Centre for Internet and Society

#NetNeutrality, Data Protection Laws among topics at ITechLaw Conference

praskrishna — 2016-01-30T09:21:20Z

The who’s-who of the technology law sector convened at the ITechLaw India International Conference held from January 27-29 in Bangalore.

The last three days saw panel discussions being held on a varied set of topics related to technology law. The debates were led by a number of Indian and international legal professionals from law firms, companies and policy houses.

On Day 2, some of the panel discussions included Commercialization of Data, Aggregator Model – Licensing and Regulatory Issues Faced by Shared Economy Models, Digital Underworld, and Legal Challenges faced in New Media and Entertainment, among others.

The speakers present at these sessions included lawyers like Talha Salaria, Founder of Lawyers at Work; JSA Partner Sajai Singh; Trilegal Partner Rahul Matthan; MCM Law Partner Samuel Mani, apart from a host of In-House counsel from Intel, Amazon, IBM, Cognizant et al.

The highlight of Day 3 was a debate on Net Neutrality; Deepali Liberhan from Facebook, Pranesh Prakash from Centre for Internet and Society and Rohan George from Samvad Partners were among the panelists.

For more info, click here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/netneutrality-data-protection-laws-among-topics-at-itechlaw-conference

Nasscom wants board to protect Net neutrality, regulate pricing

praskrishna — 2016-01-31T09:25:09Z

The debate against differential pricing of data services at the cost of net neutrality doesn’t seem to be getting over yet. While internet activists have gone out on streets in Bengaluru and Hyderabad to protest in favour of net neutrality, industry experts believe that differential pricing, when regulated could be tailored for public interest.

The article by Shadma Shaikh was published in Asian Age on January 7, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Given the current situation of low internet and broadband penetration along with lower levels of digital literacy and limited local language support in the country, IT industry body Nasscom said that protection of net neutrality is essential to fight these monumental challenges that require continuous innovation, both in technology solutions and business models.

“We strongly oppose any model where TSPs or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed,” Nasscom President R. Chandrashekhar said in a statement.

However, Nasscom also suggested a suitable oversight mechanism in the form of “an independent not-for-profit entity with an independent board to manage proposed differential pricing programs that are deemed to be in the public interest and are philanthropic in nature.”

In view of regulator Trai’s proposal to question the fairness of zero-rating—a practice of not counting certain traffic towards a subscriber's regular Internet usage, Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society said, all forms of zero-rating result in some form of discrimination, but not all zero-rating is harmful, nor does all zero-rating need to be prohibited.

Prakash says that Trai’s paper has been inappropriately reduced to a referendum, by both parties—supporters of differential pricing programme as well as internet activists fighting zero-rating. Content-agnostic zero-rating models are not harmful, he says, adding “some traffic, such as government or public interest sites could be made free.”

Facebook’s Free Basics app that aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who cannot afford data packs, has run into trouble for being against net neutrality principle. Trai, while evaluating the zero-rating proposal has asked Reliance Communications, the official telecom partner for Free Basics to put the service on hold.

After drawing flak from critics and citizens over its Free Basics program and its extensive advertisement in the media and on Facebook itself to influence the decision of Trai in favour of zero-rating program, Zuckerberg reached out to Indian readers through an opinion piece he published in an Indian daily newspaper.

Facebook’s justification for Free Basics lies in comparing internet as a service similar to education and healthcare. Free schools, free libraries and public hospitals may not provide the best of services, but their existence is essential to cater to a large set of audience who cannot afford expensive healthcare or education. In the same way, says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, everyone deserves access to free basic internet service.

Calling Facebook’s Free Basics programme as an illusion, Nikhil Pahwa, founder MediaNama and volunteer at savetheinternet.in said “Facebook’s Free Basics is not free internet.” The choice to determine what data or content to browse should be left to the internet users, he says.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing

Zuckerberg's Plan Spurned as India Backs Full Net Neutrality

praskrishna — 2016-02-15T02:18:54Z

Facebook Inc.’s plans for expansion in India have suffered a major setback.

The article by Adi Narayan and Bhuma Srivastava was published in Bloomberg on February 8, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.

Telecom regulator bans differential Internet data plans
Facebook had lobbied India to approve its Free Basics plan

After the company spent months lobbying the country to accept its Free Basics service -- a way of delivering a limited Internet that included Facebook, plus some other tools, for no cost -- India’s telecom regulator ruled against any plans from cellular operators that charge different rates to different parts of the Web.

Telecom operators can’t offer discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, and aren’t allowed to enter into agreements with Internet companies to subsidize access to some websites, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India said in a statement Monday. Companies violating the rules will be fined, it said.

“This is the most extensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing anywhere in the world,” Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society, said via phone. “Those who suggested regulation in place of complete ban have clearly lost.”

With this decision, India joins countries such as the U.S., Brazil and the Netherlands in passing laws that restrict telecom operators from discriminating Internet traffic based on content. It is a big blow to Facebook’s Internet sampler plan known as Free Basics, which is currently offered in about three dozen countries including Kenya and Zambia, none of which come close to the scale or reach that could’ve been achieved in India.

With 130 million Facebook users, 375 million people online, and an additional 800 million-plus who aren’t, India is the biggest growth market for the social network, which remains blocked in China.

Facebook said in a statement that it’s “disappointed with the outcome.”

Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg said the decision won’t cause Facebook to give up on connecting people to the Internet in India, “because more than a billion people in India don’t have access to the Internet.” The company will continue to focus on its other initiatives, like extending networks using satellites, drones and lasers.

Freebies Curtailed

The rule will put an end to prepaid plans that offered free access to services such as Google searches, the WhatsApp messaging application and Facebook. These packages were popular with low-income users by giving them an incentive to get online, said Rajan Mathews, director general of the lobby group Cellular Operators Association of India.

“These types of plans were being used by operators to meet the policy goals of connecting one billion people,” Matthews said. “With these gone, the government needs to tell us what alternatives are there.”

The regulator’s decision comes after months of public lobbying by Facebook for India to approve Free Basics, which allows customers to access the social network and other services such as education, health care, and employment listings from their phones without a data plan.

Free Basics was criticized by activists who said it threatened net neutrality, the principle that all Internet websites should be equally accessible, and could change pricing in India for access to different websites.

The regulator, which had sought stakeholders’ views, said it was seeking to ensure data tariffs remain content agnostic. Operators will have six months to wind down existing differential pricing services.

Google Unaffected

“Anything on the Internet can’t be priced based on content, applications, source and destination,” R.S. Sharma, the regulator’s chairman, told reporters in New Delhi. Some Internet companies’ plans to offer free WiFi at public venues, like Google Inc.’s project with Indian Railways, are not affected by this ruling, he said.

For Free Basics, one or two carriers in a given country offer the package for free at slow speeds, betting that it will help attract new customers who’ll later upgrade to pricier data plans. In India, Facebook had tied up with Reliance Communications Ltd., though the service was suspended in December as the government solicited comments from proponents and opponents.

Since the government’s telecommunications regulator announced the suspension, Facebook bought daily full-page ads in major newspapers and plastered billboards with pictures of happy farmers and schoolchildren it says would benefit from Free Basics. Zuckerberg has frequently made the case himself via phone or newspaper op-eds, asking that Indians petition the government to approve his service.

Entrepreneurs, business people and activists took to Twitter to share their views after the decision came out on Monday.

“Great to see TRAI backing #NetNeutrality,” Kunal Bahl, founder of Snapdeal.com, one of India’s biggest e-commerce sites, said. “Let’s keep the Internet free and independent.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/bloomberg-adi-narayan-bhuma-srivastava-february-8-2016-zuckerberg-plan-spurned-as-india-backs-full-net-neutrality

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

Internet Freedom

Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda — 2016-02-15T02:51:10Z

The modern medium of the web is an open-sourced, democratic world in which equality is an ideal, which is why what is most important is Internet freedom.

The article by Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda was published by Asian Age on February 14, 2016.

What would have gone wrong if India’s telecom regulator Trai had decided to support programmes like Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel’s Zero Rating instead of issuing the regulation that prohibits discriminatory tariffs? Here are possible scenarios to look at in case the discriminatory tarrifs were allowed as they are in some countries.

Possible impact on elections

Facebook would have continued to amass its product — eyeballs. Indian eyeballs would be more valuable than others for three reasons 1. Facebook would have an additional layer of surveillance thanks to the Free Basics proxy server which stores the time, the site url and data transferred for all the other destinations featured in the walled garden 2. As part of Digital India, most government entities will set up Facebook pages and a majority of the interaction with citizens would happen on the social media rather than the websites of government entities and, consequently, Facebook would know what is and what is not working in governance 3. Given the financial disincentive to leave the walled garden, the surveillance would be total.

What would this mean for democracies? Eight years ago, Facebook began to engineer the News Feed to show more posts of a user’s friends voting in order to influence voting behavior. It introduced the “I’m Voting” button into 61 million users’ feeds during the 2010 US presidential elections to increase voter turnout and found that this kind of social pressure caused people to vote. Facebook has also admitted to populating feeds with posts from friends with similar political views. During the 2012 Presidential elections, Facebook was able to increase voter turnout by altering 1.9 million news feeds.

Indian eyeballs may not be that lucrative in terms of advertising. But these users are extremely valuable to political parties and others interested in influencing elections. Facebook’s notifications to users when their friends signed on to the “Support Free Basics” campaign was configured so that you were informed more often than with other campaigns. In other words, Facebook is not just another player on their platform. Given that margins are often slim, would Facebook be tempted to try and install a government of its choice in India during the 2019 general elections?

In times of disasters

Most people defending Free Basics and defending forbearance as the regulatory response in 2015/16 make the argument that “95 per cent of Internet users in developing countries spend 95 per cent of their time on Facebook”.

This is not too far from the truth as LirneAsia demonstrated in 2012 with most people using Facebook in Indonesia not even knowing they were using the internet. In other words, they argue that regulators should ignore the fringe user and fringe usage and only focus on the mainstream. The cognitive bias they are appealing to is smaller numbers are less important.

Since all the sublime analogies in the Net Neutrality debate have been taken, forgive us for using the scatological. That is the same as arguing that since we spend only 5% of our day in toilets, only 5% of our home’s real estate should be devoted to them.

Everyone agrees that it is far easier to live in a house without a bedroom than a house without a toilet. Even extremely low probabilities or ‘Black Swan’ events can be terribly important! Imagine you are an Indian at the bottom of the pyramid. You cannot afford to pay for data on your phone and, as a result, you rarely and nervously stray out of the walled garden of Free Basics.

During a natural disaster you are able to use the Facebook Safety Check feature to mark yourself safe but the volunteers who are organising both offline and online rescue efforts are using a wider variety of platforms, tools and technologies.

Since you are unfamiliar with the rest of the Internet, you are ill equipped when you try to organise a rescue for you and your loved ones.

Content and carriage converge

Some people argue that TRAI should have stayed off the issue since the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is sufficient to tackle Net Neutrality harms. However it is unclear if predatory pricing by Reliance, which has only 9% market share, will cross the competition law threshold for market dominance? Interestingly, just before the Trai notification, the Ambani brothers signed a spectrum sharing pact and they have been sharing optic fibre since 2013.

Will a content sharing pact follow these carriage pacts? As media diversity researcher, Alam Srinivas, notes “If their plans succeed, their media empires will span across genres such as print, broadcasting, radio and digital. They will own the distribution chains such as cable, direct-to-home (DTH), optic fibre (terrestrial and undersea), telecom towers and multiplexes.”

What does this convergence vision of the Ambani brothers mean for media diversity in India? In the absence of net neutrality regulation could they use their dominance in broadcast media to reduce choice on the Internet? Could they use a non-neutral provisioning of the Internet to increase their dominance in broadcast media? When a single wire or the very same radio spectrum delivers radio, TV, games and Internet to your home — what under competition law will be considered a substitutable product? What would be the relevant market? At the Centre for Internet and Society (CI S), we argue that competition law principles with lower threshold should be applied to networked infrastructure through infrastructure specific non-discrimination regulations like the one that Trai just notified to protect digital media diversity.

Was an absolute prohibition the best response for TRAI? With only two possible exemptions — i.e. closed communication network and emergencies - the regulation is very clear and brief. However, as our colleague Pranesh Prakash has said, TRAI has over regulated and used a sledgehammer where a scalpel would have sufficed. In CIS’ official submission, we had recommended a series of tests in order to determine whether a particular type of zero rating should be allowed or forbidden. That test may be legally sophisticated; but as TRAI argues it is clear and simple rules that result in regulatory equity. A possible alternative to a complicated multi-part legal test is the leaky walled garden proposal. Remember, it is only in the case of very dangerous technologies where the harms are large scale and irreversible and an absolute prohibition based on the precautionary principle is merited.

However, as far as network neutrality harms go, it may be sufficient to insist that for every MB that is consumed within Free Basics, Reliance be mandated to provide a data top up of 3MB.

This would have three advantages. One, it would be easy to articulate in a brief regulation and therefore reduce the possibility of litigation. Two, it is easy for the consumer who is harmed to monitor the mitigation measure and last, based on empirical data, the regulator could increase or decrease the proportion of the mitigation measure.

This is an example of what Prof Christopher T. Marsden calls positive, forward-looking network neutrality regulation. Positive in the sense that instead of prohibitions and punitive measures, the emphasis is on obligations and forward-looking in the sense that no new technology and business model should be prohibited.

What is Net neutrality?

According to this principle, all service providers and governments should not discriminate between various data on the internet and consider all as one. They cannot give preference to one set of apps/ websites while restricting others.

2006: TRAI invites opinions regarding the regulation of net neutrality from various telecom industry bodies and stakeholdersFeb. 2012: Sunil Bharti Mittal, CEO of Bharti Airtel, suggests services like YouTube should pay an interconnect charge to network operators, saying that if telecom operators are building highways for data then there should be a tax on the highway
July 2012: Bharti Airtel’s Jagbir Singh suggests large Internet companies like Facebook and Google should share revenues with telecom companies.
August 2012: Data from M-Lab said You Broadband, Airtel, BSNL were throttling traffic of P2P services like BitTorrent
Feb. 2013: Killi Kiruparani, Minister for state for communications and technology says government will look into legality of VoIP services like Skype
June 2013: Airtel starts offering select Google services to cellular broadband users for free, fixing a ceiling of 1GB on the data
Feb. 2014: Airtel operations CEO Gopal Vittal says companies offering free messaging apps like Skype and WhatsApp should be regulated
August 2014: TRAI rejects proposal from telecom companies to make messaging application firms share part of their revenue with the carriers/government
Nov. 2014: Trai begins investigation on Airtel implementing preferential access with special packs for WhatsApp and Facebook at rates lower than standard data rates
Dec. 2014: Airtel launches 2G, 3G data packs with VoIP data excluded in the pack, later launches VoIP pack.
Feb. 2015: Facebook launches Internet.org with Reliance communications, aiming to provide free access to 38 websites through single app
March 2015: Trai publishes consultation paper on regulatory framework for over the top services, explaining what net neutrality in India will mean and its impact, invited public feedback
April 2015: Airtel launches Airtel Zero, a scheme where apps sign up with airtle to get their content displayed free across the network. Flipkart, which was in talks for the scheme, had to pull out after users started giving it poor rating after hearing about the news
April 2015: Ravi Shankar Prasad, Communication and information technology minister announces formation of a committee to study net neutrality issues in the country
23 April 2015: Many organisations under Free Software Movement of India protested in various parts of the country. In a counter measure, Cellular Operators Association of India launches campaign , saying its aim is to connect the unconnected citizens, demanding VoIP apps be treated as cellular operators
27 April 2015: Trai releases names and email addresses of users who responded to the consultation paper in millions. Anonymous India group, take down Trai’s website in retaliation, which the government could not confirm
Sept. 2015: Facebook rebrands Internet.org as Free Basics, launches in the country with massive ads across major newspapers in the country. Faces huge backlash from public
Feb. 2016: Trai rules in favour of net neutrality, barring telecom operators from charging different rates for data services.

The writers work at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-february-14-2016-sunil-abraham-vidushi-marda-internet-freedom

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

TRAI-ing Times: The Story So Far

tarun — 2015-03-30T13:32:13Z

24th December, 2014 marked a pivotal moment in the Indian experience with network neutrality. On this date, one of India’s largest telecom players, Bharti Airtel, announced the introduction of a new ‘VoIP’ usage policy for its mobile users.

Under this policy, usage of VoIP services would henceforth be excluded from standard data usage packs and would instead be charged at standard data rates (of 4p / 10KB on 3G and 10p / 10KB on 2G).^{^[1]} Alongside this modification to 2G and 3G packs, a separate data pack exclusively for VoIP services was to be introduced. ^{^[2]}

The flurry of activity the announcement precipitated included widespread consumer and civil society outrage^{^[3]}, a statement by the Union Minister for Telecom^{^[4]}, a justificatory counter-statement by Airtel itself^{^[5]} and ultimately, a statement by TRAI. ^{^[6]} While it remains to be seen whether this was a calculated move by Airtel to kick-start the neutrality discussion in India (as some suspect^{^[7]}), the implementation of the new policy/pack was deferred pending TRAI's proposed consultation paper on OTT services. ^{^[8]}

In the context of the impending (though seemingly delayed^{^[9]}) release this paper, we take this opportunity to study TRAI-linked output on network neutrality in the past. This study was carried out using RTI requests [Part I] and targeted keyword searches of the TRAI website [Part II].

Information received through RTI requests

We had filed the following request under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the subject and net neutrality and any material available with them generated in the course of internal or other discussions:

Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 To Shri V.K.Saxena Dy. Advisor (GA.) & Central Public Information Officer-LO Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi-110 002 Date of application : 08-10-2014 Subject: Documents relating to Network Neutrality 1. Please provide a list of all the consultations/discussions/meetings that have taken place with respect to network neutrality by TRAI. 2. Please provide a list of all responses received by TRAI which concern network neutrality. 3. Please provide a list of other documents/memos/minutes regarding network neutrality available with TRAI. 4. Does TRAI possess power to punish ISPs for violating principles of network neutrality? If so, please mention the provision of law which permits this. 5. What measures are taken by TRAI to monitor network neutrality violations by ISPs? For example, throttling of internet content/protocols. 6. What is the procedure for a consumer to file a complaint with TRAI regarding network neutrality violations? 7. Please provide copies of any documents regarding complaints received / action taken with respect to network neutrality violations in the past three years. It is certified that I am a citizen of India and that I do not fall within the BPL category. I am enclosing Rupees thirty (Rs. 10) towards the application fee and photocopying costs under the RTI Act for the information and documents requested. Kindly inform me at the address stated below if any further fees are required to be paid. Applicant : Signature of the Applicant Tarun Krishnakumar Centre for Internet and Society 194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage, Bangalore - 560071

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In response to the same, we received the following reply which smacked of non-application of mind by the concerned officer to the request:

To, Shri Tarun Krishnakumar Centre for Internet and Society 194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage Bangalore (Karnataka) - 560071. SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR SUPPLY OF INFORMATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005. Sir, Please refer to your application dated 08.10.2014 , seeking information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding Network Neutrality related matter. It is informed that the information sought by you vide the above referred application is not available in TRAI. The Appellate Authority in TRAl under section 19 (1) of the "Right to Information Act, 2005" is Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Pr. Advisor (CA&QOS), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlai Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi-110 002, Tele:011- 23216930, Fax : 011- 23235270. Yours faithfully, (V.K. Saxena) Central Public Information Officer (LO) Tele: 011-23211622

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In reply, we filed the following appeal with the designated Appellate Authority:

Appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 To : Appellate Authority Shri. Suresh Kumar Gupta, Pr. Advisor (CA and QoS), Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Old Minto Road, New Delhi - 110002 Date: 23.11.2014 Subject: Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with reference to your reply No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 Dear Sir, I write to you with reference to my RTI Application dated 08.10.2014 for information relating to 'network neutrality' held by TRAI. The CPIO, Shri. V.K. Saxena, rejected my request vide letter no. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 stating that " the information sought by you vide the above referred application is not available in TRAI." (enclosed herewith). As the applicant, I am unsatisfied and aggrieved by the above decision and hereby appeal against the same. Circumstances and Grounds of Appeal : By way of my application (enclosed herewith), I sought any and all information held by TRAI in relation to 'network neutrality'. For example, questions 1 - 3 queried the list of consultations etc. that have taken place involving network neutrality and sought copies of all documentation pertaining to the same. The other questions sought information pertaining to the powers of TRAI in relation to internet service providers and complaints received by it in relation to network neutrality. I submit that the failure of the CPIO to provide any answer to my queries is erroneous and therefore liable to be set aside on appeal to you. It is well-documented that there is at least one consultation connected with the subject-matter of my application i.e. 'network neutrality' released by TRAI in December 2006 (Paper No. 19/2006). In fact, the paper is currently available on the TRAI website at the following URL: http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf (Please see heading 3.6 and 3.7). Therefore, if nothing else at least all information pertaining to this paper including the responses received to the question under Heading 3.7 must be supplied to me. You may also take note of TRAI's "Recommendations on Application Services" (available at URL: http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/recommendation/documents/as140512.pdf ) dated 14.05.2014 where paras 1.29 - 1.31 pertain to net neutrality. This is another document that the CPIO failed to take notice of. The failure of the CPIO to even acknowledge the existence of TRAI's own papers as cited above shows that there has been no application of mind to my application and a mechanical denial has been issued. Prayer : In light of the grounds advanced above, I request that: i. My application for all information pertaining to 'network neutrality' be allowed and the relevant documents be released to me. ii. I receive a question-by-question response to each of my queries. List of Enclosures: 1. Original Application dated 08.10.2014 2. Reply of CPIO No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10-11-2014 Name of Appellant/Applicant and Address : Tarun Krishnakumar Centre for Internet and Society 194, 2nd C Cross Road, Domlur II Stage, Bangalore - 560071

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The appellate authority vide dated decision 12-01-2015 replied as follows:

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT, 2005 F. No. 1(658)/2014-RTI Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Mahanagar Door Sanchar Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Old Minto Road), New Delhi-110002. APPEAL in terms of Section 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005 Date of Decision: 12th January, 2015 In the Matter of: SHRI TARUN KRISHNAKUMAR, CENTRE FOR INTERNET AND SOCIETY, 194, 2nd C CROSS ROAD, DOMLUR ll STAGE, BANGALORE (KARNATAKA)-560071 vs CPIO, TRAI. Shri Tarun Krishnakumar has preferred the present appeal dated 23.11.2014 against the reply of CPIO, TRAI, communicated to him vide letter No. 1(658)/2014-RTI dated 10.11.2014 in response to his application dated 08.10.2014 under the RTI Act. I have gone through the appellant's application dated 08.10.2014 addressed to the Central Public Information Officer, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the reply dated 10.11.2014 given to the appellant by the CPIO and the present appeal. The appellant had requested for information regarding Network Neutrality and related matter. Since the said information was not available with the Public Authority, TRAI, the CPIO. TRAI informed this to the appellant. The appellant, however, not being satisfied with the reply has filed this appeal. Upon examination, it was noticed that the consultation paper on "Review of Internet Services" issued on 27'" December, 2006 has a reference to Net Neutrality in Chapter 3-Emerging Trends. Therefore, the concerned division has uploaded the comments received in response to the 2006 consultation paper for the information of stake holders, the same is available in TRAI website under the link http://www.trai.gov.in/content/consultation_ViewCommentDescription/144_11_ViewCommentDescription.aspx . Further, the "Recommendations on Application Services" was issued on 14.05.2012 and is available on TRAI website. There is no additional information which can be provided to the appellant at this stage. In view of the above, the appeal is accordingly disposed. Let a copy of this order be sent to the appellant. Sd/- (Suresh Kumar Gupta) Appellate Authority, TRAI Under RTI Act, 2005

This reveals the extent of TRAI-produced output on the issue of 'net neutrality'. Besides a reference to Neutrality in 2006 paper TRAI did not disclose any other instance where it had discussed the issue.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Targeted Keyword Searches of the trai.gov.in website

This leg of the survey consisted of conducting targeted keyword searches of the trai.gov.in website to gauge the engagement with the subject of Network Neutrality either in the form of TRAI Output, Submissions to TRAI or other outputs (from seminar, conferences etc.). The results - aggregated using Google and Bing - have been tabulated.

Note: The results do not include the OTT Consultation Paper of 27-03-2015.

Methodology : Keyword searches of specific website using the advanced search / site-search search operator ("KEYWORD + site:<URL>"); Repeated Hits were not tabulated.

i. Keyword: "Net Neutrality"

Total No. of search results returned = 10 (Google), 6 (Bing)

Relevant Hits: 8

	Hit URL		Name of Document	Date	Relevant Page		Remarks
1.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/consultation27dec06.pdf		Consultation Paper on "Review of Internet Services" (No. 19/2006)	26-12-2006	References at Pg. 27-28.		Views were sought in relation to emerging trends one of which outlined was 'Net Neutrality.' Selected Extracts: " 3.6.2 The situation may also rise in India as Internet access providers may use their market power to discriminate against competing applications and/or contents. " " 3.6.3 The issue of net neutrality in the long term can threaten popularity of Public Internet based Internet telephony and similar 28 other applications as all the intermediate Internet providers may start asking commercial agreements in absence of which they may refuse to carry the content and provide desired quality of service. The future developments are likely to have new applications and contents. The business models of ISPs are concentrated around useful application. In this background views of stake holders are required whether regulatory intervention is needed to ensure net neutrality in India in times to come or it may be left to market forces. "
2.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201410221229242471860Vodafone_Delivering%20Broadband%20quickly_Counter_21Oct2014.pdf		Vodafone's counter-response to TRAI's Consultation paper on 'Delivering Broadband Quickly'	22-10-2014	References at Pg. 3-4.		Here, Vodafone pledges support for an 'open internet' for all however comments " net neutrality has long been a solution in search of a problem" and criticises EU framework.
3.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/20120730022807389860713.Etisalat[1].pdf		Response of Etisalat DB to Pre-consultation paper on "IMT-Advanced (4G) Mobile wireless broadband services"	15-04-2010	References at Pg. 2 (Paragraph 12).		Etisalat notes that net neutrality is a topic that requires deliberation in reference to the proposed consultation paper on 4G. It defines neutrality as "Avoiding blockage of any specific web site on a particular network".
4.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Recommendation/Documents/recom18aug08.pdf		TRAI Recommendations on "Issues relating to Internet Telephony"	18-08-2008	References at Pg. 46 and 78		At Pg. 46: " The very popularity and success of the Internet is due to Net neutrality, i.e packets of all services and applications shall be processed and delivered without any discrimination by the intermediate service providers." At Pg. 78: " Regulation in Argentina considers IP as a mere way to offer telecommunication services, such as telephony in the form of VoIP, thus there are no legal barriers that impede market access or any plans to regulate different types of the service. Any provider is free to offer telecommunication services with different technologies and network architectures, based on the network neutrality principle…"…" The foreign investment policy is liberal and there are no distinctions between local and foreign companies. According to the network neutrality principle, there are no regulated technological standards or protocols for VoIP "
5.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201412300449107784040Dr%20Rohit%20Prasad.pdf		Response to the Consultation Paper (No: 13/2014) on "Interconnect Usage Charges" filed by (i) Dr. Rohit Prasad, Professor, Management Development Institute, Gurgaon (ii) Mansi Kedia, Researcher, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) (iii) Dr. V. Sridhar, Professor, International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore		Reference at Pg.7		Raises the question of Net Neutrality with reference to OTT services. At Pg. 7: "… Since an Internet Telephony call is a partial OTT service (i.e. from the origin until it hits the IP-Telco gateway), should Net Neutrality principles (as and when drafted) should be applicable for this as well. The above question, can be taken up when the Net Neutrality rules or OTT regulation rules are framed by the regulator. "
6.	http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/2.Infotel_Broadband..pdf		Response of Infotel Broadband Services Ltd to Consultation Paper on "Mobile Value Added Services" (CP 05/ 2011)	11-08-2011	Reference at Pg. 3		Opposition to Licensing regime for Internet Content and Application Providers: At Pg. 3: " 3. Internet/ Data Applications do not depend on Telecom Operator, and are not licenced in open mature countries The need to exercise restraint on regulation is stronger in the case of data/ internet services. In the case of VAS on data/ internet services, VASPs have no technical dependence on Telecom/ Internet Service Provider for providing the service, as the data connection is generally a dumb pipe. For some services, VASPs choose to partner Telecom Operators for billing convenience (as in the case with currently provided Games-on-Demand service and Anti-virus services over Broadband). Globally, Internet Application Companies and Regulators mostly operate on a net neutrality approach, wherein a broadband application is accessible across Telecom/ Internet Service Providers. Thus, especially in the case of data services, there is no case to govern a relationship/ arrangement that has no technical necessity. Licencing Regime for Internet Content and Application providers, like portals, e-commerce, etc is not in practice in any of the open countries and should not be introduced in India too."
7.	http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201308221249488827971vodafone-final3.pdf		Response to Vodafone to Consultation Paper on "Valuation and Reserve Price of Spectrum"	21-08-2013	Reference at Pg. 11		Reference irrelevant / not-substantive.
8.	http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/recommendation/documents/as140512.pdf		TRAI Recommendations on "Application Services"	14-05-2012	References at Pg.18 and 19.		At Pg. 18: " 1.29 Net neutrality advocates no restrictions by Service Providers on content, sites, platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and no restrictions on the modes of communication allowed. Issue of net neutrality started in early 2007 when it was revealed that Comcast, a provider of broadband Internet access over cable lines intentionally blocked the traffic of peer-to-peer (P2P) applications and gave other Internet traffic preferential treatment. " At Pg.19:" 1.31 The issue of net neutrality for ASPs providing services on OTT model will be dealt as and when required."
ii. Keyword: "Network Neutrality" Total No. of search results returned = 16 (Google), 8 (Bing) Relevant Hits: 11.
S.No.		Hit URL	Name of Document	Date		Relevant Page		Remarks
1.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291232282048929Matthias_Ehrler_Migration_NGN.pdf	Presentation titled "Regulatory implications of migrating to NGN" made at the TRAI - Seminar on Next Generation Networks by Matthias Ehrler	25-08-2011		Pgs. 6 and 15		Presentation by expert covers neutrality implications of migrating to next generation networks.
2.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291229152361429Scott_Marcus_QoS.pdf	Presentation titled "Management of QoS" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.	25-08-2011		Pgs. 10, 11, 15 etc.		Presentation by expert covers neutrality in the context of QoS.
3.		http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/consultationpaper/document/3agust.pdf	Response of Microsoft to Consultation Paper on "National Broadband Plan"	27-07-2010		Pgs. 1-2		Extract: " 2. Network Neutrality Openness has been the key to the ever-expanding nature of the Internet. We would urge that the Authority adopt a light-touch regulatory approach to network neutrality that appropriately balances the needs of consumers, network operators, and those of content/ application / service providers as well as those of device vendors. Some respondents have called out the Authority's attention towards this aspect and it is important for the Authority to chart a course that harmonizes the interdependent values of innovation and continued evolution of a robust network infrastructure while promoting consumer choice and freedom online. e suggest that the Authority undertake the following three steps in this regard: a. First, adopt the widely-accepted principles that consumers have the right to access and use the content, applications, services and devices of their choosing and to receive reasonable information about their Internet access provider's practices; b. Second, adopt a behavioral standard intended to prohibit Access Provider discrimination that is anticompetitive or harms consumers, and bar Access Provider conduct that violates the other core, open Internet principles, such as allowing access to lawful content, applications, and services of the user's choosing; and c. Third, implement an expert and efficient enforcement mechanism to identify and prohibit unlawful forms of discrimination. This framework would achieve a sensible balance by allowing Access Providers the flexibility to not only appropriately manage their networks by distinguishing, if necessary, among different types of traffic but also enter into business arrangements with content providers that are transparent and do not discriminate in a manner that is anticompetitive or harms consumers ."
4.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201301080620033272892NGN-Migration-Session6-Licensing-Issues-NGN_rev.pdf	Presentation titled "Migration to Next Generation Networks" made at the Workshop on Migration to NGN by Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing	29-11-2012		Pgs. 30-36.		Presentation by expert covers Network Neutrality in the context of content and licensing.
5.		http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291222335017679NGN_Dr.pdf	Presentation titled "NGN: UK and European Frameworks" made at the TRAI Seminar on NGN by Rekha Jain.	25-08-2011		Pg.18		Presentation by expert covers network neutrality as implemented by European authorities.
6.		http://trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291226086423929NGN_Interconnection.pdf	Presentation titled "NGN Interconnection" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.	25-08-2011		Pg. 41, 43 and 46		Presentation by expert covers neutrality in the context of QoS.
7.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201301080612503134332NGN-Migration-Session1-Introduction-to-NGN_rev.pdf	Presentation titled "Migration to Next Generation Networks" (Introduction to NGN) made at the Workshop on Migration to NGN by Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing Martin Lundborg, Stephan Wirsing	29-11-2012		Pg. 25		Cursory reference to important regulatory aspects of NGN Migration
8.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/Events/Presentation/PPT/201111291221446111429NGN_Case_Studies%20-%20Scott%20marcus.pdf	Presentation titled "Migration Studies Challenges and Migration Studies, Challenges, and Implementation Case Studies" made at the TRAI- Seminar on Next Generation Networks by J. Scott Marcus of wik consult.	25-08-2011		Pg. 6.		Cursory reference to public policy challenges in NGN Migration
9.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/Auspi.pdf	AUSPI's Response to the TRAI Consultation Paper No. 6/2011 on "IMT Advanced Mobile Wireless Broadband Services"			Pg.10		At Pg.10: " In an effort to encourage network neutrality, Google asked that the spectrum be free to lease wholesale and the devices operating under the spectrum be open. Google's specific requests were the adoption of certain policies such as open applications, open devices, open services and open networks. Currently many providers such as Verizon and AT&T use technological measures to block external applications. In return, Google guaranteed a minimum bid of $4.6 billion. However, this model of broader eco-system players playing a part in spectrum auctions has not seen significant success, with Google in this instance not winning any licenses. Even if regulator wants to keep the market open for non-telecom players, broader eco-system players can participate through M&As which are likely to be permitted under the new telecom policy. "
10.		http://www.trai.gov.in/writereaddata/consultationpaper/document/201304090446122006799casbaa.pdf	Response of the Cable and Satellite Broadcasting Association of Asia to TRAI Consultation Paper on "Issues relating to Media Ownership"	8-04-2013		Pg.30		At Pg.30: " Convergence: Despite convergence, there remains fragmentation in the approaches adopted by regulators towards intervention in telecoms and other sectors. However, issues of access, network neutrality, non-discrimination and protection of intellectual property rights ("IPR") are recurrent themes. These are issues that are familiar to competition authorities. Moreover, technological changes may break down these demarcations further. However the real challenge that convergence poses is increased uncertainty in respect of the speed of technical change and its effects in the short and longer runs. Regulators/competition authorities run the risk of 'getting it wrong' either by applying old style/stringent regulations and/or mistaking transitory profitability for abuse. A cautious and flexible approach is required. The application of old style regulations to such evolving markets is not recommended; it may stifle investment and innovation. Regulation should be flexible enough to take account of the evolving market dynamic and be informed by the best assessment of how markets are likely to evolve. TRAI's proposed intervention does not even come close to this dynamic approach since it is predicated on an assessment which is four years out of date. It does not take account of the increased diversity and competition currently prevailing and likely to develop in India over the next 3 to 5 years and beyond. "
11.		http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/ConsultationPaper/Document/201306240358500637086RCOM_CC.pdf	Counter Comments of Reliance Communications to TRAI Consultation Paper on "Interconnection Usage Charges"	25-05-2011		Pgs. 230 (Internal Pg. 41 of appended document)		Appended ERG DRAFT Common Position on Next Generation Networks Future Charging Mechanisms / Long Term Termination Issue document analyses questions in relation to QoS and Network Neutrality in the US and other jurisdictions.

[1] See http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-starts-charging-for-voip-data-viber-skype-charges/128118/ (Last visited on 08-03-15).

[2] See http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-voip-rs75-75mb-with-a-validity-of-28-days/128216/ (Last visited on 08-03-15);

[3] See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-net-neutrality-violation-airtel-introduces-differential-pricing-for-type-of-mobile-internet-usage (Last visited on 08-03-15); http://yourstory.com/2015/01/net-neutrality-startups-in-india-airtels-voip-charges/ (Last visited on 08-03-15)

[4] See http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-01-15/news/58109002_1_net-neutrality-internet-governance-model (Last visited on 08-03-15); http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-look-into-airtels-plan-to-charge-for-internet-calls-ravi-shankar-prasad-639713 (Last visited on 08-03-15)

[5] See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-a-response-to-airtels-statement-justifying-net-neutrality-violation/

[6] See http://indianexpress.com/article/business/companies/airtel-move-to-charge-voip-calls-not-illegal-khullar/ (Last visited on 09-03-15); For a video of the interview, see http://youtu.be/d6QyapRBPXA (Last visited on 09-03-15).

[7] See http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-airtel-withdraws-voip-charges-for-now-after-forcing-trais-hand-on-net-neutrality-consultation/ (Last visited on 08-03-15).

[8] See http://www.financialexpress.com/article/industry/companies/airtel-to-roll-back-higher-voip-charges/24057/ (Last visited on 08-03-15)

[9] See NDTV report dated 16-02-15 at http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/trais-paper-on-ott-players-to-also-cover-voip-calls-net-neutrality-in-india-661111 (Last visited on 09-03-15).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-ing-times-the-story-so-far

Freedom struggle 2.0

pranesh — 2015-04-27T01:23:44Z

In the face of the debate on net neutrality, here is a look at the consequences of not having a free, equal, and private internet.

The article was published in the Hindu on April 25, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

There has been so much noise surrounding net neutrality (generously helped along by All India Bakchod’s explanatory video) that by now even my technology-abhorring grandmother knows something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

However, let us recap: net neutrality refers to a free and open Internet that lets us utilise every channel of communication without bias or — heaven forbid — having to pay extra dough. Paid sites and subscriptions excluded of course; the owners have to send their kids to college, you know. As to the Importance of net neutrality, it is “... a democratic principle (in line with the right to equality in our Constitution) and it is important for freedom of speech and expression,” says Pranesh Prakash of the Centre for Internet and Society.

“Evolving technologies cannot be regulated” was one of the opening lines of Almost Human, a science fiction/crime series that did not survive its debut season. A profound statement, especially in the light of the blistering debate over net neutrality. A debate that has the Twitterati frothing at the mouth and primed to spew sarcasm at those against them in what is being perceived as a battle of epic proportions. Sample these: @Roflindian: What if this net neutrality debate was a clever ploy by telcos to merrily push up rates? And we’ll be like — anything for net freedom! @GabbbarSingh: Someone should launch a start-up just to announce its support to #NetNeutrality “We at Random-Word-with-no-vowels support #NetNeutrality”. @madversity: Net Neutrality has become so popular in Delhi in just three days Aunties want to know where it is available so they can wear it for Karva Chauth.

The battle for net neutrality, in India at least, looks to have exacerbated suddenly in the past few weeks. In truth, however, the issue has been brewing for quite a while, fanned by the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) penchant for preparing sheaves of rules and regulations, sundry disputes and discourses by the Reddit demigods and anyone who owns a blog or a YouTube channel, the Bitcoin mafia’s complacent insistence on being the saviour of the web as we know it, and the rumours and filtered nuggets of news surrounding Google’s plans for a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO).

Here, then, are the main antagonists of our piece: telecom company Airtel (post its announcement of the ostensibly unpopular Airtel Zero plan, so much so that the CEO decided to grace Airtel’s users with an e-mail to “clear the air”) and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) that has taken to pitting Davids (consumers) against Goliaths (telecom companies) by floating a paper (subject to discussion and a cannonade of indignant e-mails) containing “some of the strangest and some ridiculously biased statements”, as Nikhil Pahwa succinctly put it in a MediaNama piece.

According to Airtel’s CEO, their “vision is to have every Indian on the Internet. There are millions of Indians who think that the Internet is expensive and do not know what it can do for them… We know that if we allow them to experience the joys of the Internet they will join the digital revolution.” Noble thought, but the sentiment is marred by the sordid matter of blunt. “Airtel Zero is a technology platform that connects application providers to their customers for free. The platform allows any content or application provider to enrol on it so their customers can visit these sites for free. Instead of charging customers we charge the providers who choose to get on to the platform.” In effect, restricting the freedom of the consumer to choose what site he/she wishes to use.

And I wish telecoms would stop bandying about the word “free” like confetti at a wedding. ‘100 free SMSes per day! Only at Rs. 50 a month!’ Well, I’m still losing Rs. 50, aren’t I? Why would you insult my intelligence by telling me my 100 SMSes are free then? “Customers are free to choose which website they want to visit, whether it is toll free or not. If they visit a toll free site they are not charged for data. If they visit any other site normal data charges apply.” Well, pray tell us plebians, Mr. CEO, since companies like Flipkart, NDTV and others have already abandoned the Airtel Zero ship, and a Google probably mightn’t consider coming aboard, having bigger fish to fry (i.e. its MVNO plans), does not your unequal treatment of these websites go against the very backbone of net neutrality?

The debate on net neutrality has more far-reaching consequences, however, than just having to shell out extra to exchange annoying Whatsapp group messages all day long or Skyping with your significant other. The absence of neutrality will result in a barrage of unregulated technologies and the unprecedented growth of the deep web (the portion of Internet content that is not or cannot be indexed by regular or standard search engines — typically comprising around 90 per cent of data presently available on the World Wide Web). Most of the deep web is a fairly innocuous place, consisting of anything from library catalogues to your private folder of dead baby jokes, but it is also a lair of (mostly) undetectable criminal activity (case in point, the recent shutdown of Silk Road, an online black market for your every requirement, and I mean every requirement).

The deep web, naturally, is the best illustration of “a free, equal, and private Internet” (when its powers are harnessed for good, not evil) and so is its most popular currency — Bitcoin. A Bitcoin is, in the concise words of Danny Bradbury (in an informative CoinDesk piece), “a payment mechanism designed to level the playing field, driving out unnecessary costs and making it possible for even the lowest income members of society to participate in the economy. But it relies on a free and open Internet to do so.” And vice versa. Researchers have been working on a way to make micropayments and encryption work together without privacy or bandwidth compromise via mesh networks (faster connections through nearby peers, thus leading to net neutrality, and further to telecoms becoming skittish). However, steady price gains for Bitcoin as well as altcoins (alternative cryptocurrencies to bitcoin) are undeniable proof that telecoms may have to bow to the inevitable.

Also, in the absence of a free and open Internet, organisations like Wikileaks and Anonymous would abound with alacrity. While some would call that an excellent development, there are those who would want to banish Internet altogether from our fair land, making the aam junta cower, tremble and rage by turns at the usurping of its digital rights.

Another thing that seems to be troubling very few, especially in the wake of the wave of acrimony against Airtel, is Google’s plans to expand into the MVNO market. Google, so goes the news, is planning to go into partnership with Sprint and T-Mobile to further its plans of becoming a wireless carrier. While Google already provides free or subsidised Internet with Project Loon and Google Fiber, the new move could easily prove a challenge to net neutrality. Some see the move as harmless — in fact, for the greater good. Evidenced by a senior software engineer of my acquaintance who, since Google makes money by tracking user information and behaviour online and doesn’t prioritise certain kinds of traffic on the Internet access it provides currently, doesn’t see them having any incentive to do so in the cellular space. In fact, he finds the Google MVNO a fascinating move, especially since Sprint and T-Mobile have far fewer subscribers than ATT or Verizon — meaning that the MVNO provider is at the mercy of these MNOs and that, were Google to be successful with this, it means the MNOs are losing selling power. An interesting irony in the context of net neutrality. On the other hand, a researcher at Centre for Internet and Society and former tech journalist is of the opinion that Google may try to push its services since that has always been the case with corporates, whether they provide CSR freebies or diversify their business.

After all, “Who decides what we consume? What if tomorrow the government decides everyone watching YouTube is wasting their time, or [those] watching cricket should be doing something better? That starts to tread into censorship...” says Vijay Anand of The Startup Centre. I suppose all we can do is keep hope animatedly existent as to the triumph of the freedom in our webspace and spam TRAI’s inbox with as many e-mails as we can.

Net Neutrality

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

How does net neutrality affect you?
The internet is now a level-playing field. Anybody can start up a website, stream music or use social media with the same amount of data that they have purchased with a particular ISP. But in the absence of neutrality, your ISP might favour certain websites over others for which you might have to pay extra. Website A might load at a faster speed than Website B because your ISP has a deal with Website A that Website B cannot afford. It’s like your electricity company charging you extra for using the washing machine, television and microwave oven above and beyond what you are already paying.

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.

Key Players
Internet Service Providers like Airtel, Vodaphone, Reliance... The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India which lays down the rules for telecom companies The Internet companies like Facebook, Google, whatsapp and other smaller startups You, the consumer

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-zara-khan-april-25-2015-freedom-struggle

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

pranesh — 2015-04-27T02:18:18Z

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.

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

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.”

Video

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.”

Watch video: It’s free, no one has to pay to join the app, says Ankhi Das, Facebook India, on internet.org

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.”

Watch video: There should be no prioritisation of one brand over another, says Baijayant Jay Panda on Net Neutrality

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-april-24-2015-net-neutrality-debate

Meeting on Net Neutrality and Related Issues

praskrishna — 2016-08-02T15:56:10Z

A meeting was convened by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on July 15, 2016 in New Delhi to discuss Net Neutrality and related issues. Sunil Abraham attended this meeting.

Click to view the Invitation Letter sent by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/meeting-on-net-neutrality-and-related-issues

Responses to Trai’s consultation paper on free data contain some good suggestions

praskrishna — 2016-08-17T03:05:57Z

Trai has announced that it will come up with a final consultation paper on ‘Free Data’, and also a pre-consultation paper on Net Neutrality by the end of this month.

The blog post by Asheeta Regidi was published by FirstPost's Tech 2 on August 15, 2016.

The pre-consultation paper on Free Data (the Consultation Paper), which was issued in May 2016, asked for options where free data could be provided for accessing certain websites or apps without violating the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations issued earlier in February. The objective of the paper is to maximise internet penetration, and make internet available even to the poorest.

The models suggested in the Consultation Paper are a reward of free data for certain internet uses, zero data charges for accessing certain content, and refunding data charges in a manner similar to refund of LPG subsidies. These models are very similar to plans like Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel Zero, which were banned by the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.

While it is clear that Trai has no intention of withdrawing the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, the Consultation Paper does appear to open up the doors to net neutrality violations again. Here’s a look at the comments and counter-comments that have come in response to this paper.

A motorist rides past a hoarding advertising Facebook’s Free Basics. Image: Reuters

Large TSPs and TSP associations want content-based free data schemes
The response of large TSPs like Vodafone, Idea and so on are quite predictable. They, alongwith most of the TSP associations such as ACTO, COAI and AUSPI, are in support of the idea of free access to certain sites. They, in fact, point out the similarities between the proposed models and the similar models brought out by them, such as Airtel’s One Touch Internet and Reliance’s Facebook Tap. They have also asked for a withdrawal of the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations, on the grounds that they hamper the innovation and forbearance capabilities of the TSPs.

They do, however, take issue with the fact that a TSP agnostic platform, or a platform which is completely independent of the TSPs, is to be given the power to decide how the lower prices or discounts are to be provided. They allege that there is nothing to prevent such a platform from acting as a gatekeeper in itself. They argue that TSPs are in a better position to perform this function, since they are subject to strict regulatory and licensing requirements from Trai.

Employees at an outsourcing centre in Bengaluru Image: Reuters

Smaller TSPs and other companies fear net neutrality violations
Smaller TSPs like Atria, Citicom and MTS are against content based free data proposal, mostly on the grounds that the models suggested violate net neutrality. They point out that allowing content based free data in any form will give an unfair advantage to large TSPs and content providers. Smaller companies and start-ups will be left in the lurch since they will not have the financial capabilities to effectively compete with such schemes. These entities also share the fear of the TSPs that there is nothing to stop a TSP agnostic platform from also acting as a gatekeeper.

Commuters with their smartphones in a Mumbai local. Image: Reuters

Some alternative suggestions for free data schemes which do not violate net neutrality
The approach suggested by Trai will, to a large extent, only benefit existing users of the internet, since a basic internet access of some sort is required before the users can enjoy the benefits of a rewards or a refund. Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), in its comments, points to research that found that only 12 percent of the users of zero rating services abroad (no data charges for certain websites), started using it because of the zero rating. Clearly, these schemes are not achieving the objective of increasing internet usage, and an alternative solution is required.

Many of the responses came up with alternative suggestions for free data schemes which can increase internet usage without violating net neutrality. Some of these suggestions are listed below:

The Digital Empowerment Foundation suggests the provision of free data quotas or packs, which would give a limited amount of data free of charge to all consumers. Any data usage above the basic pack will be charged at normal rates. It also suggests making such packs mandatory as a part of the TSP licensing terms or alternatively subsidising the cost of these packs through other benefits to the TSPs.
MTS suggests that content providers be allowed free internet access for a limited time or quantity, such as 30 minutes per day, or 100MB per day, to certain groups, like low income groups.
Mozilla and SFLC suggest the ‘equal rating’ system, where a small amount of data per day is made available free of charge to all internet users, over and above whatever other packs they may have purchased.
The Centre for Internet and Society suggests that the government allow TSPs to provide free internet to all, at a lower speed, and in return exempt the TSPs from the USO contributions in their license fees. This will ensure free data to all without differentiating based on content.
SFLC also suggests an increase in free public Wi-Fi hotspots, like the kind being made available in Indian railway stations, to increase internet accessibility without content-based discrimination.
MTNL suggests that if content-based free data is to be allowed, the government should determine what constitutes the basic services to be allowed for free, such as railway booking services, and not leave this to the understanding of the TSPs.
MTS also suggests that content providers be allowed to give data-based rewards for certain activity, such as watching associated advertisements.
Atria suggests that if free data is to be allowed, first establish a negative list of what cannot be done, such as no throttling of speeds.

Anonymous protests against Internet laws in Mumbai. Image: Reuters

First establish ground rules of net neturality
One common aspect of most of the comments to the Consultation Paper was the confusion regarding Trai’s stance on net neutrality. Many entities, including the large TSPs, pointed out the contradiction between this Consultation Paper and the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations.

This paper gives the impression that the Discriminatory Tariff Regulations were issued not to prevent content based discrimination, but to prevent telecom service providers from becoming ‘gatekeepers’. In reality, that is not the main fear of the people, but the fear that net neutrality will be affected. The culprits might be anyone, whether it is the TSP, the content provider or the TSP agnostic platform suggested by Trai. It needs to modify its approach, and first lay down the fundamental rules on net neutrality. Any other regulations must first comply with these rules.

While the motives of Trai are laudible, it is hoped that Trai will look into the several suggestions made that will achieve the dual targets of maximum internet penetration as well as securing net neutrality.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/first-post-tech-2-august-15-2016-asheeta-regidi-responses-to-trai-consultation-paper-on-free-data-contain-some-good-suggestions

TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing for Data Services - Post-Open House Discussion Submission

sumandro — 2016-03-30T13:13:30Z

The Centre for Internet and Society sent this submission to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) following the Open House Discussion on Differential Pricing of Data Services, held in Delhi on February 21, 2016.

Download the submission document: PDF.

Post-Open House Discussion Submission to TRAI

Dear Ms. Kotwal,

This is to heartily congratulate TRAI once again for taking several steps, including the Open House Discussion, to ensure that various opinions about the topic of ‘differential pricing for data services’ are presented and are responded to - and are all in full public view.

This brief note is to a) add to the positions and arguments submitted previously by the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India, b) put in writing our comments during the Open House Discussion (January 21, 2016), and c) respond to other comments shared at the same event. We have six points to share in this note:

Forbearance is not an option: We are of the opinion that though the data services market has thus far been kept un-monitored and unregulated, and there are several reasons why this situation should not continue any more. Although the reality of differential pricing (that is data packets originating from different sources being priced differently by ISPs) was highlighted with the recent offering of zero rated packs, it is a general practice in the sector, as illustrated by widely available special/curated content packs for the user to consume data from a specified web-based source. It is not surprising that most such special/curated content packs involve an arrangement between the ISP and a prominent leader in the web-content/platform sector, such as Facebook and Twitter. Serious market distorting impacts of such arrangements are imminent if they are allowed to continue without any monitoring, enforced public disclosure, and regulatory actions by a public authority.
Address differential treatment of data, and not only differential pricing: Pricing is only of the three ways in which data services can be treated differently by the ISPs depending upon the source of the data packets concerned. The other two ways are: a) differential speed, or throttling of some data packets and prioritisation of the others, and b) differential treatment of data protocols, for example, the blocking of peer-to-peer or voice-over-IP traffic by an ISP. If the public authority decides to only regulate differential pricing of data service, it is highly probable that ISPs may shift to other forms of discrimination between data packets - either in terms of prioritising some data packets over others based upon their origin, or blocking of specific protocols such as voice-over-IP to prevent the functioning of certain web-based services - and continue the market distorting impacts through these other means.
Allow and define reasonable network management practices: Reasonable network management has to be allowed to enable the ISPs to manage performance on their network. However, ISPs may not indulge in acts that are harmful to users in the name of reasonable network management. Below is a set of potential guidelines to identify cases when discrimination against classes of data traffic in the name of reasonable network management can be considered justified and permissible:
- there is an intelligible differentia between the classes which are to be treated differently,
- there is a rational nexus between the differential treatment and the aim of such differentiation,
- the aim sought to be furthered is legitimate, and is related to the security, stability, or efficient functioning of the network, or is a technical limitation outside the control of the ISP, and
- the network management practice is the least harmful technical means that is reasonably available to achieve the aim.
Establish an effective enforcement mechanism: TRAI must establish an enforcement mechanism that is open to users [and groups of users] and private sector actors as current forums are insufficient. Clear and simple rules must be established ex-ante, if they are violated - ex-post regulation must be undertaken on the basis of principles listed in the TRAI consultation paper, that is “non-discrimination, transparency, affordable internet access, competition and market entry, and innovation” [1]
Take regulatory decisions now, but also conduct and commission further research to review and refine the decisions over a defined period of time
Need for better collection and proactive disclosure of statistics: TRAI publishes quarterly performance indicators statistics collected from the telecom companies about telephone, mobile, and internet sectors in India [2]. It will be very useful for researchers and analysts, and allow for a much more informed public debate on the matter, if the content and form of such data are improved in the following ways:

Content:
- Please start collection (unless already done) and publication of not only data of average incoming and outgoing MOUs, average of total outgoing SMSs, Average Revenue Per User, and average data usage per GSM and CDMA subscriber, but distributions of the same in terms of user deciles (that is in terms of representative figures for each 10% section of users in ascending order of usage),
- Provide granular data about data usage across service areas and service providers (the numbers on ‘average data usage’ and total ‘revenue from data usage’ provided at present are very insufficient for the state of public debate),
- Provide data about internet subscriber base according to network technologies (for both wired and wireless) and the service providers concerned,
- Provide data about IP-based telephony across service areas and service providers,
- Provide data separately for the North Eastern states, and
- Provide granular data (separated from the corresponding state data) for all tier-1 cities.
Form:
- Please do not publish the data only as part of the quarterly reports available in PDF format, but also as independent machine-readable spreadsheet file (preferably in CSV format),
- Do not only publish quarterly data in separate files, but also provide a combined (all quarters together) dataset that would make it much easier for researchers and analysts to use the data,
- In some exceptional cases, the data is not provided in the report directly but a diagram containing the data is published [3], which should be kindly avoided, and
- Please publish these statistics as open data, that is in open standards and under open licenses.

Further, we request TRAI to explore possibilities of distributed sourcing of data, perhaps from the users themselves, about the actual network usage experiences, including but not limited to signal strength, data transfer speed (incoming and outgoing), frequency of switches between mobile (GSM and CDMA) and wi-fi connectivity, etc.

References

[1]. http://trai.gov.in/WriteReaddata/ConsultationPaper/Document/CP-Differential-Pricing-09122015.pdf.

[2]. http://www.trai.gov.in/Content/PerformanceIndicatorsReports/1_1_PerformanceIndicatorsReports.aspx.

[3]. http://www.trai.gov.in/WriteReadData/PIRReport/Documents/Performance_Indicator_Report_Jun_2015.pdf , sections 1.43 and 1.44 (pp. 31-32).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services

Net neutrality: Trai receives over 2 lakh mails

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T02:11:15Z

The idea of an open internet can bring together not just worried netizens but politicians of all hues.

The article by Sandhya Soman and Jayanta Deka was published in the Times of India on April 14, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

On a day when the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India got more than 2 lakh emails by Monday afternoon from Indian netizens annoyed by possible efforts to make internet an unequal space, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal and DMK leader MK Stalin also defended net neutrality.

While Kejriwal tweeted that "India MUST debate #NetNeutrality. I support #Saveinternet campaign www.savetheinternet.in", Stalin in his statement said that any move to allow telecom companies to give preferential access to websites would go against the concept of equality.

Telecom minister Ravishankar Prasad, meanwhile, told media that a special DoT panel will come out with its report on net neutrality in May.

The latest fight for net neutrality — the idea that all traffic is treated equally by internet service providers — gained momentum after Trai put up a consultation paper on the topic asking users to give their views before April 24. The paper was in response to demands from telecom companies seeking to splice up internet into various packages so they could charge users based on what websites and services they were using. The companies' specific grouse is against services like Skype, Whatsapp and Viber, which they claim are eating into their profits.

"Net neutrality is about ensuring that ISPs don't end up harming universal access, effective competition and consumer benefit," says Pranesh Prakash, policy director, Centre for Internet and Society. This means that what Airtel was trying to do in December by preventing its customers from accessing WhatsApp, Skype and Viber without paying extra shouldn't be permitted, Prakash says.

One of the worst case scenarios could be the murder of innovation, says Srinivasan Ramani, 'director, National Centre for Software Technology (now, part of C-DAC).

"New ways of doing things are disruptive — Voice over Internet Protocol demonstrated how inexpensive voice calls could be. Video calls over the internet demonstrate what the old telephone technology could not do in a cost-effective manner, can now be done with ease," Ramani says. If ISPs get greater control over the internet they may end up killing the golden goose, he says.

Neutrality of the internet is essential to a wide variety of users, from bloggers, entrepreneurs and to students. "A non-neutral internet is like offering a separate driving lane to people who own a Ferrari, Mercedes or any other luxury vehicle," says Harsh Agrawal, a professional blogger atshoutmeloud.com. He is clear that he can't pay telecom operators to offer better speeds to his blog. "But what if one of my competitors can afford to pay for preferential treatment for his website? It could be a huge loss to me," Agrawal says.

E-commerce startup-founder Catherine Dohling has the same fear. "We want our website to be accessed by anyone who is interested in our products and this should not be governed by which telecom provider a person buys data from," says Dohling, co-founder of TheNorthEastStore.com.

Activists like Lobsang Tseten, who relies on digital media to reach out to people, fear that if there is no net neutrality, it could mean that a huge chunk of the NGO's grassroots base could be taken away unless users pay. "This is a very underhand way of stopping people from accessing certain websites and products," says Tseten, Asia regional coordinator of International Tibet Network.

With many biggies like Flipkart considering Airtel's Zero plan, which aims to offer free consumer browsing for such companies that sign up with the telco, start-up enthusiasts are also troubled. "An internet that is non-neutral would be a huge set-back for people like me who want to create a tech start-up. We would have to factor in a good sum of money for tie-ups with ISPs," says Rahul Kumar, an IIT-Kanpur student.

However, some activists say that some nuances of what is net neutrality are getting lost as the campaign gathers steam. On Monday, several angry netizens tweeted about uninstalling Flipkart's app and actively working to get it down voted. "What we need are regulations that ensure access, competition and benefit consumers instead of proposing specific outcomes or solutions," says Prakash.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-times-of-india-april-14-2015-sandhya-soman-and-jayanta-deka-net-neutrality-trai-receives-over-two-lakh-mails

Net neutrality debate rages

praskrishna — 2015-05-08T14:45:34Z

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game.

The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran was published in the Hindu on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

It’s a major victory for the proponents of net neutrality and a big setback for service provider Airtel. As the e-commerce firm Flipkart pulled out of talks on joining the controversial Airtel Zero platform, launched by Airtel last week, the debate on net neutrality has taken a fresh turn in the Indian context. In the wake of a virtual uproar in social media and following wide condemnation by votaries of net neutrality, Flipkart has to just give in. With Flipkart-induced new twist in the net neutrality game, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), mostly telecom operators, are running for cover without knowing how to deal with the evolving situation that has the potential to adversely affect their business.

While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game. And, they are unwilling to comment on a subject that has become an emotive issue. There are, however, voices which seek a middle path as solution to this issue.

“We are in favour of net neutrality. But this has to be defined in the Indian context. That is what TRAI is precisely doing. The debate on net neutrality is appropriate and important. All stakeholders should be able to decide what is net neutrality for India after due debate,” said Rajan Mathews, Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). “We must have a holistic approach to this issue. There should be rational debate, and we are committed for open and non-discriminatory Internet,” Mr Mathews added. A thought must go into protecting the interest of telecom operators as well, he felt.

While supporting net neutrality, analysts have voiced concern over its impact on the finances of telecos. “Net neutrality is a fair concept but it must take into account the concerns of telecom operators and ensure that their revenue and margins are not significantly impacted,” said Rajiv Gupta, Partner and Director, BCG. “Some kind of middle path needs to be achieved,” Mr Gupta said. Only a few countries so far have made net neutrality into a law. “We are yet to see whether our government’s moral support for net neutrality can translate into a law,” Mr Gupta added.

Surprisingly, Airtel which has come under flak on two occasions in last four months for alleged violation of net neutrality norms, too, has pledged its support for net neutrality! “Airtel fully supports the concept of net neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll free data platform Airtel Zero. It is a not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform that allows any application or content provider to offer their service on a toll free basis to their customers who are on our network… The statement made by Flipkart regarding their decision not to offer toll-free data service to their customers is consistent with our stand that Airtel Zero is not a tariff proposition. It is merely an open platform for content providers to provide toll free-data services,” Airtel said. Without spelling out the future of Airtel Zero, it said “The platform remains open to all companies who want to offer these toll free data services to their customers on a completely non-discriminatory basis.” Over 150 start-ups have already expressed willingness to come on board Airtel Zero.

Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “The need for net neutrality is very real and urgent. There are many practices that telecom companies are trying to engage in, such as blocking of WhatsApp to force customers to pay more money for it, which ought not to be allowed.” On Airtel Zero plan, he said “We should clearly separate out the issue of "zero rating" from that of "net neutrality". ``Only anti-competitive instances of zero-rating - for instance, Airtel offering it's own Hike service for free, or Airtel entering into an exclusive deal with Flipkart for zero-rating its app — are problems. Competitive zero-rating, with regulatory safeguards to ensure a fair and efficient marketplace, should be allowed, just as we allow free TV channels and allow toll-free numbers. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly,” Mr Prakash said.

No such plans: Snapdeal

Snapdeal said, “We have no such plans at this point, especially given the regulatory framework is unclear.’’

Zero rating is a practice among mobile network operators, where customers are not charged for a certain volume of data by specific applications or internet services.

An Amazon spokesperson said, “Amazon supports net neutrality - the fundamental openness of the Internet - which has been so beneficial to consumers and innovation.”

Earlier, Facebook and Reliance Communications had partnered for Internet.org. Reliance had announced in 2012 that it would offer free Facebook and WhatsApp for Rs 16 a month, without any additional data costs.

Amidst the debate on net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said a six-member panel had been constituted by the telecom department to submit its recommendations regarding the same by early next month.

Start-ups for net neutrality:

Sumit Jain, Co-Founder & CEO, CommonFloor.com

“It’s well acknowledged that Internet has disrupted the world of business like no other technology has in last few decades. It has enabled start-ups with hardly any capital and clout to make a mark. So by rejecting net neutrality, we will be shutting the door on the entrepreneurial aspirations of millions and will leave telcos to play the gate-keeper to a valuable resource as the Internet and challenges the democratic behaviour that Internet in known for”.

Sameer Parwani, CEO & Founder, CouponDunia

“We will stand for net neutrality. India has been in the forefront of digital world. It is the Internet that has given the country hope and aspirations to the common man to be informed and entertained. Not being able to give equal access will just make the situation anti- competitive and it will have a negative effect on the upcoming businesses.”

Kashyap Vadapalli, Chief Marketing officer, Pepperfry

“Lack of net neutrality supports a monopolistic market which will adversely affect the growing start-up eco-system. While heavily funded businesses will be able to maintain their supremacy over consumers start-ups will stand to lose out heavily. We do not encourage discrimination of any sorts when it comes to consumer's access to information.”

Yogendra Vasupal, Founder of Stayzilla

“Airtel Zero seems like an innovative solution to bring Internet to every person. Whether this is on a firm footing or a slippery slope will be decided by the actual implementation. The current way of individual companies buying Internet for their consumers is a slippery slope. The right way to do it would be through a central consortium formed from the e-commerce companies and who has the interests of both the start-ups in this sector and the end-users in mind. After all, Internet is all about freedom of choice. Keeping in mind that currently it would be free only if you use a particular company makes it free at the cost of the freedom of choice it offers. This is everyone's loss.”

Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, OYO Rooms

“Net neutrality is absolutely essential for a free and competitive market especially now since there is a start-up boom in the country particularly in the online sector. Most importantly, Internet was created to break boundaries and as concerned industry players, we should maintain that. We support net neutrality and will do all needed to build this further.”

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages

Net Neutrality: The argument continues

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T11:35:23Z

Opposing camps pitch their views on what zero rating and differential access to the internet would mean in India.

The interview was published by Forbes India magazine on April 29, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.

The debate on net neutrality in India is playing out on the internet, social media, television and newspapers. On one side, there are telecom service providers who believe in services such as zero rating and sponsor-enabled free access to the internet for consumers; on the other, there are proponents of free and fair access to the internet who consider variable access as a violation of the principles of net neutrality.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) has launched a consultation paper, inviting views from the public to analyse the implications of the growth of internet services, apps, over-the-top services (OTTs) and consider changes required in the current regulatory framework.

To get both sides of the argument, Forbes India spoke to Rajan Mathews, director general at the Cellular Operators Association of India, and Pranesh Prakash, policy director at The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS), a Bangalore-based, non-profit, research and policy advocacy.

Q. How are zero rating and net neutrality linked? And if they are separate issues, what differentiates them?
Rajan Mathews: Zero rating and net neutrality are two separate issues. Net neutrality is about not denying access, and about the absence of unreasonable differentiation on the part of network operators in transmitting internet traffic. Zero rating is when operators subsidise tariffs as a result of commercial arrangements with application providers who do not discriminate against the customer, but provide a benefit. Zero rating is not a net neutrality issue since access to all content and applications remains open. Such arrangements increase social welfare by transferring the cost of internet access from consumers to content providers. If a content provider deems its revenues to be substantial and wishes to engage in distribution arrangements with last-mile access providers to subsidise access to its services, it should be allowed to do so. Zero rating should be the customer’s choice.

Pranesh Prakash: The issues of net neutrality and zero rating are intrinsically linked. Zero rating is the practice of not counting certain traffic towards a subscriber’s regular internet usage. The motivations for zero rating are many. Unbundling is one. For example, a consumer wishes to use a WhatsApp pack as opposed to accessing WhatsApp through the regular internet pack. Self-interest is another: Showcase the internet’s value through cheap or free packs of certain internet services so that customers graduate to higher data packages.

All forms of zero rating—zero-priced, fixed-priced, subscriber-paid or internet service provider (ISP)-paid, content-based or content provider-based—have one thing in common: They are instances of discrimination on the network. This links it to net neutrality, which, at its core, is a question about discrimination by ISPs.

We shouldn’t only be focussed on the existing models of zero rating while regulating it, but also on the models that may emerge in the future.

Q. Zero rating is seen as an attempt to give internet access to millions of Indians who can’t afford an internet connection. Is there a different, but net-neutral, way to do this?
Mathews: Zero rating is [offered] in the nature of a subsidy, which is prevalent and practiced in all forms of businesses. For example, MS Office is available at different rates to different consumers such as homes and businesses, students and enterprises. It is for the consumer to choose which version to buy. The same should be applicable to telecom services as well.

Prakash: Just because something provides access to the bottom of the pyramid doesn’t make it something we should have. For example, predatory pricing is something that might benefit all subscribers in the short term but, over time, it harms the market, competition and consumers. Suppose all ISPs are mandated to provide internet for free to everyone; in the short run, everyone will get free internet but it’s not a sustainable business practice for ISPs. If free internet can be sustainably provided, that’s not harmful. The current debate is to evaluate if we can ensure a method where we can have competition while providing access to the bottom of the pyramid.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/forbes-india-april-29-2015-deepak-ajwani-debojyoti-ghosh-net-neutrality-the-argument-continues