Centre for Internet and Society

Mapping Web Censorship & Net Neutrality Violations

pranav — 2020-10-05T07:59:47Z

For over a year, researchers at the Centre for Internet and Society have been studying website blocking by internet service providers (ISPs) in India. We have learned that major ISPs don’t always block the same websites, and also use different blocking techniques. To take this study further, and map net neutrality violations by ISPs, we need your help. We have developed CensorWatch, a research tool to collect empirical evidence about what websites are blocked by Indian ISPs, and which blocking methods are being used to do so. Read more about this project (link), download CensorWatch (link), and help determine if ISPs are complying with India’s net neutrality regulations.

Learn more about website blocking in India, through our recent work on the issue —

Using information from court orders, user reports, and government orders, and running network tests from six ISPs, Kushagra Singh, Gurshabad Grover and Varun Bansal presented the largest study of web blocking in India. Through their work, they demonstrated that major ISPs in India use different techniques to block websites, and that they don’t block the same websites (link).
Gurshabad Grover and Kushagra Singh collaborated with Simone Basso of the Open Observatory of Network Interference (OONI) to study HTTPS traffic blocking in India by running experiments on the networks of three popular Indian ISPs: ACT Fibernet, Bharti Airtel, and Reliance Jio (link).
For The Leaflet, Torsha Sarkar and Gurshabad Grover wrote about the legal framework of blocking in India — Section 69A of the IT Act and its rules. They considered commentator opinions questioning the constitutionality of the regime, whether originators of content are entitled to a hearing, and whether Rule 16, which mandates confidentiality of content takedown requests received by intermediaries from the Government, continues to be operative (link).
In the Hindustan Times, Gurshabad Grover critically analysed the confidentiality requirement embedded within Section 69A of the IT Act and argued how this leads to internet users in India experiencing arbitrary censorship (link).
Torsha Sarkar, along with Sarvjeet Singh of the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), spoke to Medianama delineating the procedural aspects of section 69A of the IT Act (link).
Arindrajit Basu spoke to the Times of India about the geopolitical and regulatory implications of the Indian government’s move to ban fifty-nine Chinese applications from India (link).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations

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

Indians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges

subha — 2015-02-11T15:10:44Z

Click to read the article published in the Global Voices on December 30, 2014.

After Indian mobile data service provider Airtel announced plans to introduce data charges for VoIP usage, it received a rash of criticism from customers and open web advocates alike.

With 192.22 million users (as of August 2013), Airtel is India's largest mobile telephony provider and Asia-Pacific's second largest mobile operator. Although plans are now on hold due to regulatory restrictions, advocates worry that the company may yet find a way impose the fee increase.

On December 26, company proposed to raise costs for mobile phone users who rely on services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber to communicate with their contacts, requiring them to pay Rs.0.04/10KB (0.063 USD, based on current conversion rate) for 3G and Rs. 0.10/10KB (0.158 USD) for 2G service where a local or national call will cost one third of this amount or less.

If you pay a fixed amount for internet data pack, Airtel will charge you extra for internet calls on Skype, Viber or any free calling app. How much? 4 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 3G and 10 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 2G.

- Netneutrality.in

The new plan to charge Rs. 75 for 75 MB of data usage over VoIP calls was heavily criticized on social media:

So let me get this straight. Airtel is worried about people using a mere 75 MB out of their data allowance? WTF? #BoycottAirtel

— Madhu Menon (@madmanweb) December 26, 2014

Messages against Airtel on Twitter and Facebook included hashtags such as #BoycottAirtel and #NetNeutrality.

In protest of Airtel India's violation of net neutrality principles, I disabled all data packs in my mobile number .

I am not using skype or viber usually . My usual video requirements arechatb.org and Google hangout. But a carrier breaking net neutrality is a very serious development . Raise your voice against this .

Read More about Airtel Breaking Net Neutrality here http://netneutrality.in/

I would like to port to some other services without gate keeping after a few weeks If airtel continues same path.

‪#‎netneutrality‬ ‪#‎india‬ ‪#‎airtel‬ ‪#‎fail‬

- Anivar Joshina (on Facebook)

In an op-ed, Indian online news portal Niti Central's CEO Shashi Shekhar said the move could put Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's “Digital India” initiative in jeopardy.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of a Digital India will be in jeopardy unless the larger mess in Telecom is fixed urgently on priority and “Net Neutrality” does not make that priority list.

- Shashi Shekhar, CEO, Niti Central

Airtel has not released any further response on the issue of net neutrality since their initial announcement, which read as follows:

All Internet/data packs or plans (through which customer can avail discounted rate) shall only be valid for internet browsing and will exclude VoIP (Both incoming/ Outgoing). VoIP over data connectivity would be charged at standard data rates of 4p / 10 KB (3G service) and 10p / 10 KB (2G service).

- Published on Telecomtalk.info

Reacting to the public outcry against Airtel, India's Union Minister of Communications Ravi Shankar Prasad pledged to look into matter. According to news portal First Post, telecom operators voiced opposition to “over-the-top” VoIP services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber for some time, but the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has thus far stood in the way of a price increase.

Airtel has started on plans to charge OTT users particularly using VOIP services like viber and skype. TRAI had earlier this year rejected such demands from Indian operators. Even after this Airtel has gone ahead and kickstarted this practice.

- Sandip Pillai (on Change.org)

Airtel has pushed for a policy level change to legitimize exceptional data charges and many other over-the-top services. But these were declined by TRAI who contended that Airtel's plans were “illegal and violation of net neutrality,” forcing Airtel to drop the plan — for now.

In view of the news reports that a consultation paper will be issued shortly by TRAI on issues relating to services offered by OTT players including VOIP, we have decided not to implement our proposed launch of VoIP packs.

We have no doubt that as a result of the consultation process a balanced outcome would emerge that would not only protect the interests of all stakeholders and viability of this important sector but would also encourage much needed investments in spectrum and roll out of data networks to fulfill the objective of digital India.

- Reported on MediaNama by Nikhil Pahwa

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges

Indian activists slam FCC decision to ditch net neutrality

Admin — 2017-12-18T15:27:04Z

Indian net neutrality activists are assured the ongoing net neutrality tussle in the US will have no impact on India.

The article by Kul Bhushan was published in the Hindustan Times on November 23, 2017.

Net neutrality is in the news again. This time it is because the US’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to formally scrap existing protections that are meant to keep access to internet equitable.

India had its own tryst with the idea of net neutrality after it blocked the zero-rating programmes by social networking giant Facebook — which proposed to rollout the Internet.org or Free Basics project in February last year.

A powerful social media campaign made Facebook back down and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to announce that ‘differential pricing’ — a practice where some services or sites are priced in a special manner — will no longer be allowed.

Some people who were at the forefront of the net neutrality campaign in here almost three years ago have expressed their displeasure over the FCC’s move.

“I think the approach the FCC is taking is flawed. Spectrum is a public resource and it needs to be spent on maximisation of public good. That public good, and the utility of the Internet is based on the freedom that people have to create new apps and services, without needing permission from ISPs, or the fear that ISPs might discriminate against them or favour their competitors. This is what net neutrality enables,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of publication Medianama and one of the activists.

“By going against Net Neutrality, FCC chairman Ajit Pai is attacking the core of what makes the Internet tick. We didn’t let that happen in India, and instead, focused on increasing competition between ISPs and telecom operators, because of which we’ve see broadband prices drop, quality of service improve, a tremendous growth in Internet users in India. For this, we owe a great debt to all those who supported Net Neutrality, especially the TRAI,” he added.

Apar Gupta, who is closely associated with the ‘Save the Internet’ initiative and is the co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation, said, “FCC’s move to take back the internet order is a huge setback to the global campaign to ensure open internet because it undermines the net neutrality.”

“I don’t think the development should impact the regulatory process in India considering TRAI’s strong support for net neutrality. I hope that TRAI comes out with a comprehensive network neutrality regulation in the future,” he responded when asked about the possible impact on India of the FCC move.

Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation Centre for Internet and Society, said there should be no impact on India from the FCC move.

He also slammed FCC chief Pai’s attempt to change the existing net neutrality rules. “What Ajit Pai is trying to do he’s not saying he will not regulate. He is saying when companies violate net neutrality principles they should be transparent about it. He hopes the magic of market competition will help resolve the problem,” he said

“Pai’s approach to the net neutrality might work in a market where there is a lot of competition. In the US, there is no competition and that in case damage will be immediate,” he added.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality

India’s net neutrality debate is unique and complex

praskrishna — 2015-12-30T16:38:45Z

Connectivity to millions in India is main issue

The article by Pratap Vikram Singh was published in Governance Now on December 14, 2015.

The net neutrality debate has perplexed layman and policy experts alike. For a developing country like India, where a majority of the population doesn’t have access to internet, whether government should stick to the core principles or should it allow flexibility in network management practices to operators is still not clear yet. Whether India should go for an overarching, prophylactic regulation (ex ante), prohibiting any kind of zero rating, or should it adopt evidence-based, contextual regulation (ex post facto)? Whether zero rating should be allowed and if allowed then on what conditions? This is what experts from telecom industry and civil society deliberated in a round table on network neutrality jointly organised by Observer Research Foundation and Centre for Internet and Society on Saturday.

Neutrality refers to open and non-discriminatory nature of internet; information (or say data packets) has always flown freely on the network. Facebook, Google and many other internet businesses have emerged as a result of free and non discriminatory nature of internet.

Warning against taking a 'doctrinaire' approach to net neutrality, a telecom industry expert said that regulators must have flexibility to respond to market demand in the telecom industry. Adding that Indian market is unique with more than seven-ten telecom operators providing internet facility, the expert said that net neutrality will play differently in developing countries.

He said if implemented properly, the zero-rating approach or sponsored content followed by TSPs, “can be one of the ways to scale up internet access” to the unconnected regions.

Another industry expert said that the regulations on network neutrality has to be contextualized in terms of geography. He criticized the ‘savetheinternet’ movement, which galvanised support of one million internet users in favour of strict neutrality, for preventing one billion people from accessing ‘free’ internet. He said that telecom operators’ revenue from zero rating plans is less than one percent.

He was also against bringing net neutrality under the purview of competition commission of India. He said that there are already several laws related to consumer protection, information technology and monopoly to deal with situations arising out of neutrality issue.

An internet freedom activist said that zero rating can be allowed under stringent conditions of transparency, non-exclusivity and reasonability. He said that one way of setting the neutrality debate would be to allow zero rating with an amount of equal rating. This means that telecom players can offer toll free access to certain websites but they would also have to provide free 100 Mb or 200 Mb data connectivity within which a user can access any website or app for free.

“Countries like the US can afford to debate on net neutrality as almost 90 percent of their population are connected to internet. Here (in India) we should first worry about providing internet access to our people,” an ORF researcher said, speaking on the sidelines of the roundtable discussion.

The neutrality debate is getting momentum again with TRAI’s consultation paper being released on December 9. In its second paper, TRAI suggested, “that TSPs could provide initial data consumption for free, without limiting it to any particular content. Current examples of this approach include allowing free browsing or discounted tariffs for specified time windows, or giving away a certain amount of data for free.”

The regulator also called for regulation that “must seek a balance between ensuring wider access to the internet,” and in the manner that does not allow discrimination in charging tariffs from the users consuming varied content. The regulator has asked all stakeholders in telecom industry to come up with alternative methods in order to provide free access of internet to the consumers, and keep competition and innovation in the market intact.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india2019s-net-neutrality-debate-is-unique-and-complex

India Sets Strict New Net Neutrality Rules

praskrishna — 2016-02-11T01:53:19Z

In India, advocates of net neutrality have welcomed new rules by the telecom regulator that have blocked efforts by Facebook to offer free but limited access to the web in the country’s fast growing Internet market.

The article by Anjana Pasricha was published in Voice of America on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

In a widely awaited ruling, the Telecom Regulator Authority of India (TRAI) said on Monday that “no service provider shall charge differential pricing on the basis of application, platforms or websites or sources." It will impose penalties of $735 a day if the regulations are broken.

Kiran Jonnalagadda, who was among a group of 10 that launched an impassioned campaign called Save the Internet, says they have won a “fabulous” victory against large corporations to ensure equal web access for millions.

“We were up against the most powerful companies in the world, we had no chance of fighting Airtel last year, we had no chance of fighting Facebook. I think the only reason it worked is that we were on the side of facts, the opposition was not,” says Jonnalagadda.

Debate on Airtel

The campaign on net neutrality snowballed into a nationwide public debate after an Indian telecom company, Airtel, launched a marketing platform last April on which it planned to offer customers access with no data charges to certain Internet services and sites.

In recent weeks, the focus turned to “Free Basics”, a service being offered by Facebook on mobile phones to a handful of sites in areas such as communication, healthcare, and education.

Saying it wanted to vastly expand Internet access in poor, rural areas, Facebook had launched a massive advertising campaign in support of the platform. Only about 300 million in the country of 1.2 billion people have access to the net, many just through mobile devices.

But campaigners slammed Free Basics as “poor Internet for poor people” and said it would create a “walled garden” in which Facebook would control the content it offered users. Leading Indian technology entrepreneurs and university professors also called on the government to guard against attempts by Internet giants to turn the country into a “digital colony.”

Many of them have applauded the regulator’s move to strengthen net neutrality.

Ban on differential pricing

However, some are raising questions about the the complete ban on differential pricing announced by the regulator. That includes the Bangalore-based Center for Internet and Society research group, which says India has put in place the most stringent net neutrality regulations across the world. Its executive director, Sunil Abraham, says TRAI cited the examples of the Netherlands and Chile, but the ban on differential pricing in those countries is not as absolute as the one notified in India.

“We think that if proper technological safeguards and other market safeguards are put in place, it would be possible to have both — to have rapid growth in Internet access and reduced harm that emerge[s] from network neutrality violations,” says Abraham.

Indeed, the last word may not have been said on net neutrality in India as big telecom operators are expected to mount legal challenges to the regulator’s ruling in the coming months.

Expressing disappointment with India’s ruling, the Cellular Operators Association of India has called the ban on differential pricing a “welfare reducing measure” that could block an avenue for “less advantaged citizens to move to increased economic growth and prosperity by harnessing the power of the Internet.”

In a statement, Facebook has said “we will continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the Internet.”

But after having tasted victory, the volunteers at Save the Internet, who have grown from about 10 to 100 in the last year, have already set their sights on another aspect of net neutrality besides differential pricing.

“The campaign is not going to retire because this is not the end of it. There is also discrimination on the basis of speed, which the regulator has not taken up yet,” says Jonnalagadda.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/voice-of-america-anjana-pasricha-february-9-2016-india-sets-strict-new-net-neutrality-rules

From net neutrality to IBC & Aadhaar, how Vidhi is framing key government legislation

Admin — 2018-01-04T14:45:59Z

It's not every day that a 30-something former Oxford academic disrupts the plans of the world's biggest disruptor.

The article by Surabhi Agarwal and Samanwaya Rautray was published in Economic Times on January 4, 2018.

But Arghya Sengupta is no pushover — his boyish charm perfectly couches confidence, clarity and commitment towards translating law for the layman. That alone helped Sengupta and his team from the Vidhi Centre of Legal Policy to take on none other than Facebook's Mark Zukerberg and his army of public policy wonks and spin doctors during the fiery net neutrality debate, helping the telecom regulator draft guidelines. Vidhi's intervention had a huge impact and led to Facebook's Free Basics programme being called off, changing the global narrative on net neutrality forever. That zeal continues.

Walk into their office in a plush Defence Colony bungalow even at 7 pm and you will feel the fervour. The day ET did, two colleagues were discussing interference in appointments to tribunals.

Judicial reforms is one of the many independent research projects Vidhi has been pursuing since it came into existence in December 2013. It has since carved out a significant role for itself in framing key government legislations — perhaps more than any legal think tank in India. In fact, several of Vidhi's independent research projects on public policy have led to commissioned assignments from the government as well as the judiciary.

The Game Begins

Vidhi's first government assignment had to do with the ministry of finance's Public Procurement Bill. Since then, it has assisted in framing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the Aadhaar Act and amendments to the Companies Act. It has also helped in drafting differential pricing norms under net neutrality guidelines issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. It is currently working on the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) and Data Protection Bills, and is also involved in deliberations over simplifying GST.

So how did this not-for-profit organisation manage such velocity? Sengupta, the 33-year-old founder of Vidhi, points to the void that exists between good legal research and framing of legislations in India. "A particular problem that exists within the governance framework is that good policy ideas don't often translate into good legislation because lawyers and policy makers don't talk to each other," he says to explain where Vidhi fits in. "There is nothing special about us...Policy and law is a new area and there are very few people doing high-quality work in it." Vidhi is mostly engaged directly by ministries or departments drafting a particular law, and not by the law ministry.

Sengupta, former faculty at Pembroke College in the UK, where he taught administrative law, emphasises that Vidhi does not draft laws, only assists in their drafting. "To some, we provide inputs and research, while for others we sit together to draft the legislation."

Their primary goal is to draft better law — and they have no competition. The only other organisation coming even close is NIPFP, providing sectorial services for government committees. In that sense, NIPFP doesn't have lawyers so they may not draft the law, says Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bengaluru-based think tank, Centre for Internet and Society (CIS). "Vidhi's efforts are pioneering and it's not surprising that they have become so successful. They are like that Mad Magazine tagline, number one in the field of one," he quips. "Other bodies such as Carnegie Mellon are vehicles for US MNCs to lobby but Vidhi doesn't have any foreign funding, so they are credible for the government," says Abraham, who was member of the Shah Committee when privacy principals were being drafted.

An Outsider Perspective

"Drafting of legislations requires a whole lot of research. Ten years ago, there weren't any institutions that did that kind of work," says Sumit Bose, Vidhi's current chairman. This retired bureaucrat was instrumental in getting Vidhi its first project as then finance secretary.

He was introduced to Sengupta through his daughter and son-in-law, a graduate of National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru. Although things are better now, Bose says, many states still don't have enough capacity for the research behind laws. "You need one foot in the door, and then it's up to you," says Sengupta, son of a teacher and banker in Kolkata.

In a system where the legislative department is typically engaged to draft laws, Vidhi has emerged as the "new interface" between policy and law-making, says its board member Arvind Datar, a senior advocate in the Supreme Court. "They have the unique ability to give an outsider's perspective to any area of law." Datar says Vidhi did extensive research for former Attorney-General Mukul Rohatgi in debates on Aadhaar and the National Judicial Appointments Commission.

Other members on Vidhi's board include Star India chief executive Uday Shankar, strategic adviser Ireena Vittal and NLSIU associate professor Govindraj Hegde. A Union minister familiar with Vidhi's work offers an explanation as to why the government was roping it in. "It is about comfort as well as secrecy and they bring both," he says, asking not to be identified.

A top bureaucrat who has worked extensively with Vidhi says it is not a yes man, and this sets it apart. "Many times, they refuse to include our suggestions, telling us that it will not stand the scrutiny of court or it will not be proper from a legal standpoint," he explains, also requesting anonymity. "There is a lot of research that goes into drafting a legislation, be it pertaining to international best practices or previous judgements. Post a lot of internal discussions, these inputs are included."

Another government official says his department has a running advisory contract with Vidhi. "They are very young people with fresh ideas. They may not fight cases, but they do a lot of good table research, bringing up new legal points." Sengupta says not many organisations are doing similar work. "A lot of the work of this nature is done by universities."

Resistance to Change

Among the biggest reforms Vidhi has worked on are the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and Aadhaar Act, with GST being an ongoing task. Vidhi helped translate Aadhaar from an executive order to a statutory body. As for the IBC, Sengupta's assessment is that it was a reform 50 years late and essential for entrepreneurship to grow.

But what remains " Vidhi's single-most rewarding experience" is shepherding the net neutrality guidelines. "I think this government is very keen on systemic reforms. They have the appetite to change status quo," says Sengupta. Even so, some legislations Vidhi has been involved with face stiff resistance from citizen-activists.

Sengupta isn't perturbed. He distinctly outlines Vidhi's purpose and role in policymaking — advise the government to ensure that a law being drafted is constitutional, clear, takes into account international best practices and can be implemented effectively. "I believe all opposition is good because it makes everybody think. A lot of the opposition—be it to Aadhaar or to payment-related clauses in IBC —is to the concept," he says. "We didn't come up with the concept so we don't see it as a criticism of our work."

Early Opportunities

Vidhi began as an idea when Sengupta was a graduate student at Oxford University. Along with a lawyer friend, he began sending unsolicited legal input to the parliamentary standing committee looking into the controversial Indo-US Nuclear Liability Bill. To the duo's surprise, it was called to depose before the committee; later, the Department of Atomic Energy sought help with some sections. "We drafted 17 sections and of those, two became law... It was a great opportunity for us," says Sengupta.

This was followed by solicited and unsolicited work during 2010-12 on eight projects, including the Judicial Standards and Accountability, Prevention of Torture and Public Procurement Bills.

The think tank currently has about 40 employees and opened a second office in Bengaluru in August.

Sengupta credits Vidhi's early success to Ashok Ganguly, former chairman of Hindustan Lever (now Unilever) who was also a member of Parliament. In 2011, Ganguly was putting together a representation on policy paralysis and wanted help with research. Ganguly, who would become Vidhi's first chairman, put Sengupta in touch with several people, some of whom provided grant funding to get the think tank going. That did raise some eyebrows.

Conflict of Interest

As they spread their wings, the think tank received funding from the Mahindra Group, Pirojsha Godrej Foundat ion, Vikram Sarabhai Foundation, Jamsetji Tata Trusts, Gourab Banerji, Mohandas Pai and Rohini Nilekani. Verticals within Vidhi have separate funding. For instance, the unit working on the Judicial Reforms Bill is funded by a group called Dasra, which is a collective of philanthropists. And yet, Sengupta says "fund-raising is a constant challenge."

While government work does cover costs, it is not enough to sustain the organisation. Sengupta did not divulge how much Vidhi earns from a typical government project. Over half of the work that Vidhi does is independent research on topics ranging from clean air in Delhi to euthanasia and judicial reform.

Vidhi's fundraising, though, brings up a serious issue of possible conflict of interest, given its work on key legislations such as the Aadhaar Act while being funded by entities that could be affected directly or indirectly by those legislations. For example, Rohini Nilekani, is the wife of Aadhaar architect Nandan Nilekani, who funds Vidhi which not only assisted in drafting the Aadhaar Act but is now also involved with the Data Protection Bill that has key implications on the unique identity number.

Sengupta has also been called to argue in the landmark debate on whether privacy is a fundamental right — ignited after the Supreme Court received scores of petitions against Aadhaar — on request of the government's top lawyers arguing against it. Sanjay Hegde, senior Supreme Court advocate, says, "I see credibility issues when Sengupta argues in favour of Aadhaar in court in the privacy debate and, at the same time, is nominated on the Dr Srikrishna Committee, which is drafting the Data Protection Bill."

He adds, "In a city replete with think tanks and law firms, it would be interesting to see what percentage of government advisory work in terms of billing is cornered by this think tank alone."

Sengupta's defence is that Vidhi believes in transparency and doesn't accept foreign or retail funding. All funding-related information is detailed on its website, he argues. "People are free to make whatever judgement they wish to because conflict is one thing that cannot be eliminated," he says. "The moment you take funding from anybody, there will always be conflict. My answer to that is transparency."

IVY League Talent

What matters is that till date, such issues have not deterred the flow of best Ivy League talent into Vidhi. The founding team included Dhyani Mehta, who heads its environmental vertical; Devanshu Mukherjee, who leads its financial sector work and Alok Prasanna, who heads its Bengaluru office.

Prasanna, had earlier worked with solicitor general Mohan Parasaran's office in Delhi in high profile cases such as the government versus Vodafone and the government versus Reliance Industries. A few "fellows"— Sriboni Sen, Rukhmini Das (pursuing a PhD now) and Ketan Paul (now litigating) — though have moved on.

Yet others like Nikita Khaitan, who graduated from Yale University in the summer of 2016, have stepped in since June last year. Khaitan, who comes from the family of the Khaitan and Co law firm, heard about Vidhi from her cousins who went to the same law school as Sengupta. "Vidhi is one of the few staples where you can do quality work that is not litigation or corporate law," she says, on what clinched the decision for her to join Vidhi after Yale. "A lot of young people today want to return to India and do work which is high-impact." Now that's an argument no one can disagree with.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/economic-times-surabhi-agarwal-and-samanwaya-rautray-from-net-neutrality-to-ibc-and-aadhaar-how-vidhi-is-framing-key-government-legislation

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

Free Basics: Negating net parity

sunil — 2016-01-03T05:58:00Z

Researchers funded by Facebook were apparently told by 92 per cent of Indians they surveyed from large cities, with Internet connection and college degree, that the Internet “is a human right and that Free Basics can help bring Internet to all of India.” What a strange way to frame the question given that the Internet is not a human right in most jurisdictions.

The article was published in the Deccan Herald on January 3, 2016.

Free Basics is gratis service offered by Facebook in partnership with telcos in 37 countries. It is a mobile app that features less than a 100 of the 1 billion odd websites that are currently available on the WWW which in turn is only a sub-set of the Internet. Free Basics violates Net Neutrality because it introduces an unnecessary gatekeeper who gets to decide on “who is in” and “who is out”. Services like Free Basics could permanently alienate the poor from the full choice of the Internet because it creates price discrimination hurdles that discourage those who want to leave the walled garden.

Inika Charles and Arhant Madhyala, two interns at Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), surveyed 1/100th of the Facebook sample, that is, 30 persons with the very same question at a café near our office in Bengaluru. Seventy per cent agreed with Facebook that the Internet was a human right but only 26 per cent thought Free Basics would achieve universal connectivity. My real point here is that numbers don’t matter. At least not in the typical way they do. Facebook dismissed Amba Kak’s independent, unfunded, qualitative research in Delhi, in their second public rebuttal, saying the sample size was only 20.

That was truly ironical. The whole point of her research was the importance of small numbers. Kak says, “For some, it was the idea of an ‘emergency’ which made all-access plans valuable.” A respondent stated: “But maybe once or twice a month, I need some information which only Google can give me... like the other day my sister needed to know results to her entrance exams.” If you consider that too mundane, take a moment to picture yourself stranded in the recent Chennai flood. The statistical rarity of a Black Swan does not reduce its importance. A more neutral network is usually a more resilient network. When we do have our next national disaster, do we want to be one of the few countries on the planet who, thanks to our flawed regulation, have ended up with a splinternet?

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) chairman R S Sharma rightly expressed some scepticism around numbers when he said “the consultation paper is not an opinion poll.” He elaborated: “The issue here is some sites are being offered to one person free of cost while another is paying for it. Is this a good thing and can operators have such powers?” Had he instead asked “Is this the best option?” my answer would be “no”. Given the way he has formulated the question, our answer is a lawyerly “it depends”. The CIS believes that differential pricing should be prohibited. However, it can be allowed under certain exceptional standards when it is done in a manner that can be justified by the regulator against four axes of sometimes orthogonal policy objectives. They are increased access, enhanced competition, increased user choice and contribution to openness. For example, a permanent ban on Free Basics makes sense in the Netherlands but regulation may be sufficient for India.

Gatekeeping powers

To the second and more important part to Trai chairman’s second question on gatekeeping powers of operators, our answer is a simple “no”. But then, do we have any evidence that gatekeeping powers have been abused to the detriment of consumer and public interest? No. What do we do when we cannot, like Russell’s chicken, use induction to explain our future? Prof Simon Wren-Lew says, “If Bertrand Russell’s chicken had been an economist ...(it would have)... asked a crucial additional question: Why is the farmer doing this? What is in it for him?” There were five serious problems with Free Basics that Facebook has at least partially fixed, thanks mostly to criticism from consumers in India and Brazil. One, exclusivity with access provider; two, exclusivity with a set of web services; three, lack of transparency regarding retention of personal information; four, misrepresentation through the name of the service, Internet.org and five, lack of support for encrypted traffic. But how do we know these problems will stay fixed? Emerging markets guru Jan Chipchase tweeted asking “Do you trust Facebook? Today? Tomorrow? When its share price is under pressure and it wants to wring more $$$ from the platform?”

Zero. Facebook pays telecom operators zero. The operators pay Facebook zero. The consumers pay zero. Why do we need to regulate philanthropy? Because these freebies are not purely the fruit of private capital. They are only possible thanks to an artificial state-supported oligopoly dependent on public resources like spectrum and wires (over and under public property). Therefore, these oligopolies much serve the public interest and also ensure that users are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion.

Also provision of a free service should not allow powerful corporations to escape regulation–in jurisdictions like Brazil it is clear that Facebook has to comply with consumer protection law even if users are not paying for the service. Given that big data is the new oil, Facebook could pay the access provider in advertisements or manipulation of public discourse or by tweaking software defaults such as autoplay for videos which could increase bills of paying consumers quite dramatically.

India needs a Net Neutrality regime that allows for business models and technological innovation as long as they don’t discriminate between users and competitors. The Trai should begin regulation based on principles as it has rightly done with the pre-emptive temporary ban. But there is a need to bring “numbers we can trust” to the regulatory debate. We as citizens need to establish a peer-to-peer Internet monitoring infrastructure across mobile and fixed lines in India that we can use to crowd source data.

(The writer is Executive Director, Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He says 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/deccan-herald-january-3-2016-sunil-abraham-free-basics-negating-net-parity

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

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

praskrishna — 2015-05-09T10:05:10Z

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

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

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