Another difference is that when one content provider purchases caching, it doesn't slow anybody else's traffic (indeed, it could speed it up, since it may help reduce overall network congestion). By contrast, when an ISP designates favoured traffic for priority transmission, non-favoured traffic by definition is de-prioritized. Think about a line of "bits" waiting in a router queue -- if you let some bits "cut in line," it inevitably lengthens the wait for those who don't get to cut. Given CDT's general comfort level with CDNs and the existence of competitive offerings in the marketplace, I'm not too concerned about who provides the service (Akamai, Level3, AT&T, etc.). It doesn't seem to be a case of the ISP leveraging its unique control over access to subscribers.

1b. "A large part of the claims of Internet neutrality supporters are founded on the basis of 'dumb networks', which can also be seen as a reformulation of the end-to-end principle. A question arises, which is often posed by the likes of Dave Farber, Bob Kahn and Robert Pepper: why should we stick dogmatically to the end-to-end principle when embedding 'intelligence' in the core is/will soon be a viable option *without* jeopardising the simplicity of the Internet? If you are fine with CDNs, then are you fine with a partial supplanting of the dogmatism of the end-to-end principle (because, after all, CDNs are in a sense, intelligence in the core rather than in the edges)?"

1b. I don't think that supporting Internet neutrality requires a dogmatic opposition to any and all built-in "intelligence" in the network. Certainly a strong case can be made for handling certain network management matters, such as some cyber security issues, at the network level. I get concerned on neutrality grounds not by the mere existence of "intelligence" in the core, but by the use of that intelligence to make judgments and decisions about which applications and services are most important or most in need of special treatment -- as opposed to remaining application-agnositic or, in the alternative, leaving the decision to end users. Intelligence that is put in the service of end users, allowing the users themselves to make judgments about what to prioritize, does not concern me at all. But if the network-level intelligence results in broader reliance on centralized evaluation and categorization of the type or content of Internet communications, and centralized decisions about what to favor or disfavor, then I think it poses a neutrality problem. The bottom line is, the idea that networks could benefit from some built-in intelligence does not argue for giving ISPs unbounded discretion to discriminate among traffic. Indeed, a network that empowered users themselves to determine the relative priority levels of their traffic based on their individual needs would be far "smarter" than on in which ISPs make broad, across-the-board choices.

2. "What is the bright-line rule that separates some IP-based networks that are 'private' (and hence free to do as they please), and others that are part of the 'Internet' (and hence need to follow Internet neutrality)? Where does IPTV fall? (While answering that question, think not only of present-day IPTV, but keep in mind its potential applications.) Where do 'walled gardens' of the WWW fall?"

2. In CDT's view, Internet access service provides a general-purpose ability to send and receive data communications across the Internet. Other services could be exempt from neutrality rules if they serve specific and limited functional purposes and have limited impact on the technical performance of Internet traffic. CDT's comments to the FCC went into considerable detail -- see, for example, the comments we filed in October. The FCC rules took a similar but not identical tack, saying that Internet access services are services that provide the capability to send and receive data "from all or substantially all Internet endpoints" or that provide a functional equivalent of such a service. In any event, the question of how clear the line is between Internet access services that are subject to neutrality rules and other services that are not is an important one that will bear close watching over time. As for IPTV, it offers a specific function -- access to video programming -- rather than general purpose access to the entire Internet. So IPTV can be distinguished from Internet service. As for "walled gardens," it likely would depend how large the garden is. If the garden seeks to offer a wide enough variety of sites that it can be used as a substitute for Internet access, then the FCC could choose to apply neutrality rules. At some point, a garden can become big and general-purpose enough that it is effectively serving as a non-neutral version of an Internet access service. That kind of end-run around neutrality rules shouldn't be allowed.

3a. "Should Internet neutrality be kept at the level of non-enforceable (but still important) enunciation of principles, or should they be enforceable laws? In either case, who has the authority to regulate Internet neutrality, given the non-territoriality of the 'Internet' (and especially keeping in mind the direction that ICANN's been taking with things like the Affirmation of Commitments). Why should the FCC have such powers? Why should any American governmental body have such powers?"

3a. It is important to have some enforceable rules. The FCC enunciated principles back in its 2005 broadband Policy Statement -- but when the agency tried to act after Comcast violated those principles, a court ruled that the FCC had no ability to do so. Enunciated principles are of little value if ISPs are free to violate them without consequence. For U.S. Internet users, I think the FCC is an appropriate agency in which to lodge the authority to police neutrality violations; the FCC has a long history of working to ensure that providers of physical communications infrastructure do not abuse their position. And since the focus is on the provisions of physical communications connections, I don't the the territoriality issue you raise is a major problem. The United States has the authority to establish rules for companies providing last-mile communications links to U.S.-based subscribers. The Internet is of course a global medium, but the endpoint connections have a clear geographic location.

3b. "If Internet neutrality is really about ensuring fair competition (so an ISP doesn't promote one company's content), then why not just allow competition law / anti-trust law to ensure that fair competition? What are the lacunae in global competition laws that necessitate the separate articulation of 'Internet neutrality' principles/rules?"

3b. The ability of antitrust law to protect Internet openness is pretty limited. Absent a clear anticompetitive motive, network operators likely could curtail Internet openness in a variety of ways without running afoul of antitrust law. Antitrust’s prohibition against anticompetitive conduct is a far cry from any kind of affirmative policy to preserve the Internet’s uniquely open network structure. Nor can antitrust law take into account the major non-economic reasons for maintaining an open Internet, such as the impact on independent speech and civic empowerment. Finally, as a practical matter, antitrust cases tend to drag on for many years. Individual innovators and small startup companies – key beneficiaries of Internet openness – are unlikely to be in a position to bring antitrust cases against major network operators.

4a. "One of the strongest arguments of anti-Internet neutrality folks is that adoption of Internet neutrality principles/rules will ensure that it is only the consumers who foot the bill for bandwidth consumption, and bandwidth hogs (like NetFlix) don't ever pay. This, they say, is unfair on consumers. How do you respond to this?"

4a. First, I question the statement that "bandwidth hogs like NetFlix don't ever pay." For starters, NetFlix buys a huge amount of bandwidth connecting its servers to the Internet. Once on the Internet, its traffic is carried onward pursuant to peering agreements between the ISPs and backbone providers. When NetFlix traffic volume grows, it may trigger new payment demands between carriers, as we've seen in the recent dispute between Comcast and Level3. But the bottom line is, nobody is forced to carry any traffic they haven't contractually agreed to handle. Of course, it is true that NetFlix doesn't make payments to (for example) AT&T for delivering NetFlix traffic to AT&T's customers. That might seem unfair if you think of NetFlix as a "bandwidth hog" eating up AT&T's capacity. I believe that is the wrong way to think about it. NetFlix has no ability to forcefeed traffic onto AT&T's network. Every bit it sends was requested by an AT&T subscriber. So if there are "bandwidth hogs" here, they are the end users -- they are the ones that pull all those bits onto AT&T's network. And they have already paid AT&T for the ability to get those bits. I would add that when individual users choose to download huge volumes, I have no problem with the ISP charging them more. Second, you suggest that it may be unfair to ask consumers to foot the full bill for their connectivity. But the Internet is such an open and innovation-friendly platform precisely because it is so user-driven. This user-centric focus could change if ISPs start thinking of themselves as providing services not just to end user subscribers, but also to non-subscribers such as large online content providers to whom the ISPs do not directly provide bandwidth. The ISPs would then have divided loyalties; rather than just focusing on empowering users, they would be collecting fees to steer users in particular directions. Sure, in other contexts there are examples of "two-sided markets" in which end users foot only part of the bill. Newspapers are often cited. But including paid advertising in newspapers doesn't have much impact in how the overall product is perceived or presented to users. In contrast, ISPs charging content providers for special transmission priority would be akin to a newspaper in which advertisers pay not just to place ads, but also to influence where the substantive articles appear -- which ones go on the front page and which on the interior, for example. In turn, content providers of all stripes would need to think about striking deals with multiple ISPs -- something that is not necessary today. In the end, turning the Internet into a two-sided market would make the medium dramatically less open, less innovative, and less empowering of users.

4b. "If a consumer wants a faster connection (to access content faster), she can get that by paying the ISP more and getting more bandwidth. If a business wants a faster connection (to deliver content faster), it can get that by paying the ISP more bandwidth. However, certain kinds of paying for faster delivery of content are sought to be curbed. Where should we draw that line? And Why should we hold on so dearly to a certain model of accounting for costs?"

4b. Consumers and businesses should be able to pay their respective ISPs for more bandwidth. I think that is very different from paying other people's ISPs for preferential treatment. The latter arrangement turns ISPs into gatekeepers with respect to their subscribers -- because once the quality of delivery depends on which content providers have struck a deal with the subscribers' ISP, every content provider needs to negotiate with that ISP in order to keep up with its competitors. We hold on to the Internet's model of accounting for costs because it is part of what makes the Internet such an open, innovative environment: content providers and innovators don't face the hurdle of having to negotiate deals with all their users' ISPs.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cdt-internet-neutrality

ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାର କୋକୁଆ ଆଣିବ ଫେସବୁକର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ

subha — 2016-01-28T07:24:19Z

This opinion piece in Odia on Facebook's Free Basics App was published in Your Story. The post highlights several user security and privacy that Free Basics is violating apart from violating net neutrality. It also brings the parallel of Airtel Zero and Free Basics with the Grameenphone project by Mozilla in Bangladesh and the worldwide Wikipedia Zero projects.

This was published in Your Story on January 5, 2016.

ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ (Free Basics) ଭାରତରେ ଆସିବା ଆଗରୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଭିତରେ ନିଜ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାକୁ ନେଇ କୋକୁଆ ଭୟ ଖେଳିଲାଣି । ମାଗଣା ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶରେ ଫେସବୁକ, ଫେସବୁକର ସହପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଓ ବାକି କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ମାଗଣାରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବାର ଆଳରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଏ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଅଭାବ ସଙ୍ଗେ ଖେଳୁନାହିଁ ତ? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ନାଆଁରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ହୋଇଯିବେ କି? ଏମିତି ଅଗଣିତ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରୁଥିବା ବେଳେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ ଏହାକୁ ଭାରତରେ ସାମୟିକ ଭାବେ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି ।

ଗତ ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ସାରା ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ । ସାରା ଦେଶରୁ ଲୋକେ ନିଆଁରେ ପତଙ୍ଗ ଝାସ ଦେଲା ଭଳି ଫେସବୁକର ନୂଆ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ “ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ’ (Free Basics) ବିରୋଧରେ ଭିନ୍ନଭିନ୍ନ ଧରଣର ମତ ଦେଇଚାଲିଛନ୍ତି । ପ୍ରଧାନମନ୍ତ୍ରୀ ମୋଦିଙ୍କ ଆମେରିକା ଗସ୍ତକାଳରେ ସେ ସେଠାରେ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗେ ଭେଟି ଫେସବୁକର ମିଳିତ ସହଯୋଗରେ ଭାରତରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ଓ ସୂଚନା ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ବାବଦରେ ଆଲୋଚନା କରିଥିଲେ । ଆଉ ଫେସବୁକକୁ ଏହା ଭାରତରେ ନିଜର ଚେର ମୋଟା କରିବାକୁ ଏକ ଭଲ ବାଟ ଦେଖାଇଲା । ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ମାର୍କ ଜୁକରବର୍ଗ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ବାବଦରେ ଘୋଷଣା କରିବାର ଦୁଇ ସପ୍ତାହ ନ ବିତୁଣୁ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ପାଖରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରି ଲକ୍ଷ ପାଖାପାଖି ଇମେଲ ଏହାକୁ ରୋକିବା ଲାଗି ପହଞ୍ଚି ସାରିଲାଣି । ଜନନେତା ଓ ଇନଫୋସିସର ସହ ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା ଙ୍କଠାରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ମିଡ଼ିଆନାମାର ପ୍ରତିଷ୍ଠାତା , ଭେଞ୍ଚର କ୍ୟାପିଟାଲିଷ୍ଟ , ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଆକ୍ଟିଭିଷ୍ଟ , ଙ୍କ ଯାଏ ସଭିଏଁ ଏହା ପଛରେ ଫେସବୁକ ଲାଭକରୀ ମନୋଭାବ ନିହିତ ଅଛି ବୋଲି କଡ଼ା ନିନ୍ଦା କରି ଲେଖିଲେଣି । ତେବେ କ’ଣ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ? କାହିଁକି ଏତେ ବିବାଦ ଏ ସରଳ ସୁବିଧା ବିରୋଧରେ?

ଫେସବୁକ୍‍ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରୁଥିବା ଊଣା ଅଧିକେ ସଭିଏଁ ଜାଣୁଥିବେ ସେ କେଡ଼େ ଅଠାକାଠି! ଫେସବୁକର ପ୍ରାୟ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ହେଲେ ଯୁବବର୍ଗ । ତେବେ କି ଯୁବା କି ବୁଢ଼ା ଫେସବୁକରେ ପ୍ରାୟ ଲୋକେ କେବଳ ମଜାମଉଜ ଲାଗି ଆସିଥାନ୍ତି । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ଖୁବ୍‍ କମ୍‍ ସମୟରେ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସଙ୍ଗେ ମିଶିବା, ଗପିବା ଓ ଏତେ ଅଧିକ ମଉଜ ପାଇ ଅନେକେ ଫେସବୁକ ପ୍ରେମରେ ପଡ଼ିଯାଆନ୍ତି । ସରଳ ଭାଷାରେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ଏକ ହାଟ ବଜାର । ଲୋକେ ସେଠି କିଛି ସମୟ କାଟିବା ପାଇଁ, ଚିହ୍ନା-ଅଚିହ୍ନା ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସହ ମିଶିବା ପାଇଁ, ଆଳାପ-ଆଲୋଚନା ପାଇଁ ଏକାଠି ହୁଅନ୍ତି । ଅଧିକାଂଶ ଆଲୋଚନା କେବଳ ମଉଜ ପାଇଁ ହେଲାବେଳେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ଆଲୋଚନା ମଧ୍ୟ ହୋଇଥାଏ । ଫେସବୁକ ଏକ ବିଶାଳ ଲାଭକରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ଏହାର ଆଉ ଏକ ସହ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ହେଲା ହ୍ୱାଟସ୍‍ଅପ୍‍ । ଏହା ଅନଲାଇନ ଚାଟିଂ ପାଇଁ ବ୍ୟବହାର କରାଯାଏ । ଫଟୋ ଭିଡ଼ିଓରୁ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରି ସାଧାରଣ ଚାଟିଂ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଏହା ଖୁବ୍‍ ଜଣା ।

ନିକଟରେ ଫେସବୁକ Internet.org ନାମକ ଏକ ସହ-ସଙ୍ଗଠନ ଆରମ୍ଭ କରିଛି । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ହେଲା ଏ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଡଟ ଅର୍ଗ ଅଧୀନରେ ଏକ ଯୋଜନା । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ଫେସବୁକର ସହ-ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ସବୁକୁ ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶମାନଙ୍କରେ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକପ୍ରିୟ କରିବା ଲାଗି ସେସବୁକୁ ବିନାମୂଲ୍ୟରେ ପହଞ୍ଚାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ । ଭାରତ ସମେତ ଜଗତର ୩୦ଟି ଦେଶରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣା ସୀମିତ ଫେସବୁକ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବା ଏହାର ଉଦ୍ଦେଶ୍ୟ । ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଜରିଆରେ ଆଉ କିଛି ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ମଧ୍ୟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହେବ । ତେବେ ଏଠାରେ ଅନେକ ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ମନରେ ଉଙ୍କିମାରେ । ଏ ମାଗଣା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ଲୋଡ଼ା କି ନା ତା’ର ସିଦ୍ଧାନ୍ତ କିଏ ନେବ - ଫେସବୁକ ନା ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ? ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଅଧୁନା କିଛି ଦେଶରେ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ ହୋଇଥିବାବେଳେ ଫିଲିପାଇନ୍ସରେ ରହୁଥିବା ଜଣେ ଭାରତୀୟ ଜିତେଶ ଗୋସ୍ୱାମୀ ନିକଟରେ ନିଜେ ନିଜ ମୋବାଇଲରେ ସେଠାର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଇନଷ୍ଟଲ କରି ଯାହା ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି ତା’ ଭାରି ଚିନ୍ତାର ବିଷୟ । ସାଧାରଣ ଫେସବୁକର ଅଧାରୁ ଅଧିକ ସୁବିଧା ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ନାହିଁ । ଏଥିରେ ଫେସବୁକ ବାହାରେ ଥିବା ଭିଡ଼ିଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ଦେଖିହେବନି କି ଖବର ଆଦି ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ପଢ଼ିହେବନି । ପୁଣି ମାଗଣାରେ ମିଳିବାକୁ ଥିବା ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁ ବାଛିବାରେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏକଚାଟିଆ ଅଧିକାର ରହିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କ’ଣ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ନ ଚାହାନ୍ତି ତାହା ଫେସବୁକ ନିର୍ଣ୍ଣୟ କରିବ ।

ଆଉ ‘ଗରିବ ମାଇପ ସବୁରି ଶାଳୀ’ ନ୍ୟାୟରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣା ତିଅଣର ସୁଆଦ ଚଖାଇ ଫେସବୁକ ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗାଇବା ଆଳରେ କେବଳ ଫେସବୁକର ପରିଧି ଭିତରେ ବାନ୍ଧି ରଖିବ । ଫେସବୁକ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ, Mozilla ଭଳି ଖୋଲା ସଫ୍ଟଓଏର ବ୍ୟବହାର କରେନାହିଁ କି ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଉଦ୍ୟମରେ ତିଆରି ନୁହେଁ । ଏହା ସମ୍ପୂର୍ଣ୍ଣ ଭାବେ ଏକ ଲାଭକାରୀ କମ୍ପାନୀ । ତେଣୁ ଫେସବୁକର ସବୁ କାମ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନୁହେଁ, ବରଂ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ପାଇଁ । ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶର ଲୋକଙ୍କ ମନ ଜିଣିବା ପାଇଁ ଓ ନିଜର ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ସଂଖ୍ୟା ବଢ଼ାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଏହା ଫେସବୁକର ଏକ ମସୁଧା ବୋଲି ଅନେକ ଚିନ୍ତାଶୀଳ ଲୋକେ ମତ ଦେଇଛନ୍ତି । ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ଏକଚାଟିଆ କାମ ନେଟ ନିଉଟ୍ରାଲିଟି ବା ନେଟ ସମାନତାର ପକ୍ଷପାତୀ । ପକ୍ଷପାତ ନ କରି ସବୁ ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସମାନ ଭାବେ ଗଣିବା ନେଟ ସମାନତା ନାମରେ ଜଣା ।

ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଥିବା ନାନାଦି ଭୁଲ ବିଷୟକୁ ଭଲ ଭାବେ ତନଖି କରିବା ପାଇଁ ନିକଟରେ ଟେଲିକମ ରେଗୁଲେଟରି ଅଥରିଟି ଅଫ ଇଣ୍ଡିଆ (ଟ୍ରାଇ) ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ କିଛିକାଳ ପାଇଁ ବାସନ୍ଦ କରିଛି । ଚତୁର ଫେସବୁକ କେବେ ଚାଷୀମାନଙ୍କୁ ପାଣିପାଗ ଜାଣିବାରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ତ କେବେ ଅଭାବୀ ଭାରତୀୟଙ୍କୁ ପରସ୍ପର ସହ ଯୋଡ଼ିବାରେ ସାହାଯ୍ୟ କରିବ ବୋଲି ଦେଶସାରା ସହର ବଜାର ସବୁଠି ଜୋରଦାର ପ୍ରଚାର ଚଳାଇଥିଲା । ସବୁ ଖବରକାଗଜରେ ପୂରା ଫରଦ ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ଆଉ ସବୁ ବସ୍‍ ରହିବା ସ୍ଥାନରେ ବଡ଼ବଡ଼ ହୋର୍ଡିଂ । ଆଉ ଏଥିରେ ସଭିଙ୍କୁ ଅନୁରୋଧ ଥିଲା ଏକ ନମ୍ବରକୁ ମିସକଲ ଦେଇ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ସମର୍ଥନ କରିବା ପାଇଁ । ଏ ପ୍ରଚାର ପ୍ରସାରରେ ୧୦୦ କୋଟିରୁ ଅଧିକ ବୋଧେ ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚ ହୋଇଥିବ । କେଉଁଠୁ ଆଦାୟ ହେବ ଏ ପଇସା ?

ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସର ମାଗଣା ଫେସବୁକ ଓ ବାକି ୱେବସାଇଟକୁ ସୁବିଧା ଦେବାର ଏ ଆଳ ବିରୋଧରେ ଝଡ଼ ଉଠିଛି । ଫେସବୁକର ମିସକଲ୍‍ ଅଭିଯାନର କଡ଼ା ଜବାବ ଦେବା ପାଇଁ http://savetheinternet.in ଓ http://fsmi.in ନାମକ ଦୁଇଟି ୱେବସାଇଟ ପକ୍ଷରୁ ଜନସାଧାରଣଙ୍କୁ ସଚେତନ କରାଯାଇ ଟ୍ରାଇ ପାଖକୁ ଇମେଲ ପଠାଇବା ପାଇଁ ଅନୁରୋଧ କରାଯାଇଥିଲା। ଫେସବୁକର କୋଟିକୋଟି ଟଙ୍କା ଖର୍ଚ୍ଚର ମିସକଲ ଅଭିଯାନରୁ ୧୦ଲକ୍ଷ ସମର୍ଥନ ମିଳିଥିବାବେଳେ ବିନା ପଇସାରେ ସାଢ଼େ ଚାରିଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକ ଇମେଲ ଜରିଆରେ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସକୁ ବିରୋଧ କରି ଟ୍ରାଇକୁ ଇମେଲ କରିଛନ୍ତି । ତେବେ ଫେସବୁକର ଏହି ସମର୍ଥନ ସଂଗ୍ରହକୁ ଟ୍ରାଇର ସଭାପତି ଆରଏସ୍‍ ଶର୍ମା ଘୋର ନିନ୍ଦା କରି କହିଛନ୍ତି, ଏଯାବତ୍‍ ଫେସବୁକ ଯେଉଁ ୧୪ ଲକ୍ଷ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ପ୍ରଭାବିତ କରି ସେମାନଙ୍କୁ ମିସକଲ୍‍ ଜରିଆରେ ସମର୍ଥନ ଆଣିଛି ତା’ ମୂଲ୍ୟହୀନ । ୧୦୦ କୋଟି ଟଙ୍କାର କି ଅପଚୟ! ସେତିକି ପଇସାରେ ଶହେ ହଜାର ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ଉପଯୋଗୀ ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିବା ସୁଯୋଗ ଦେଇଥିଲେ ଆହୁରି ଭଲ ହୋଇଥାନ୍ତା ।

ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସରେ ଲୁଚି ରହିଥିବା ସବୁଠୁ ବଡ଼ ବିପଦଟି ହେଲା ଫେସବୁକର ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହ କାରସାଦି । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଏ କି କି ସାଇଟ ଦେଖିଲେ, କାହା ସଙ୍ଗେ ଗପିଲେ ସେସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଅଗୋଚରରେ ଟିକିନିଖି କରି ହିସାବ ରଖିଥାଏ । ସଳଖେ କହିଲେ ଫେସବୁକରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀ ବାପୁଡ଼ାର ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ବୋଲି କିଛି ରହିବ ନାହିଁ । ଫେସବୁକ ଆରମ୍ଭରୁ ଶବ୍ଦସମ୍ଭାରରେ ଭରା ଏକ ଲମ୍ବା ବିବରଣୀରେ ତଥ୍ୟ ସଂଗ୍ରହରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ କୌଣସି ଅଭିଯୋଗ ନାହିଁ ବୋଲି ଖୁବ୍‍ ଚତୁର ଭାବେ ତାଙ୍କଠୁ ଅନୁମତି ନେଇଯାଏ । ଅନଭିଜ୍ଞ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଟିର ପାଠଘର ଯାହା ସେଥିରେ ସେ ଏ ଫିକର ବୁଝିବ ବା କିପରି? ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଓକିଲ ଇବେନ ମଗଲେନ ଓ ମିସି ଚୌଧୁରୀ ଏକ ଲେଖାରେ ଦୁହେଁ ତନ୍ନ ତନ୍ନ କରି ବିଶ୍ଳେଷଣ କରିଛନ୍ତି ଏ କଥା । ପ୍ରଶ୍ନ ଉଠେ ଯେ ଫେସବୁକ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ବେପରୁଆ ଅପସାହସ କରିବ କି ?

ଏହିଭଳି ଆଉ ଏକ କୁଟିଳ ବିଷୟ ଥିଲା ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ । ଏଆରଟେଲ ଜିରୋ ଆଉ ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ ଭିତରେ ବଡ଼ ସମାନତା ହେଉଛି ଉଭୟ କମ୍ପାନୀ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟଙ୍କଠାରୁ ବିପୁଳ ପରିମାଣରେ ପଇସା ନେଇ ସେ ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁକୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ମାଗଣା ଯୋଗାଇଥାନ୍ତି । ଏଥିରେ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଓ ମାଗଣାରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଖେ ପହଞ୍ଚୁଥିବା ୱେବସାଇଟ ସବୁଙ୍କ ସିଧାସଳଖ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ନିହିତ ଥାଏ । ପାଠକଙ୍କୁ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ କରିବାର ତୁଚ୍ଛା ବିଜ୍ଞାପନ ତଳେ ଯେ ଏତେ ଫନ୍ଦି ରହିଛି ତାହା ପାଠକ ବାପୁଡ଼ା ବା ଜାଣିବ କେମନ୍ତେ ? ଆଉ ଧନୀ ଦେଶରେ ଏଭଳି ଫିକର ସହଜେ ଧରାପଡ଼ିବ ବୋଲି ଫେସବୁକ ଭଳି କମ୍ପାନୀ ୩୦ଟି ଅଭାବୀ ଦେଶକୁ ଥୋପ କରିଛି ।

ତେବେ ମାଗଣାରେ କିଛି ୱେବସାଇଟ ଉପଲବ୍ଧ କରାଇବା କିଛି ନୂଆ ନୁହେଁ । ଅତୀତରେ ବାଂଲାଦେଶରେ Mozilla (ଫାୟାରଫକ୍ସ ଭଳି ନାନାଦି ଖୋଲା ଓଫ୍ଟଓଏର ପରିଚାଳନା କରୁଥିବା ସଙ୍ଗଠନ) ଗ୍ରାମୀଣଫୋନ ନାମକ ଯୋଜନା ଜରିଆରେ ୫ ଲକ୍ଷରୁ ଅଧିକ ଲୋକଙ୍କୁ ଦିନକୁ ୨୦ ଏମ୍‍ବିର ଡାଟା ଦେବା ସାରା ଜଗତରେ ଆଲୋଚନା ବିଷୟ ହୋଇଥିଲା । Mozilla ଓ ମୋବାଇଲ ସେବା ଯୋଗାଣକାରୀ ଟେଲିନର ଏଥିପାଇଁ ପ୍ରଶଂସାର ପାତ୍ର ହୋଇଥିଲେ । ଅନେକ ଦେଶରେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକେ ବିଭିନ୍ନ ବିଷୟରେ ଜାଣିବାକୁ ପାଉନଥିବାରୁ ଏସ୍‍ଏମ୍‍ଏସ୍‍ ଓ ଇଣ୍ଟରନେଟ ଯୋଗେ ସାଧାରଣ ଲୋକଙ୍କ ଦ୍ୱାରା ସମ୍ପାଦିତ ଅନ୍‍ଲାଇନ ଜ୍ଞାନକୋଷ ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ, ଉଇକିପିଡ଼ିଆ ଜିରୋ ପ୍ରକଳ୍ପ ଜରିଆରେ ମାଗଣାରେ ଯୋଗାଇଦିଆଯାଉଛି । ଭାରତରେ ମଧ୍ୟ ପରୀକ୍ଷାମୂଳକ ଭାବେ ଏହି ସୁବିଧା କେତେକ ସ୍ଥାନରେ ଦିଆଯାଇଛି । ତେବେ ଜ୍ଞାନ ବିତରଣ ପାଇଁ ଏହିଭଳି ଉଦ୍ୟମ ସବୁରି ଆଦର ପାଆନ୍ତି । କିନ୍ତୁ ନିଜ ସ୍ୱାର୍ଥ ହାସଲ ନିମନ୍ତେ ଜଗତର ହିତ ନାମରେ ଗରିବଙ୍କ ଗରିବୀକୁ ଥୋପ କରି ଫେସବୁକ୍‍ର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ କେବଳ ନିନ୍ଦା ପାଇଛି ।

ନିକଟରେ ଭର୍ଜରେ ପ୍ରକାଶିତ ଏକ ଲେଖାରେ ଫେସବୁକ କାଳିମାଭରା ଆଉ ଏକ କଥା ନଜରକୁ ଆସିଛି । ଫେସବୁକ ଅତୀତରେ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ ଅଲଗା ଅଲଗା ଅନୁଭୂତିର ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ ଛାଡ଼ିଥାଏ । ଅର୍ଥାତ ଜଣଙ୍କ ନିଉଜ ଫିଡ଼ରେ କେବଳ ତାଙ୍କ ସାଙ୍ଗମାନଙ୍କ ଦୁଃଖଭରା ପୋଷ୍ଟସବୁ ଲଗାତର ଆସୁଥିବ । ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ମୁଡ଼ ଜାଣିବା ଗବେଷଣା ନାଁରେ ଏ କୁଟିଳ ଚିନ୍ତା ଯେ କେତେ ଘାତକ ତାହା ସହଜେ ଅନୁମେୟ । ଫେସବୁକର ବିଭିନ୍ନ ଏମିତି ନୀତି ଅନେକଙ୍କୁ ଅଜଣା ଓ ଏସବୁ ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ଗୋପନୀୟତା, ବ୍ୟକ୍ତିଗତ ତଥ୍ୟ ଓ ନିରାପତ୍ତାକୁ ପାଦରେ ଦଳି ଦେଲାଭଳି । ଲୋକଙ୍କ ସମର୍ଥନ ପାଇବାକୁ ହେଲେ କିଛି ପରିମାଣରେ ସଚ୍ଚା ହେବାକୁ ଯେ ପଡ଼ିବ ଏ କଥାଟି ଫେସବୁକ ଏବେଠୁ ହେଜିଲେ ଆଗକୁ ମଙ୍ଗଳ ହେବ ।

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/b2cb4db5fb2cb39b3eb30b40b19b4db15-b2ab3eb07b01-b28b3fb30b3eb2ab24b4db24b3e-b13-b17b2ab28b40b5fb24b3eb30-b15b15b41b06-b06b23b3fb2c-b2bb47b38b2cb41b15b30-b2bb4db30b3f-b2cb47b38b3fb15b4db38

Access at the cost of Net neutrality?

praskrishna — 2015-10-09T01:18:31Z

In the Net neutrality debate, there is a conflict between two core values: ease of access and neutrality. The ease of access promised by applications like Free Basics compromises neutrality and may later morph into a method of predatory pricingIf programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to telecom companies abusing their dominant positionsIn the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications. Though they have not yet exploited this autonomy fully, they are certainly moving towards that.

The article by Suhrith Parthasarathy was published in the Hindu on October 8, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

Earlier this year, the social media giant, Facebook, formalised a partnership with Reliance Communications that enabled the Indian company to provide access to over 30 different websites, without any charge on mobile data accruing to the ultimate user. The platform, originally known as “Internet.org,” has now been rebranded as “Free Basics,” Facebook announced last month. Its fundamental ethos, though, remains unchanged. It allows Reliance’s subscribers to surf completely free of cost a bouquet of websites covered within the scheme, which includes, quite naturally, facebook.com. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, views this supposed initiative as a philanthropic gesture, as part of a purported, larger aim to bring access to the Internet to those people who find the costs of using generally available mobile data prohibitive.

Neutrality, an interpretive concept
On the face of it, this supposed act of altruism appears to be commendable. But, there are many critics — some of whom have come together to launch a website “savetheinternet.in” with a view to defending Internet freedom — who argue that Free Basics violates what has come to be known as the principle of network (or Net) neutrality.

While it is clear to all of us that a notion of Net neutrality involves some regulation of the Internet, it is less clear what the term actually means. Like any phrase that involves either a moral or a legal obligation, Net neutrality is also an interpretive concept. People who employ the term to denote some sort of binding commitment, or at the least an aspirational norm, often tend to disagree over precisely how the idea ought to be accomplished. Tim Wu — an American lawyer and presently a professor at the Columbia University — who coined the term, views the notion of Net neutrality as signifying an Internet that does not favour any one application over another. In other words, the idea is to ensure that Internet service providers do not discriminate content by either charging a fee for acting as its carrier or by incorporating any technical qualifications.

In India, there is no law that expressly mandates the maintenance of a neutral Internet. This March, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a draft consultation paper seeking the public’s views on whether the Internet needed regulation. Unfortunately, much of its attention was focussed on the supposedly pernicious impact of applications such as WhatsApp and Viber. “In a multi-ethnic society there is a vital need,” wrote TRAI, “to ensure that the social equilibrium is not impacted adversely by communications that inflame passions, disturb law and order and lead to sectarian disputes.” The questions, therefore, in its view were these: should at least some Internet applications be amenable to a greater regulation, and should they compensate the telecom service providers in addition to the data charges that the consumers pay directly for the use of mobile Internet?

If the government eventually answers these questions in the affirmative, the consequences could be drastic. It could lead to a classification of Internet applications based on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them, whom the government views as harmful to society in some manner or another, within its regulatory net. Through such a move, the state, contrary to helping establish principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be actively promoting an unequal Internet.

In any event, as things stand, in the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet, telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate between different applications. Though these companies have not yet completely exploited this autonomy, they are certainly proceeding towards such an exercise. In April this year, Airtel announced Airtel Zero, an initiative that would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers free of cost.

On the face of it, this programme appears opposed to Net neutrality. But what is even more alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could, in the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different applications are delivered to consumers. For example, if WhatsApp were to subscribe to Airtel Zero by paying the fee demanded by the company, Airtel might accede to offering WhatsApp to consumers at a pace superior to that at which other applications are run. This kind of discrimination, as Nikhil Pahwa, one of the pioneers of the Save The Internet campaign, has argued, is prototypically opposed to Net neutrality. It tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online world. Ultimately, we must view Net neutrality as a concept that stands for the values that we want to build as a society; it pertains to concerns about ensuring freedom of expression and about creating an open space for ideas where democracy can thrive. There is a tendency, though, to view those who support Net neutrality as representing a supercilious position. Such criticism is unquestionably blinkered, but it also highlights certain telling concerns.

Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between applications argue that in the absence of an Internet that has completely permeated all strata of society, an obligation to maintain neutrality is not only unreasonable on the companies, but also unfair on the consumer. After all, if nothing else, Airtel Zero and Free Basics bring, at the least, some portions of the Internet to people who otherwise have no means to access the web. What we have, therefore, at some level, is a clash of values: between access to the Internet (in a limited form) and the maintenance of neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal. This makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly arduous process.

The Internet, in its purest form, is a veritable fountain of information. At its core lies a commitment to both openness and a level playing field, where an ability to innovate is perennially maintained. It is difficult to argue against Facebook when it says that some access is better than no access at all. But one of the problems with Free Basics, and indeed with Airtel Zero too, is that the consumer has no choice in which websites he or she might want to access free of cost. If this decision is made only by Facebook, which might argue that it gives every developer an equal chance to be a part of its project as long as it meets a certain criteria, what we have is almost a paternalistic web. In such a situation, information, far from being free, is shackled by constraints imposed by the service provider.

Laudable end, unethical means
This is precisely one of the concerns raised by those arguing in favour of Net neutrality, who, it is worth bearing in mind, aren’t resistant to the idea of a greater penetration of the Internet. Their apprehensions lie in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical means to achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end. According to them, negating Net neutrality, in a bid to purportedly achieve greater access to the Internet in the immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in the long run. Yes, Airtel Zero and Free Basics would bring to the less-privileged amongst us some access to the Internet, but the question is this: at what cost?

The worry is that if the programs that bring access to a part of the Internet in the immediate future were to entrench themselves, it could eventually lead to these telecom companies abusing their dominant positions. No doubt, as Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, has argued, it might require a deeper analysis to argue convincingly that packages such as Free Basics and Airtel Zero require immediate invalidation in their present forms; significantly, the former does not demand payments from the applications while the latter is premised on such consideration. But, viewed holistically, the companies’ actions could potentially be characterised as a form of predatory pricing, where consumers might benefit in the short run, only for serious damage to ensue to competition in the long run.

It is, therefore, necessary that any debate on the issue must address the tension between the two apparently conflicting goals — the importance of maintaining a neutral Internet and the need to ensure a greater access to the web across the country. Mr. Zuckerberg argues that these two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can — and must — coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.

But the history of markets tells us that we have to be very careful in allowing predatory practices, devised to achieve short-term goals, to go unbridled. As citizens, each of us has a fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. If we were to get the balance between these two values wrong, if we were to allow the domination, by a few parties, of appliances that facilitate a free exchange of ideas, in a manner that impinges on the Internet’s neutrality, our most cherished civil liberties could well be put to grave danger.

(Suhrith Parthasarathy is an advocate in the Madras High Court.)

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-october-8-2015-suhrith-parthasarathy-access-at-the-cost-of-net-neutrality

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

praskrishna — 2016-02-04T13:53:05Z

Bolstered by academia and civil society, TRAI stands its ground against FB’s Free Basics publicity blitz.

The article by Arindam Mukherjee was published in Outlook on February 8, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

Hours before the January 31 deadline for telecom regulator TRAI to give its opinion on Facebook’s controversial and expensive Free Basics pitch—which seeks to give India’s poor “free” access to certain partner websites—the consensus seems to be building up against the social media giant. “If there is cannibalising of the internet through services like Free Basics, the internet will be split; it will parcel out and slice the internet. Its future is at stake,” says a senior government official on condition of anonymity.

In a climate where the tech-savvy Modi government is seen to be close to the online trinity of Facebook, Google and Twitter, TRAI’s defiant stance in favour of net neutrality stands out. There’s a lot at stake. India’s position becomes crucial as few countries in the world have clearly defined laws on net neutrality or have taken a stand on it. For Facebook, there’s a lot more at stake. India is its second-largest user base after the US (it is banned in China), so it is leaving no stone unturned. The massive Rs 300-crore electronic and print media campaign is an indication of that.

TRAI sources say they are ready for any adverse onslaught and they are under no pressure from the PMO. The view gaining ground in government is that FB is trying to create a walled garden where it controls what people see and surf and what they can access online. While this will be offered to consumers for free—the technical term is differential pricing—the websites part of Free Basics will have to pay for being on the platform. Outlook’s queries to FB remained unanswered at the time of going to press.

At an ‘open house’ meeting to discuss TRAI’s consultation paper on differential pricing last week, regulator Ram Sevak Sharma stood firm against the barrage of pro-Free Basics opinions that flowed from FB, telecom operators and some members of the public. TRAI’s message was clear: FB’s tactics of moulding public opinion by stealth will not be acceptable in India. In the past few weeks, there have been bitter exchanges between TRAI and FB over the latter’s responses to a consultation paper on differential pricing.

TRAI’s defiant stand draws from an unprecedented show of strength by civil society against Free Basics and FB’s intentions. Says former Aadhar man Nandan Nilekani, “Free Basics is certainly against net neutrality. How can a solution be neutral, if it disproportionately benefits a particular website or business on the internet? Today, 400 million Indians are online. They came online because of the inherent value the internet offers. How can a walled garden of 100-odd websites provide the same value?”

What does Free Basics mean for PM Modi’s Digital India campaign? Being a walled garden, thousands of start-ups without adequate budgets to pay for such dedicated service will be forced to stay out of it. Similar questions are being raised about government services that are increasingly coming online. The concern is that all government traffic will have to pass through FB servers. The senior government official quoted above agrees, “In such a scenario, the government will have to approach FB to make its websites accessible on the free service which is neither desirable nor safe.”

The other fear is what happens to public data if it goes through a service like Free Basics. There is fear that a lot of government and public data will be put through Free Basics once government services start coming online. If Free Basics is for the poor who are also beneficiaries of government services, FB too can access this data. Says Prabir Purkayastha, chairman, Knowledge Commons, “FB says public service will be available through Free Basics but can public service be given through a private initiative? Public data is valuable and can’t be handed over to a private company.”

Few again are convinced by FB’s claim that Free Basics aims to make the internet accessible to the poor, with the many services offered through it. “The claim that the poor will get access to the internet is false,” warns Sunil Abraham, executive director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. “Free Basics gives access to less than 100 of the one billion plus websites on the world wide web. Those in the walled garden will be treated quite differently.”

What gives TRAI a shot in the arm is that, for the first time, academia has put its weight behind Free Basics opponents. In a signed statement, several IIT and IISc Bangalore professors have said that Free Basics won’t serve the purpose FB is proposing and is not good for the country. “The problem is the internet being provided (via Free Basics) is a shrunken and sanitised version of the real thing. Free Basics is not a good proposal for the long-term development of a healthy and democratic internet setup in India,” says Amitabha Bagchi, IIT Delhi professor and one of the signatories to the memo.

Of course, many of the experts Outlook spoke to say that the government, and not FB, should be responsible for providing free internet to the people. Says Parminder Jeet Singh, executive director, IT for Change, “The government is sitting on Rs 40,000 crore of USO funds. It can surely utilise that to provide a free basic data package to people in India. Basic government services and emergency services should essentially be free.” Nilekani is also in favour of the government providing free internet to people. “The internet is a powerful poverty alleviation tool.... Government can do a direct benefit transfer for data, a more market-neutral way of achieving the goal of getting everyone on the internet,” he told Outlook.

Legally, though, there may be issues in stopping FB from introducing its Free Basics platform in India. Says Singh, “Technically, the Indian government may not be able to stop FB from introducing Free Basics in India as it is just a platform. What the government has to do is to stop telcos from collaborating with it for free internet because Indian telcos, not FB, mediate access to the internet.”

The demand for the government and TRAI to come clean on net neutrality has reached fever pitch. Experts like Nilekani feel that net neutrality, which does not allow zero rating and differential pricing based on telcos looking at the contents of the subscriber’s data packets, should be enshrined in law through an act of Parliament, the way countries like the US have done. TRAI has also proposed two models where the internet is provided free initially and charged at a later stage and another where content providers and websites reimburse the cost of browsing directly to consumers. Both these proposals have not found favour with experts who say that these are unworkable and only the government should disburse free internet.

In any case, all this is a matter of detail—important, no doubt. The key question is, what happens to Free Basics if TRAI rules in favour of net neutrality and goes against FB? “This is going to be a long-drawn-out battle as FB will certainly challenge this in court,” says the government official. After spending Rs 300 crore on publicity, there is no way it will roll over and die.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/outlook-february-8-2016-arindam-mukherjee-a-megacorps-basic-instinct

‘A Good Day for the Internet Everywhere': India Bans Differential Data Pricing

subha — 2016-02-25T01:21:27Z

India distinguished itself as a global leader on network neutrality on February 8, when regulators officially banned “differential pricing”, a process through which telecommunications service providers could or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services offered based on content.

The article was published by Global Voices on February 9, 2016

In short, this means that Internet access in India will remain an open field, where users should be guaranteed equal access to any website they want to visit, regardless of how they connect to the Internet.

In their ruling, Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) commented:

In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.

#TRAIFreesInternet | Key take aways from TRAI’s ruling on Net Neutrality pic.twitter.com/xlFsLb3bZ6

— CNN-IBN News (@ibnlive) February 8, 2016

The decision of the Indian government has been welcomed largely in the country and outside. In support of the move, the World Wide Web Foundation's Renata Avila, also a Global Voices community member, wrote:

As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.

A blow for Facebook's “Free Basics”

While the new rules should long outlast this moment in India's Internet history, the ruling should immediately force Facebook to cancel the local deployment of “Free Basics”, a smart phone application that offers free access to Facebook, Facebook-owned products like WhatsApp, and a select suite of other websites for users who do not pay for mobile data plans.

Facebook's efforts to deploy and promote Free Basics as what they described as a remedy to India's lack of “digital equality” has encountered significant backlash. Last December, technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying:

Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”

When TRAI solicited public comments on the matter of differential pricing, Facebook responded with an aggressive advertising campaign on bill boards and in television commercials across the nation. It also embedded a campaign inside Facebook, asking users to write to TRAI in support of Free Basics.

TRAI criticized Facebook for what it seemed to regard as manipulation of the public. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and open Internet advocates including non-profits like the Free Software Movement of India and the Savetheinternet.in campaign. The latter two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by bringing public opinion where Savetheinternet.in alone facilitated a campaign in which citizens sent over 2.4 million emails to TRAI urging the agency to put a stop to differential pricing.

Alongside these efforts, 500 Indian startups including major ones like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax also wrote to India's prime minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for net neutrality—on the Indian Republic Day January 26.

Stand-up comedians like Abish Mathew and groups like All India Bakchod and East India Comedy created humorous and informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality which went viral.

Had differential pricing been officially legalized, it would have adversely affected startups and content-based smaller companies, who most likely could never manage to pay higher prices to partner with service providers to make their service available for free. This would have paved the way for tech-giants like Facebook to capture the entire market. And this would be no small gain for a company like Facebook: India represents the world's largest market of Internet users after the US and China, where Facebook remains blocked.

The Internet responds

There have been mixed responses on social media, both supporting and opposing. Among open Internet advocates both in India and the US, the response was celebratory:

This order shows the power of citizen involvement in policymaking. Policymakers are forced to listen if citizens engage. #NetNeutrality

— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) February 8, 2016

I think this is not just a good day for the Internet in India. It's a good day for the Internet everywhere #TRAI #savetheinternet

— Anja Kovacs (@anjakovacs) February 8, 2016

India is now the global leader on #NetNeutrality. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US. https://t.co/D6g68k2xaI

— Josh Levy (@levjoy) February 8, 2016

There are also those like Panuganti Rajkiran who opposed the ruling:

A terrible decision.. The worst part here is the haves deciding for the have nots what they can have and what they cannot.

When you buy a car, it's fulfilment of aspiration. After that, the next guy who buys a car is just traffic. Let's regulate. #NetNeutrality

— Ramesh Srivats (@rameshsrivats) February 8, 2016

Soumya Manikkath says:

So all is not lost in the world, for the next two years at least. Do come back with a better plan, dear Facebook, and we'll rethink, of course.

The ruling leaves an open pathway for companies to offer consumers free access to the Internet, provided that this access is truly open and does not limit one's ability to browse any site of her choosing.

Bangalore-based Internet policy expert Pranesh Prakash noted that this work must continue until India is truly — and equally — connected:

The pro-#NetNeutrality campaign shouldn't rest until every poor family in India has full and free access to the Internet. #ZeroRating

— Pranesh Prakash (@pranesh) February 8, 2016

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/global-voices-subhashish-panigrahi-february-9-2016-a-good-day-for-the-internet-everywhere

Centre for Internet and Society

Financial Express hosts #NetNeutralityDebate: ‘Price discrimination can be allowed, but not for the same packet of data’

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

Facebook’s Free Basics hits snag in India

Facebook Shares 10 Key Facts about Free Basics. Here's What's Wrong with All 10 of Them.

Definition of Net Neutrality should be flexible: Pranesh Prakash

Why now?

What is an OTT?

Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions

Collection of Net Neutrality Definitions

Clearing Misconceptions: What the DoT Panel Report on Net Neutrality Says (and Doesn't)

Background of the DoT panel

Summary of the DoT panel report

On governmental regulation of OTTs

On Net neutrality

Where does the DoT panel report go wrong?

What does the DoT panel report mean for consumers?

What misunderstandings do people have?

CIS's Position on Net Neutrality

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services

CIS Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data

Question 1 Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.

Is There a Need for Free Data?

Goal: Regulating Gatekeeping

Models for Free Data

Government Incentives For Non-Differentiated Free Data

ISP subsidies

Rewards model

Recharge API

“0.example” sites

OTT-agnostic free data

Unified marketplace

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

CDT Provides Answers to Questions on Internet Neutrality

ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାର କୋକୁଆ ଆଣିବ ଫେସବୁକର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ

Access at the cost of Net neutrality?

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

‘A Good Day for the Internet Everywhere': India Bans Differential Data Pricing

A blow for Facebook's “Free Basics”

The Internet responds

Question 1
Is there a need to have TSP agnostic platform to provide free data or suitable reimbursement to users, without violating the principles of Differential Pricing for Data laid down in TRAI Regulation? Please suggest the most suitable model to achieve the objective.