Centre for Internet and Society

The Hazards of a Non-neutral Internet

geetha — 2015-05-27T16:07:36Z

Spurred by recent events, India’s policy circles are dancing to the complex tunes of net neutrality. Airtel came under fire for pricing calls made over the Internet differentially; it has since withdrawn this plan. Airtel and Reliance Communications are caught in the storm as Airtel Zero and Internet.org, the Facebook-spearheaded product for low-cost Internet access, face stiff criticism for violating net neutrality. Companies like Flipkart, which earlier supported these products, have stepped back and are throwing their weight behind net neutrality. The Department of Telecommunications has set up a six-member panel to consult on net neutrality.

A modified version of the blog entry was published as an article titled "A must for free speech" in the Week on April 18, 2015

Responding to concerns, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a consultation paper on OTT services on March 27, 2015. TRAI has called for public comments to be sent by April 24, 2015, and counter-comments to be sent by May 8, 2015. The TRAI consultation paper raises several crucial issues, including net neutrality. Given the heightened interest in the issue, let us two steps back and revisit the basics about net neutrality.

What is net neutrality?

In the simplest terms, net neutrality is the principle by which the carrier (telco/ISP like Reliance, Airtel) is prohibited from discriminating between any two ‘packets’ of data carried over its network. That is, ISPs ought not treat data packets differently, no matter what the content, source or price.

It follows, then, that when packets are given differential treatment, the principle of net neutrality is violated. As Centre for Internet and Society’s Sunil Abraham explains, differential treatment may occur in many ways: first, carriers may provide consumers with free access to certain websites or web content, while charging the sender or destination; second, ISPs may throttle traffic of one website/company to give it priority over other sites (the website will then load faster than others); third, ISPs may refuse access to some websites unless consumers or content-providers pay extra charges. Other violations abound too; this list is merely illustrative.

Diversity, Innovation & Competition: The Costs of Net Non-neutrality

Let us take zero-rating to explore the impacts of a net neutrality violation. In Internet.org and Airtel Zero, companies like Facebook and Flipkart (prior to the latter’s withdrawal) pay to provide users with free access to their cluster of websites; these are examples of “zero-rating”. Telcos and content-providers like Facebook argue that this is crucial to expand Internet access in price-sensitive markets like India. While this is an important consideration, zero-rating can have detrimental impacts on free speech and diversity, competition and innovation. It can result in “walled gardens” and a diversity-trap, where the only sites we can access are the walled gardens of curated information compiled by Facebook and the like.

Today, we can access an unprecedented variety of content across freely accessible platforms. We pay for our Internet connections and for data, but the content we access is neither set nor monitored by ISPs or content-providers, unless legally mandated to do so under Section 69 of Information Technology Act, 2000. Our freedom to access and receive diverse information is not curated by the companies themselves (as Facebook would in Internet.org) or their ability to pay ISPs to carry traffic. But with zero-rating, preferential access or traffic throttling, content diversity will suffer.

Of course, impact of receding diversity of content may not be felt in the short term, if access is made the priority. However, if net non-neutrality is allowed to continue in perpetuity, this may result in corporate curation and censorship of content. Moreover, since established players can better shell out the money needed for zero-rated or prioritised access, new companies and start-ups may find their entry blocked. Such a possibility is vexing for innovation, as greater costs will disincentivise smaller players from entering the market. There is also an impact on competition: entrenched players who can afford to pay carriers will dig their heels deeper, and become the sole curators of content. This is censorship by market design.

Access and Self-preservation, say the Telcos

Some telecom operators and ISPs argue that zero-rating is essential for universal access to data services, a dream of the Digital India mission. They also stress that OTTs like Whatsapp, Viber, Skype and others are free-riding on their networks and usurping their revenue, since it is the telcos and not OTTs who pay licence fees and spectrum charges. Finally, telcos and ISPs say that treating packets differently is a form of network and traffic management; such management is crucial to an efficient and open Internet, and is an age-old practice of operators.

Of course, traffic and network management practices do exist, and operators do block or manage speeds during congestion periods or when there are security threats. As users, we also experience different Internet speeds depending on the hardware and software employed by operators, the time of day, the type of content accessed (video/ audio/ text), etc. As Christopher Yoo says, operators should be free to experiment with network management practices (‘network diversity’) so long as consumers and competition suffer no detriment.

But as reports show, net non-neutrality practices have negative impacts on speech diversity, innovation and competition, among others. Any proposal to grant legal recognition to net non-neutrality practices like zero-rating, traffic-prioritization or others, which depend on the consumer or content-provider’s ability to pay and result in differential treatment of data packets, must answer these concerns and provide safeguards. In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court affirmed the value of freedom of speech and diversity; saying that “…a culture of open dialogue is important”, the Court declared that “…we need to tolerate unpopular views”. Internet companies and telcos provide the platforms to make such views available. Through traffic prioritization and zero-rating, and by chilling innovation and competition, net neutrality violations can stifle speech diversity. The Department of Telecom and TRAI must remember this when debating a net neutrality regulation.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/the-week-april-18-2015-geetha-hariharan-hazards-of-non-neutral-internet

Definition of Net Neutrality should be flexible: Pranesh Prakash

pranesh — 2015-06-19T01:43:04Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why now?

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

What is an OTT?

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

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

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

pranesh — 2015-07-21T12:36:26Z

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

Background of the DoT panel

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

Summary of the DoT panel report

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

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

On governmental regulation of OTTs

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

On Net neutrality

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

Where does the DoT panel report go wrong?

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

What does the DoT panel report mean for consumers?

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

What misunderstandings do people have?

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

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

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

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

Admin — 2017-11-26T11:43:59Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ବ୍ୟବହାରୀଙ୍କ ପାଇଁ ନିରାପତ୍ତା ଓ ଗୋପନୀୟତାର କୋକୁଆ ଆଣିବ ଫେସବୁକର ଫ୍ରି ବେସିକ୍ସ

subha — 2016-01-28T07:24:19Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Megacorp’s Basic Instinct

praskrishna — 2016-02-04T13:53:05Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Net neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict

praskrishna — 2016-02-14T11:16:45Z

Facebook 'disappointed' with the ruling on differential pricing.

The article by Alnoor Peermohamed appeared in the Business Standard on February 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.

India has demonstrated what a forward looking and pro-net neutrality policy looks like, experts and net neutrality advocates said after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) turned down a proposal to allow differential pricing services to function in the country.

“This ruling has happened in the face of enormous lobbying on the one side by very large companies and a ragtag bunch of people on the other. In spite of that, to see the right thing has prevailed, which is in the national interest and not what was masqueraded as national interest is very gratifying. This has not often taken place in policy making in India,” says Sharad Sharma, convenor, iSPIRT, a lobby group for indigenous software product firms.

Net neutrality activists across the world have lauded Trai’s decision not to allow large firms such as Facebook and Airtel to divide the Internet and offer selected services for free to consumers. The one year-long fight that began when Airtel proposed to offer internet companies the chance to offer customers their services for free, ended in Trai stipulating fines of Rs 50,000 a day for companies offering differential pricing services, which is capped at Rs 50 lakh.

“This has resulted now in the most expensive and stringent regulation on differential pricing that exists anywhere in the world. Activists around the world would be looking to India and will definitely be using this landmark order to fight against zero rating elsewhere,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a think tank.

Facebook, which was one of the biggest stakeholders in the drive to allow differential pricing services in the country, said it was disappointed with the ruling. The firm has been accused of supporting net neutrality in the US, but standing in its way in India to get permissions to provide its Free Basics platform in India.

“Our goal with Free Basics is to bring more people online with an open, non-exclusive and free platform. While disappointed with the outcome, we’ll continue our efforts to eliminate barriers and give the unconnected an easier path to the internet and the opportunities it brings,” Facebook said in a statement.

Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Medianama, who ran a campaign called Savetheinternet against Facebook’s Free Basics called this a victory to the youth of India, saying “this outcome indicates what happens when young people actually participate in a governance process”.

According to Pahwa, there’s far too much cynicism about governments not doing the right thing. “We hope this is the beginning of something new: of people believing that they can make a difference, and persevering towards helping form policies that ensure equity and freedom for everyone.”

He added: “There are many internet-related issues that have still to be looked at, especially internet shutdowns, censorship and the encryption policy. These impact all of us, and we should be ready to voice our point of view, and the government looks like it is listening.”

India’s software sector lobby group Nasscom, which had stood against Facebook’s Free Basics platform and for net neutrality in general congratulated Trai for its ruling to disallow zero-rating and differential pricing services in the country.

“Our submission highlighted the importance of net neutrality principles, non-discriminatory access and transparent business models aligned to the goal of enhancing internet penetration in the country. The Trai announcement resounds with the submission made by Nasscom and we would like to congratulate Trai for enshrining the principles of net neutrality,” R Chandrashekhar, president of Nasscom, said in a statement.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict

Trai upholds Net Neutrality in setback to Facebook’s Free Basics

praskrishna — 2016-02-15T02:01:37Z

Trai says Internet service providers will not be allowed to discriminate on pricing of data access for different web services.

The article by Moulishree Srivastava and Shauvik Ghosh was published in Livemint on February 9, 2016. Sunil Abraham was quoted.

India’s telecom regulator has barred Internet service providers from offering customers preferential tariffs to access certain content over concerns that it will violate Net neutrality norms, dealing a blow to Facebook Inc.’s free data service plan.

Internet service providers, including telecom operators, are prohibited from offering discriminatory tariffs for data services based on content, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) said on Monday. Service providers that violate these rules will be fined Rs.50,000 per day to a maximum of Rs.50 lakh. Trai said it may review the rules after two years.

The decision ends a long battle between Facebook and the country’s telecom operators, including Bharti Airtel Ltd, on one side and Net neutrality activists on the other. Facebook had launched an intense lobbying effort that included full-page advertisements in newspapers and an Internet campaign to assure people that its Free Basics plan, which allows access to its social network and some other websites without a data plan, would benefit millions of poor Indians.

“BJP wholeheartedly welcomes the Trai decision on differential pricing. The decision is a clear expression of popular will,” said telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad on Monday. “The government made sure proper processes were followed at all levels which eventually led to the victory of an open and equal Internet... It is gladdening to see that the NDA government ensured unparalleled transparency in the entire issue of net neutrality,” he added.

Net neutrality requires Internet service providers not to discriminate on online data by user, content, site, platform, application, mode of communication or price.

“The net neutrality activists... have got exactly what they wanted—the complete prohibition of the differential pricing,” said Sunil Abraham, executive director of the Bengaluru-based research organization Centre for Internet and Society. “Before Facebook started with its aggressive and outrageous campaign to promote Free Basics, the Net neutrality debate was a peaceful discussion. The way it has behaved must have led the regulator to lose trust that big companies can self-regulate.”

It, however, remains to be seen whether telcos challenge the regulation in court, he added.

“This has been a litigious issue and a lot of money is at stake so quite likely, I think, they will go to court,” said Apar Gupta, a lawyer and part of Save The Internet campaign.

The basic rationale behind the regulation is that the network that carries the data should be agnostic to data packets, R.S. Sharma, chairman of Trai, told reporters.

“Anything on the Internet cannot be priced discriminately based on source, destination, content and applications,” he said.

A spokesperson for Facebook said the company will carefully study what the regulator has said and comment accordingly.

Bharti Airtel and Reliance Communications Ltd (Facebook partnered with R-Com in India) declined to comment.

Differential pricing based on the network speed, Sharma said, is a larger issue and so is Net neutrality.

“We have used the term discriminatory pricing in place of differential pricing, because differential pricing in the consultation paper had a particular context. Differential word was quite contextual in the regulation, but it was misunderstood in a very larger context. Therefore, to differentiate, we are calling it discriminatory,” he said.

However, Sharma said that the Net neutrality debate is not over.

“Net neutrality is a larger question, and we have not gone into that question, though, I must admit, differential pricing is looking at Net neutrality from a tariff perspective. Net neutrality has a number of other components which is fast lane, throttling and differentially treating the packet in terms of speed etc. So this is not a part of this regulation,” Sharma said.

Amresh Nandan, research director at Gartner in India, said the Trai order favouring Net neutrality is in line with rules in the US. “The European Union has also ruled in favour of treating all Internet traffic equally,” Nandan said.

Nandan said the proponents of Net neutrality all over the world have been highlighting the importance of democratic values of the Internet and even a marginal attempt to curb it can possibly trigger all kinds of differentiation.

All the major telcos in India have, however, been lobbying the regulator to allow differential-pricing plans for data services. The telcos said such tariffs will increase Internet penetration in the country, benefiting consumers in the long run. They further argued that the existing legal framework is sufficient for regulating and monitoring differential pricing measures provided by the service providers and that Trai can deal with any issue regarding anti-competitive practices on a case-by-case basis as and when they arise.

Activists say such a practice will undermine competition and create monopolies. Differential pricing, they said, will allow big companies to buy favoured treatment from carriers.

Telecom operators said they were disappointed with the ruling. “Differential pricing could be useful in connecting the unconnected in India. This is an upfront disbarment,” said Rajan Mathews, director general of the Cellular Operators Association of India, the lobby group that represent some of the major telcos. “We believe that it was an appropriate tool to allow consumers who have never been on the Internet, to enjoy getting accustomed to it without getting sticker shock.”

Hemant Joshi, a partner at Deloitte Haskins and Sells Llp, said differential pricing was a well-accepted principle across industries.

“The concept inherently recognizes the economic principle of paying differently for different levels of service and experience. In telecom, there are virtual highways that need to follow the same principle. More awareness and education is needed around the economics of differential pricing and its long-term implications on the Industry and the consumer,” he added.

Trai, which put up the consultation paper on differential pricing on 9 December, asked four specific questions, broadly on whether telecom operators should be allowed to offer different services at different price points and models that can be implemented to achieve this.

Trai extended the deadline for comments and counter-comments on its consultation paper to 7 January and 14 January from 31 December and 7 January, respectively. For the consultation process, Trai said that majority of the individual comments received did not address the specific questions that were raised in the consultation paper.

P.R. Sanjai and Ashish K. Mishra in Mumbai contributed to this story.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/livemint-february-9-2016-shauvik-ghosh-moulishree-srivastava-trai-upholds-net-neutrality-in-setback-to-facebooks-free-basics

Surveillance in India: Policy and Practice

praskrishna — 2017-03-15T01:05:07Z

The National Institute of Public Finance and Policy organized a brainstorming session on net neutrality on February 8, 2017 and a public seminar on surveillance in India the following day on February 9, 2017 in New Delhi. Pranesh Prakash gave a talk.

Pranesh presented a narrative of the current state of surveillance law, our knowledge of current surveillance practices (including noting where programmes like Natgrid, CMS, etc. fit in), and charted a rough map of reforms needed and outstanding policy research questions.

Pranesh Prakash

Pranesh Prakash is a Policy Director at - and was part of the founding team of - the Centre for Internet and Society, a non-profit organisation that engages in research and policy advocacy. He is also the Legal Lead at Creative Commons India and an Affiliated Fellow at the Yale Law School's Information Society Project, and has been on the Executive Committee of the NCUC at ICANN. In 2014, he was selected by Forbes India for its inaugural "30 under 30" list of young achievers, and in 2012 he was recognized as an Internet Freedom Fellow by the U.S. government.

His research interests converge at the intersections of technology, culture, economics, law, and justice. His current work focuses on interrogating, promoting, and engaging with policymakers on the areas of access to knowledge (primarily copyright reform), 'openness' (including open government data, open standards, free/libre/open source software, and open access), freedom of expression, privacy, digital security, and Internet governance. He is a prominent voice on these issues, with the newspaper Mint calling him “one of the clearest thinkers in this area”, and his research having been quoted in the Indian parliament. He regularly speaks at national and international conferences on these topics. He has a degree in arts and law from the National Law School in Bangalore, and while there he helped found the Indian Journal of Law and Technology, and was part of its editorial board for two years.

Click here to see the agenda for the brainstorming session on net neutrality.

Video

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/surveillance-in-india-policy-and-practice

Multiple Aspects Need to be Addressed as the Clamour Grows for Network Neutrality

sunil — 2015-04-16T13:33:03Z

In the global debate there are four violations of Network Neutrality that are considered particularly egregious.

The article was published in DNA on April 16, 2015.

One — blocking of destinations or services in order to force the consumer to pay extra charges for access, two — not charging or zero-rating of certain destinations and services with or without extraction of payment from the sender or destination, and three — throttling or prioritisation of traffic between competing destinations or services and four — specialised services wherein the very same Internet infrastructure is used to provide non-Internet but IP based services such as IP-TV.

The main harms of network neutrality violations are as follows: one, censorship by private parties without legal basis; two, innovation harms because the economic threshold for new entrants is raised significantly; three, competition harms as monopolies become more entrenched and then are able to abuse their dominant position; four, harms to diversity because of the nudge effect that free access to certain services and destinations has on consumers reducing the infinite plurality of the Internet to a set of menu options. The first and fourth harm could result in the Internet being reduced to a walled garden.

It is insufficient to try and address this with networking rules for engineers such as “all packets should be treated equally.” But a set of principles could be developed that can help us grow access without violating network neutrality. Wikimedia Foundation has already developed their principles which they call “Wikipedia Zero Operating Principles”. In India our principles could include the following. One, no blocking without legal basis. Two, transparency — all technical and commercial arrangements are to be disclosed to the public. Three, non-exclusivity — all arrangements should be available to all parties, no special deals for those you favour. Four, non-discrimination between equals — technologies and entities that are alike should be treated alike. Five, necessity — whilst some measure may be required occasionally when there is network congestion they should be rolled back in a time-bound fashion.

Once these principles are enforced through a network neutrality regulation, ISPs and telecom operators will be allowed to innovate with business and payment models. Steve Song, inventor of Village Telco says “My preferred take on zero-rating would be to zero-rate gprs/edge data in general so that there is a minimum basic access for all.” My colleague Pranesh Prakash says “One possibility, of many, is to create a single marketplace or exchange for zero-rating, through which one can zero-rate on all telecom networks for standard tiered rates that they publish, and terms that are known to the regulator. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly” Jochai Ben-Avie of Mozilla told me yesterday of experiments in Bangladesh where consumers watch an advertisement everyday in exchange for 5Mb of data. My own suggestion to address the harms caused by walled gardens would be to make them leak – mandate that unfettered access to the Internet be provided every other hour.

There is many other ways in which the Internet has been transformed in India and other countries but these are not commonly considered network neutrality violations. Here are some examples. One, blocking of port 25 — a port that is commonly used to relay email spam. Two, blocking of port 80 – so that domestic connections cannot be used to host web servers. Three, the use of private IP addresses, ISPs who are delaying migration to IPv6 infrastructure because of cost implications leverage their IPv4 address inventory by using Carrier Grade — Network Address Translators [CG-NATs]. Four, asymmetric connections where download speeds for consumers are faster than upload speeds. With the exception of the first example — all of them affect end users negatively but do not usually impact corporations and therefore have been unfortunately sidelined in the global debate.

The TRAI consultation paper reveals many of the concerns of the telecom operators that go beyond the scope of network neutrality. Many of these concerns are very legitimate. There is a scarcity of spectrum — this could partially be addressed by auctioning more spectrum, scientific management of spectrum, promotion of shared spectrum and unlicensed spectrum. Their profit margins are thinning – this could be addressed by dismantling the Universal Service Obligation Fund, it is after all as Rohan Samarajiva puts it “a tax on the poor.” Internet companies don't pay taxes – this could be addressed by the Indian government, by adopting the best practices from the OECD around preventing tax avoidance. But some of their concerns cannot be addressed because of the technological differences between telecom and Internet networks. While it is relatively easy to require telecom companies to provide personal information and allow for interception of communications, those Internet companies that use end-to-end encryption cannot divulge personal information or facilitate interception because it is technologically impossible. While the first two concerns could be addressed by TRAI, the last two should be addressed by other ministries and departments in the Indian government.

There are other concerns that are much more difficult to address without the deep understanding of latest advancements in radio communication, signal processing and congestion control techniques in packet switched networks. A telecom expert who did not wish to be identified told me that “even 2G TDM voice is 10 to 15 times more efficient when compared to VOIP. IP was developed to carry data, and is therefore not an efficient mode to carry voice as overhead requirement for packets destroys the efficiency on voice. Voice is best carried close to the physical layer where the overheads are lowest.” He claims that since “VOIP calls are spectrally inefficient they should be discouraged” through differential pricing. We need accessible scientific literature and monitoring infrastructure so that an evidence base around concerns like this can be created so as to address them effectively through regulatory interventions.

You know you have reached a policy solution when all concerned stakeholders are equally unhappy. Unfortunately, the TRAI consultation paper assumes that Internet companies operate in a regulatory vacuum and therefore places much unnecessary focus on the licensing of these companies. This is a disastrous proposal since the Internet today is the result of “permission-less innovation”. The real issue is network neutrality and one hopes that after rigorous debate informed by scientific evidence TRAI finds a way to spread unhappiness around equally.

The author works for the Centre for Internet and Society which receives funds from Wikimedia Foundation which has zero-rating alliances with telecom operators in many countries across the world.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/dna-april-16-2015-sunil-abraham-multiple-aspects-need-to-be-addressed-as-the-clamour-grows-for-network-neutrality

Marco Civil da Internet: Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’

geetha — 2014-06-19T10:38:10Z

On March 25, 2014, Brazil's lower house of parliament passed bill no. 2126/2011, popularly known as Marco Civil da Internet. The Marco Civil is a charter of Internet user-rights and service provider responsibilities, committed to freedom of speech and expression, privacy, and accessibility and openness of the Internet. In this post, the author looks at the pros and cons of the bill.

Introduction:

Ten months ago, Edward Snowden’s revelations of the U.S. National Security Agency’s extensive, warrantless spying dawned on us. Citizens and presidents alike expressed their outrage at this sweeping violation of their privacy. While India’s position remained carefully neutral, or indeed, supportive of NSA’s surveillance, Germany, France and Brazil cut the U.S. no slack. Indeed, at the 68th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff (whose office the NSA had placed under surveillance) stated, “Tampering in such a manner in the affairs of other countries is a breach of International Law and is an affront to the principles that must guide the relations among them, especially among friendly nations.” Brazil, she said, would “redouble its efforts to adopt legislation, technologies and mechanisms to protect us from the illegal interception of communications and data.”

Some may say that Brazil has lived up to its word. Later this month, Brazil will be host to NETmundial, the Global Multi-stakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance, jointly organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) and the organization /1Net. The elephantine invisible presence of Snowden vests NETmundial with the hope and responsibility of laying the ground for a truly multi-stakeholder model for governing various aspects of the Internet; a model where governments are an integral part, but not the only decision-makers. The global Internet community, comprising users, corporations, governments, the technical community, and NGOs and think-tanks, is hoping devise a workable method to divest the U.S. Government of its de facto control over the Internet, which it wields through its contracts to manage the domain name system and the root zone.

But as Internet governance expert Dr. Jeremy Malcolm put it, these technical aspects do not make or break the Internet. The real questions in Internet governance underpin the rights of users, corporations and netizens worldwide. Sir Tim Berners-Lee, when he called for an Internet Bill of Rights, meant much the same. For Sir Tim, an open, neutral Internet is imperative if we are to keep our governments open, and foster “good democracy, healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture”. Some countries agree. The Philippines envisaged a Magna Carta for Internet Freedom, though the Bill is pending in the Philippine parliament.

Marco Civil da Internet:

Last week, on March 25, 2014, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of parliament) passed the Marco Civil da Internet, bill 2126/2011, a charter of Internet rights. The Marco Civil is considered by the global Internet community as a one-of-a-kind bill, with Sir Tim Berners-Lee hailing the “groundbreaking, inclusive and participatory process has resulted in a policy that balances the rights and responsibilities of the individuals, governments and corporations who use the Internet”.

The Marco Civil’s journey began with a two-stage public consultation process in October 2009, under the aegis of the Brazilian Ministry of Justice’s Department of Legislative Affairs, jointly with the Getulio Vargas Foundation’s Center for Technology and Society of the Law School of Rio de Janeiro (CTS-FGV). The collaborative process involved a 45-day consultation process in which over 800 comments were received, following which a second consultation in May 2010 received over 1200 comments from individuals, civil society organizations and corporations involved in the telecom and technology industries. Based on comments, the initial draft of the bill was revamped to include issues of popular, public importance, such as intermediary liability and online freedom of speech.

An official English translation of the Marco Civil is as yet unavailable. But an unofficial translation (please note that the file is uploaded on Google Drive), triangulated against online commentary on the bill, reveals that the following issues were of primary importance:

The fundamentals:

The fundamental principles of the Marco Civil reveal a commitment to openness, accessibility neutrality and democratic collaboration on the Internet. Art. 2 (see unofficial translation) sets out the fundamental principles that form the basis of the law. It pledges to adhere to freedom of speech and expression, along with an acknowledgement of the global scale of the network, its openness and collaborative nature, its plurality and diversity. It aims to foster free enterprise and competition on the Internet, while ensuring consumer protection and upholding human rights, personality development and citizenship exercise in the digital media in line with the network’s social purposes. Not only this, but Art. 4 of the bill pledges to promote universal access to the Internet, as well as “to information, knowledge and participation in cultural life and public affairs”. It aims to promote innovation and open technology standards, while ensuring interoperability.

The Marco Civil expands on its commitment to human rights and accessibility by laying down a “discipline of Internet use in Brazil”. Art. 3 of the bill guarantees freedom of expression, communication and expression of thoughts, under the terms of the Federal Constitution of Brazil, while at the same time guaranteeing privacy and protection of personal data, and preserving network neutrality. It also focuses on preserving network stability and security, by emphasizing accountability and adopting “technical measures consistent with international standards and by encouraging the implementation of best practices”.

These principles, however, are buttressed by rights assured to Internet users and responsibilities of and exceptions provided to service providers.

Rights and responsibilities of users and service providers:

Net neutrality:

Brazil becomes one of the few countries in the world (joining the likes of the Netherlands, Chile and Israel in part) to preserve network neutrality by legislation. Art. 9 of the Marco Civil requires all Internet providers to “to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application”. Not only this, but Internet providers are enjoined from blocking, monitoring or filtering content during any stage of transmission or routing of data. Deep packet inspection is also forbidden. Exceptions may be made to discriminate among network traffic only on the basis of essential technical requirements for services-provision, and for emergency services prioritization. Even this requires the Internet provider to inform users in advance of such traffic discrimination, and to act proportionately, transparently and with equal protection.

Data retention, privacy and data protection:

The Marco Civil includes provisions for the retention of personal data and communications by service providers, and access to the same by law enforcement authorities. However, record, retention and access to Internet connection records and applications access-logs, as well as any personal data and communication, are required to meet the standards for “the conservation of intimacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved” (Art. 10). Specifically, access to identifying information and contents of personal communication may be obtained only upon judicial authorization.

Moreover, where data is collected within Brazilian territory, processes of collection, storage, custody and treatment of the abovementioned data are required to comply with Brazilian laws, especially the right to privacy and confidentiality of personal data and private communications and records (Art. 11). Interestingly, this compliance requirement is applicable also to entities incorporated in foreign jurisdictions, which offer services to Brazilians, or where a subsidiary or associate entity of the corporation in question has establishments in Brazil. While this is undoubtedly a laudable protection for Brazilians or service providers located in Brazil, it is possible that conflicts may arise (with penal consequences) between standards and terms of data retention and access by authorities in other jurisdictions. In the predictable absence of harmonization of such laws, perhaps rules of conflicts of law may prove helpful.

While data retention remained a point of contention (Brazil initially sought to ensure a 5-year data retention period), under the Marco Civil, Internet providers are required to retain connection records for 1 year under rules of strict confidentiality; this responsibility cannot be delegated to third parties (Art. 13). Providers providing the Internet connection (such as Reliance or Airtel in India) are forbidden from retaining records of access to applications on the Internet (Art. 14). While law enforcement authorities may request a longer retention period, a court order (filed for by the authority within 60 days from the date of such request) is required to access the records themselves. In the event the authority fails to file for such court order within the stipulated period, or if court order is denied, the service provider must protect the confidentiality of the connection records.

Though initially excluded from the Marco Civil, the current draft passed by the Chamber of Deputies requires Internet application providers (such as Google or Facebook) to retain access-logs for their applications for 6 months (Art. 15). Logs for other applications may not be retained without previous consent of the owner, and in any case, the provider cannot retain personal data that is in excess of the purpose for which consent was given by the owner. As for connection records, law enforcement authorities may request a greater retention period, but require a court order to access the data itself.

These requirements must be understood in light of the rights that the Marco Civil guarantees to users. Art. 7, which enumerates these user-rights, does not however set forth their content; this is probably left to judicial interpretation of rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution. In any event, Art. 7 guarantees to all Internet users the “inviolability of intimacy and privacy”, including the confidentiality of all Internet communications, along with “compensation for material or moral damages resulting from violation”. In this regard, it assures that users are entitled to a guarantee that no personal data or communication shall be shared with third parties in the absence of express consent, and to “clear and complete information on the collection, use, storage, treatment and protection of their personal data”. Indeed, where contracts violate the requirements of inviolability and secrecy of private communications, or where a dispute resolution clause does not permit the user to approach Brazilian courts as an alternative, Art. 8 renders such contracts null and void.

Most importantly, Art. 7 states that users are entitled to clear and complete information about how connection records and access logs shall be stored and protected, and to publicity of terms/policies of use of service providers. Additionally, Art. 7 emphasizes quality of service and accessibility to the Internet, and forbids suspension of Internet connections except for failure of payments. Read comprehensively, therefore, Arts. 7-15 of the Marco Civil prima facie set down robust protections for private and personal data and communications.

An initial draft of the Marco Civil sought to mandate local storage of all Brazilians’ data within Brazilian territory. This came in response to Snowden’s revelations of NSA surveillance, and President Rousseff, in her statement to the United Nations, declared that Brazil sought to protect itself from “illegal interception of communications and data”. However, the implications of this local storage requirement was the creation of a geographically isolated Brazilian Internet, with repercussions for the Internet’s openness and interoperability that the Marco Civil itself sought to protect. Moreover, there are implications for efficiency and business; for instance, small businesses may be unable to source the money or capacity to comply with local storage requirements. Also, they lead to mandating storage on political grounds, and not on the basis of effective storage. Amid widespread protest from corporations and civil society, this requirement was then withdrawn which, some say, propelled the quick passage of the bill in the Chamber of Deputies.

Intermediary liability:

Laws of many countries make service providers liable for third party content that infringes copyright or that is otherwise against the law (such as pornography or other offensive content). For instance, Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000 (as amended in 2008) is such a provision where intermediaries (i.e., those who host user-generated content, but do not create the content themselves) may be held liable. However, stringent intermediary liability regimes create the possibility of private censorship, where intermediaries resort to blocking or filtering user-generated content that they fear may violate laws, sometimes even without intimating the creator of the infringing content. The Marco Civil addresses this possibility of censorship by creating a restricted intermediary liability provision. Please note, however, that the bill expressly excludes from its ambit copyright violations, which a copyright reforms bill seeks to address.

At first instance, the Marco Civil exempts service providers from civil liability for third party content (Art. 18). Moreover, intermediaries are liable for damages arising out of third party content only where such intermediaries do not comply with court orders (which may require removal of content, etc.) (Art. 19). This leaves questions of infringement and censorship to the judiciary, which the author believes is the right forum to adjudicate such issues. Moreover, wherever identifying information is available, Art. 20 mandates the intermediary to appraise the creator of infringing content of the reasons for removal of his/her content, with information that enables the creator to defend him- or herself in court. This measure of transparency is particularly laudable; for instance, in India, no such intimation is required by law, and you or I as journalists, bloggers or other creators of content may never know why our content is taken down, or be equipped to defend ourselves in court against the plaintiff or petitioner who sought removal of our content. Finally, a due diligence requirement is placed on the intermediary in circumstances where third party content discloses, “without consent of its participants, of photos, videos or other materials containing nudity or sexual acts of private character”. As per Art. 21, where the intermediary does not take down such content upon being intimated by the concerned participant, it may be held secondarily liable for infringement of privacy.

This restricted intermediary liability regime is further strengthened by a requirement of specific identification of infringing content, which both the court order issued under Art. 20 and the take-down request under Art. 21 must fulfill. This requirement is missing, for instance, under Section 79 of the Indian Information Technology Act, which creates a diligence and liability regime without requiring idenfiability of infringing content.

Conclusion:

Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’ has done much to add to the ongoing discussion on the rights and responsibilities of users and providers. By expressly adopting protections for net neutrality and online privacy and freedom of expression, the Marco Civil may be considered to set itself up as a model for Internet rights at the municipal level, barring a Utopian bill of rights. Indeed, in an effusive statement of support for the bill, Sir Tim Berners-Lee stated: “If Marco Civil is passed, without further delay or amendment, this would be the best possible birthday gift for Brazilian and global Web users.”

Of course, the Marco Civil is not without its failings. Authors say that the data retention requirements by connection and application providers, with leeway provided for law enforcement authorities to lengthen retention periods, is problematic. Moreover, the discussions surrounding data localization and a ‘walled-off’ Internet that protects against surveillance ignores the interoperability and openness that forms the core of the Internet.

On the whole, though, the Marco Civil may be considered a victory, on many counts. It is possibly the first successful example of a national legislation that is the outcome of a broad, consultative process with civil society and other affected entities. It expressly affirms Brazil’s commitment to the protection of privacy and freedom of expression, as well as to Internet accessibility and the openness of the network. It aims to eliminate the possibility of private censorship online, while upholding privacy rights of users. It seeks to reduce the potential for abuse of personal data and communication by government authorities, by requiring judicial authorization for the same. In a world where warrantless government spying extends across national border, such a provision is novel and desirable. One hopes that, when the global Internet community sits down at its various fora to identify and enumerate principles for Internet governance, it will look to the Marco Civil as an example of standards that governments may adhere to, and not necessarily resort to the lowest common denominator standards of international rights and protections.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet

Access at the cost of Net neutrality?

praskrishna — 2015-10-09T01:18:31Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CIS's Position on Net Neutrality

sunil — 2015-12-09T13:06:06Z

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

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

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

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