The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 35.
Net Neutrality, Free Speech and the Indian Constitution – III: Conceptions of Free Speech and Democracy
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy
<b>In this 3 part series, Gautam Bhatia explores the concept of net neutrality in the context of Indian law and the Indian Constitution.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the modern State, effective exercise of free speech rights is increasingly dependent upon an infrastructure that includes newspapers, television and the internet. Access to a significant part of this infrastructure is determined by money. Consequently, if what we value about free speech is the ability to communicate one’s message to a non-trivial audience, financial resources influence both <i>who </i>can speak and, consequently, <i>what </i>is spoken. The nature of the public discourse – what information and what ideas circulate in the public sphere – is contingent upon a distribution of resources that is arguably unjust and certainly unequal.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are two opposing theories about how we should understand the right to free speech in this context. Call the first one of these the libertarian conception of free speech. The libertarian conception takes as given the existing distribution of income and resources, and consequently, the unequal speaking power that that engenders. It prohibits any intervention designed to remedy the situation. The most famous summary of this vision was provided by the American Supreme Court, when it first struck down campaign finance regulations, in <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/1#writing-USSC_CR_0424_0001_ZO"><i>Buckley v. Valeo</i></a>: <i>“t</i><i>he concept that government may restrict the speech of some [in] order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” </i>This theory is part of the broader libertarian worldview, which would restrict government’s role in a polity to enforcing property and criminal law, and views any government-imposed restriction on what people can do within the existing structure of these laws as presumptively wrong.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>We can tentatively label the second theory as the <i>social-democratic theory </i>of free speech. This theory focuses not so much on the individual speaker’s right not to be restricted in using their resources to speak as much as they want, but upon the collective interest in maintaining a public discourse that is open, inclusive and home to a multiplicity of diverse and antagonistic ideas and viewpoints. Often, in order to achieve this goal, governments regulate access to the infrastructure of speech so as to ensure that participation is not entirely skewed by inequality in resources. When this is done, it is often justified in the name of democracy: a functioning democracy, it is argued, requires a thriving public sphere that is not closed off to some or most persons.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Surprisingly, one of the most powerful judicial statements for this vision also comes from the United States. In <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/367/case.html"><i>Red Lion v. FCC</i></a>, while upholding the “fairness doctrine”, which required broadcasting stations to cover “both sides” of a political issue, and provide a right of reply in case of personal attacks, the Supreme Court noted:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“[Free speech requires] <i>preserv</i>[ing]<i> an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance <span style="text-decoration: underline;">monopolization of that market</span>, whether it be by the Government itself or <span style="text-decoration: underline;">a private licensee</span>…</i><i> it is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here</i>.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What of India? In the early days of the Supreme Court, it adopted something akin to the libertarian theory of free speech. In <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/243002/"><i>Sakal Papers v. Union of India</i></a>, for example, it struck down certain newspaper regulations that the government was defending on grounds of opening up the market and allowing smaller players to compete, holding that Article 19(1)(a) – in language similar to what <i>Buckley v. Valeo </i>would hold, more than fifteen years later – did not permit the government to infringe the free speech rights of some in order to allow others to speak. The Court continued with this approach in its next major newspaper regulation case, <a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/125596/"><i>Bennett Coleman v. Union of India</i></a>, but this time, it had to contend with a strong dissent from Justice Mathew. After noting that “<i>it is no use having a right to express your idea, unless you have got a medium for expressing it”</i>, Justice Mathew went on to hold:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“<i>What is, therefore, required is an interpretation of Article 19(1)(a) which focuses on the idea that restraining the hand of the government is quite useless in assuring free speech, if a restraint on access is effectively secured by private groups. A Constitutional prohibition against governmental restriction on the expression is effective only if the Constitution ensures an adequate opportunity for discussion… Any scheme of distribution of newsprint which would make the freedom of speech a reality by making it possible the dissemination of ideas as news with as many different facets and colours as possible would not violate the fundamental right of the freedom of speech of the petitioners. In other words, a scheme for distribution of a commodity like newsprint which will subserve the purpose of free flow of ideas to the market from as many different sources as possible would be a step to advance and enrich that freedom. If the scheme of distribution is calculated to prevent even an oligopoly ruling the market and thus check the tendency to monopoly in the market, that will not be open to any objection on the ground that the scheme involves a regulation of the press which would amount to an abridgment of the freedom of speech.</i>”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i> </i>In Justice Mathew’s view, therefore, freedom of speech is not only the speaker’s right (the libertarian view), but a complex balancing act between the listeners’ right to be exposed to a wide range of material, as well as the collective, societal right to have an open and inclusive public discourse, which can only be achieved by preventing the monopolization of the instruments, infrastructure and access-points of speech.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Over the years, the Court has moved away from the majority opinions in <i>Sakal Papers </i>and <i>Bennett Coleman</i>, and steadily come around to Justice Mathew’s view. This is particularly evident from two cases in the 1990s: in <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/921638/"><i>Union of India v. The Motion Picture Association</i></a>, the Court upheld various provisions of the Cinematograph Act that imposed certain forms of compelled speech on moviemakers while exhibiting their movies, on the ground that “<i>to earmark a small portion of time of this entertainment medium for the purpose of showing scientific, educational or documentary films, or for showing news films has to be looked at in this context of </i><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">promoting dissemination of ideas, information and knowledge to the masses so that there may be an informed debate and decision making on public issues</span></i><i>. Clearly, the impugned provisions are designed to further free speech and expression and not to curtail it.</i>”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/304068/"><i>LIC v. Manubhai D. Shah</i></a> is even more on point. In that case, the Court upheld a right of reply in an <i>in-house </i>magazine, <i>“because fairness demanded that both view points were placed before the readers,</i><i> </i><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">however limited be their number, to enable them to draw their own conclusions and unreasonable</span></i><i> </i><i>because there was no logic or proper justification for refusing publication…</i><i> </i><i>the respondent’s fundamental right of speech and expression clearly entitled him to insist that his views on the subject should reach those who read the magazine so that they have a complete picture before them and not a one sided or distorted one</i>…” This goes even further than Justice Mathew’s dissent in <i>Bennett Coleman</i>, and the opinion of the Court in <i>Motion Picture Association</i>, in holding that not merely is it permitted to structure the public sphere in an equal and inclusive manner, but that it is a <i>requirement </i>of Article 19(1)(a).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We can now bring the threads of the separate arguments in the three posts together. In the first post, we found that public law and constitutional obligations can be imposed upon private parties when they discharge public functions. In the second post, it was argued that the internet has replaced the park, the street and the public square as the quintessential forum for the circulation of speech. ISPs, in their role as gatekeepers, now play the role that government once did in controlling and keeping open these avenues of expression. Consequently, they can be subjected to public law free speech obligations. And lastly, we discussed how the constitutional conception of free speech in India, that the Court has gradually evolved over many years, is a social-democratic one, that requires the keeping open of a free and inclusive public sphere. <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/read/net-neutrality-monopoly-and-the-death-of-the-democratic-internet?trk_source=homepage-lede">And if there is one thing that fast-lanes over the internet threaten, it is certainly a free and inclusive (digital) public sphere</a>. A combination of these arguments provides us with an arguable case for imposing obligations of net neutrality upon ISPs, even in the absence of a statutory or regulatory obligations, grounded within the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech and expression.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>For the previous post, please see: http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-part-2.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>_____________________________________________________________________________________________________</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><i style="text-align: justify; ">Gautam Bhatia — @gautambhatia88 on Twitter — is a graduate of the National Law School of India University (2011), and presently an LLM student at the Yale Law School. He blogs about the Indian Constitution at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/">http://indconlawphil.wordpress.com</a>. Here at CIS, he will be blogging on issues of online freedom of speech and expression.</i></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/net-neutrality-free-speech-and-the-indian-constitution-2013-iii-conceptions-of-free-speech-and-democracy</a>
</p>
No publishergautamFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governance2014-05-27T10:21:24ZBlog EntryNet Neutrality Resources
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources
<b>Submissions by the Centre for Internet and Society to TRAI and DoT, 2015-2017.</b>
<p> </p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2015-06-29_PositionPaperonNetNeutralityinIndia" class="external-link">Submission for TRAI Consultation on Regulatory Framework for Over-the-Top Services</a> (June 29, 2015)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2016-01-07_cis_trai-submission_differential-pricing" class="external-link">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing</a> (January 7, 2016)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/2016-01-14_cis_trai-counter-comments_differential-pricing" class="external-link">Counter Comments to TRAI on Differential Pricing</a> (January 14, 2016)</li>
<li><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality/trai-consultation-on-differential-pricing-for-data-services-post-open-house-discussion-submission" class="external-link">TRAI Consultation on Differential Pricing for Data Services: Post-Open House Discussion Submission</a> (January 25, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-submission-trai-consultation-free-data">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Free Data</a> (June 30, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-to-trai-consultation-on-proliferation-of-broadband-through-public-wifi-networks">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Proliferation of Broadband through Public WiFi Networks</a> (August 28, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/telecom/blog/cis-submission-trai-note-on-interoperable-scalable-public-wifi">Submission to TRAI Consultation Note on Model for Nation-wide Interoperable and Scalable Public Wi-Fi Networks</a> (December 12, 2016)</li>
<li><a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/cis-trai-submission-on-net-neutrality">Submission to TRAI Consultation on Net Neutrality</a> (April 18, 2017)</li></ul>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/net-neutrality-resources</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaFeaturedHomepageNet NeutralityInternet Governance2017-04-22T09:11:21ZPageNet neutrality debate rages
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages
<b>While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Lalatendu Mishra and Pradeesh Chandran was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.thehindu.com/business/net-neutrality-debate-rages/article7102338.ece">published in the Hindu</a> on April 15, 2015. Pranesh Prakash gave his inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It’s a major victory for the proponents of net neutrality and a big setback for service provider Airtel. As the e-commerce firm Flipkart pulled out of talks on joining the controversial Airtel Zero platform, launched by Airtel last week, the debate on net neutrality has taken a fresh turn in the Indian context. In the wake of a virtual uproar in social media and following wide condemnation by votaries of net neutrality, Flipkart has to just give in. With Flipkart-induced new twist in the net neutrality game, the Internet Service Providers (ISPs), mostly telecom operators, are running for cover without knowing how to deal with the evolving situation that has the potential to adversely affect their business.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While Airtel has put out a statement on the pull out by Flipkart, other operators are playing a cautious game. And, they are unwilling to comment on a subject that has become an emotive issue. There are, however, voices which seek a middle path as solution to this issue.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“We are in favour of net neutrality. But this has to be defined in the Indian context. That is what TRAI is precisely doing. The debate on net neutrality is appropriate and important. All stakeholders should be able to decide what is net neutrality for India after due debate,” said Rajan Mathews, Director-General, Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI). “We must have a holistic approach to this issue. There should be rational debate, and we are committed for open and non-discriminatory Internet,” Mr Mathews added. A thought must go into protecting the interest of telecom operators as well, he felt.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">While supporting net neutrality, analysts have voiced concern over its impact on the finances of telecos. “Net neutrality is a fair concept but it must take into account the concerns of telecom operators and ensure that their revenue and margins are not significantly impacted,” said Rajiv Gupta, Partner and Director, BCG. “Some kind of middle path needs to be achieved,” Mr Gupta said. Only a few countries so far have made net neutrality into a law. “We are yet to see whether our government’s moral support for net neutrality can translate into a law,” Mr Gupta added.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Surprisingly, Airtel which has come under flak on two occasions in last four months for alleged violation of net neutrality norms, too, has pledged its support for net neutrality! “Airtel fully supports the concept of net neutrality. There have been some misconceptions about our toll free data platform Airtel Zero. It is a not a tariff proposition but is an open marketing platform that allows any application or content provider to offer their service on a toll free basis to their customers who are on our network… The statement made by Flipkart regarding their decision not to offer toll-free data service to their customers is consistent with our stand that Airtel Zero is not a tariff proposition. It is merely an open platform for content providers to provide toll free-data services,” Airtel said. Without spelling out the future of Airtel Zero, it said “The platform remains open to all companies who want to offer these toll free data services to their customers on a completely non-discriminatory basis.” Over 150 start-ups have already expressed willingness to come on board Airtel Zero.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society, said, “The need for net neutrality is very real and urgent. There are many practices that telecom companies are trying to engage in, such as blocking of WhatsApp to force customers to pay more money for it, which ought not to be allowed.” On Airtel Zero plan, he said “We should clearly separate out the issue of "zero rating" from that of "net neutrality". ``Only anti-competitive instances of zero-rating - for instance, Airtel offering it's own Hike service for free, or Airtel entering into an exclusive deal with Flipkart for zero-rating its app — are problems. Competitive zero-rating, with regulatory safeguards to ensure a fair and efficient marketplace, should be allowed, just as we allow free TV channels and allow toll-free numbers. Banning is akin to a brahmastra in a regulator's arsenal: it should not be used lightly,” Mr Prakash said.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>No such plans: Snapdeal</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Snapdeal said, “We have no such plans at this point, especially given the regulatory framework is unclear.’’</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Zero rating is a practice among mobile network operators, where customers are not charged for a certain volume of data by specific applications or internet services.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">An Amazon spokesperson said, “Amazon supports net neutrality - the fundamental openness of the Internet - which has been so beneficial to consumers and innovation.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier, Facebook and Reliance Communications had partnered for Internet.org. Reliance had announced in 2012 that it would offer free Facebook and WhatsApp for Rs 16 a month, without any additional data costs.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">Amidst the debate on net neutrality, Telecom Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said a six-member panel had been constituted by the telecom department to submit its recommendations regarding the same by early next month.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><b>Start-ups for net neutrality:</b></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sumit Jain, Co-Founder & CEO, CommonFloor.com</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“It’s well acknowledged that Internet has disrupted the world of business like no other technology has in last few decades. It has enabled start-ups with hardly any capital and clout to make a mark. So by rejecting net neutrality, we will be shutting the door on the entrepreneurial aspirations of millions and will leave telcos to play the gate-keeper to a valuable resource as the Internet and challenges the democratic behaviour that Internet in known for”.</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Sameer Parwani, CEO & Founder, CouponDunia</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“We will stand for net neutrality. India has been in the forefront of digital world. It is the Internet that has given the country hope and aspirations to the common man to be informed and entertained. Not being able to give equal access will just make the situation anti- competitive and it will have a negative effect on the upcoming businesses.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Kashyap Vadapalli, Chief Marketing officer, Pepperfry</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Lack of net neutrality supports a monopolistic market which will adversely affect the growing start-up eco-system. While heavily funded businesses will be able to maintain their supremacy over consumers start-ups will stand to lose out heavily. We do not encourage discrimination of any sorts when it comes to consumer's access to information.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Yogendra Vasupal, Founder of Stayzilla</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Airtel Zero seems like an innovative solution to bring Internet to every person. Whether this is on a firm footing or a slippery slope will be decided by the actual implementation. The current way of individual companies buying Internet for their consumers is a slippery slope. The right way to do it would be through a central consortium formed from the e-commerce companies and who has the interests of both the start-ups in this sector and the end-users in mind. After all, Internet is all about freedom of choice. Keeping in mind that currently it would be free only if you use a particular company makes it free at the cost of the freedom of choice it offers. This is everyone's loss.”</p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; "><i>Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, OYO Rooms</i></p>
<p class="body" style="text-align: justify; ">“Net neutrality is absolutely essential for a free and competitive market especially now since there is a start-up boom in the country particularly in the online sector. Most importantly, Internet was created to break boundaries and as concerned industry players, we should maintain that. We support net neutrality and will do all needed to build this further.”</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/the-hindu-lalatendu-mishra-pradeesh-chandran-april-15-2015-net-neutrality-debate-rages</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-05-08T14:45:34ZNews ItemNet Neutrality Advocates Rejoice As TRAI Bans Differential Pricing
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing
<b>India would not see any more Free Basics advertisements on billboards with images of farmers and common people explaining how much they benefited from this Facebook project.</b>
<p>The article by Subhashish Panigrahi was <a class="external-link" href="http://odishatv.in/opinion/net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing-125476/">published by Odisha TV </a>on February 9, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Because the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has taken a historical step by banning differential pricing without discriminating services. In their notes TRAI has explained, “In India, given that a majority of the population are yet to be connected to the internet, allowing service providers to define the nature of access would be equivalent of letting TSPs shape the users’ internet experience.” Not just that, violation of this ban would cost Rs. 50,000 every day.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook planned to launch Free Basics in India by making a few websites – mostly partners with Facebook—available for free. The company not just advertised aggressively on bill boards and commercials across the nation, it also embedded a campaign inside Facebook asking users to vote in support of Free Basics. TRAI criticized Facebook’s attempt to manipulate public opinion. Facebook was also heavily challenged by many policy and internet advocates including non-profits like Free Software Movement of India and Savetheinternet.in campaign. The two collectives strongly discouraged Free Basics by moulding public opinion against it with Savetheinternet.in alone used to send over 2.4 million emails to TRAI to disallow Free Basics. Furthermore, 500 Indian start-ups, including major names like Cleartrip, Zomato, Practo, Paytm and Cleartax, also wrote to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting continued support for Net Neutrality – a concept that advocates equal treatment of websites – on Republic Day. Stand-up comedians like Abish Mathew and groups like All India Bakchod and East India Comedy created humorous but informative videos explaining the regulatory debate and supporting net neutrality. Both went viral.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Technology critic and Quartz writer Alice Truong reacted to Free Basics saying; “Zuckerberg almost portrays net neutrality as a first-world problem that doesn’t apply to India because having some service is better than no service.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The decision of the Indian government has been largely welcomed in the country and outside. In support of the move, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation Renata Avila has said; “As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world. It follows a precedent set by Chile, the United States, and others which have adopted similar net neutrality safeguards. The message is clear: We can’t create a two-tier Internet – one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are mixed responses on the social media, both in support and in opposition to the TRAI decision. Josh Levy, Advocacy Director at Accessnow, has appreciated saying, “India is now the global leader on #NetNeutrality. New rules are stronger than those in EU and US.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Had differential pricing been allowed, it would have affected start-ups and content-based smaller companies adversely as they could never have managed to pay the high price to a partner service provider to make their service available for free. On the other hand, tech-giants like Facebook could have easily managed to capture the entire market. Since the inception, the Facebook-run non-profit Internet.org has run into a lot of controversies because of the hidden motive behind the claimed support for social cause.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/odisha-tv-february-9-2016-subhashish-panigrahi-net-neutrality-advocates-rejoice-as-trai-bans-differential-pricing</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaSocial MediaFree BasicsNet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-23T02:10:42ZBlog EntryNet neutrality advocates hail Trai verdict
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict
<b>Facebook 'disappointed' with the ruling on differential pricing.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Alnoor Peermohamed appeared in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict-116020800974_1.html">Business Standard</a> on February 9, 2016. Pranesh Prakash gave inputs.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India has demonstrated what a forward looking and pro-<a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Net+Neutrality" target="_blank">net neutrality </a>policy looks like, experts and net neutrality advocates said after the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (Trai) turned down a proposal to allow <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Differential+Pricing" target="_blank">differential pricing </a>services to function in the country.<br /> <br /> “This ruling has happened in the face of enormous lobbying on the one side by very large <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Companies" target="_blank">companies </a>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.<br /> <br /> Net neutrality activists across the world have lauded Trai’s decision not to allow large firms such as <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Facebook" target="_blank">Facebook </a>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 <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Trai" target="_blank">Trai </a>stipulating fines of Rs 50,000 a day for companies offering differential pricing services, which is capped at Rs 50 lakh.<br /> <br /> “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 <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Zero+Rating" target="_blank">zero rating </a>elsewhere,” said Pranesh Prakash, policy director at the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), a think tank.<br /> <br /> 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 <a class="storyTags" href="http://www.business-standard.com/search?type=news&q=Free+Basics" target="_blank">Free Basics </a>platform in India.<br /> <br /> “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.<br /> <br /> 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”.<br /> <br /> 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.”<br /> <br /> 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.”<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> “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.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/business-standard-february-9-2016-alnoor-peermohamed-net-neutrality-advocates-hail-trai-verdict</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-02-14T11:16:45ZNews ItemNasscom wants board to protect Net neutrality, regulate pricing
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing
<b>The debate against differential pricing of data services at the cost of net neutrality doesn’t seem to be getting over yet. While internet activists have gone out on streets in Bengaluru and Hyderabad to protest in favour of net neutrality, industry experts believe that differential pricing, when regulated could be tailored for public interest.
</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Shadma Shaikh was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.asianage.com/technomics/nasscom-wants-board-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing-454">published in Asian Age</a> on January 7, 2016. Pranesh Prakash was quoted.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Given the current situation of low internet and broadband penetration along with lower levels of digital literacy and limited local language support in the country, IT industry body Nasscom said that protection of net neutrality is essential to fight these monumental challenges that require continuous innovation, both in technology solutions and business models.<br /><br />“We strongly oppose any model where TSPs or their partners have a say or discretion in choosing content that is made available at favourable rates, speed,” Nasscom President R. Chandrashekhar said in a statement.<br /><br />However, Nasscom also suggested a suitable oversight mechanism in the form of “an independent not-for-profit entity with an independent board to manage proposed differential pricing programs that are deemed to be in the public interest and are philanthropic in nature.”<br /><br />In view of regulator Trai’s proposal to question the fairness of zero-rating—a practice of not counting certain traffic towards a subscriber's regular Internet usage, Pranesh Prakash, Centre for Internet and Society said, all forms of zero-rating result in some form of discrimination, but not all zero-rating is harmful, nor does all zero-rating need to be prohibited.<br /><br />Prakash says that Trai’s paper has been inappropriately reduced to a referendum, by both parties—supporters of differential pricing programme as well as internet activists fighting zero-rating. Content-agnostic zero-rating models are not harmful, he says, adding “some traffic, such as government or public interest sites could be made free.”<br /><br />Facebook’s Free Basics app that aims to provide ‘free Internet access’ to users who cannot afford data packs, has run into trouble for being against net neutrality principle. Trai, while evaluating the zero-rating proposal has asked Reliance Communications, the official telecom partner for Free Basics to put the service on hold.<br /><br />After drawing flak from critics and citizens over its Free Basics program and its extensive advertisement in the media and on Facebook itself to influence the decision of Trai in favour of zero-rating program, Zuckerberg reached out to Indian readers through an opinion piece he published in an Indian daily newspaper.<br /><br />Facebook’s justification for Free Basics lies in comparing internet as a service similar to education and healthcare. Free schools, free libraries and public hospitals may not provide the best of services, but their existence is essential to cater to a large set of audience who cannot afford expensive healthcare or education. In the same way, says Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, everyone deserves access to free basic internet service.<br /><br />Calling Facebook’s Free Basics programme as an illusion, Nikhil Pahwa, founder MediaNama and volunteer at savetheinternet.in said “Facebook’s Free Basics is not free internet.” The choice to determine what data or content to browse should be left to the internet users, he says.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/asian-age-january-7-2016-shadma-shaikh-nasscom-wants-board-to-protect-net-neutrality-regulate-pricing</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-01-31T09:25:09ZNews ItemMultiple Aspects Need to be Addressed as the Clamour Grows for Network Neutrality
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
<b>In the global debate there are four violations of Network Neutrality that are considered particularly egregious.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-everyone-equally-unhappy-2077796">published in DNA </a>on April 16, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="http://www.dnaindia.com/topic/internet">Internet</a> infrastructure is used to provide non-Internet but IP based services such as IP-TV.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>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.</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='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'>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</a>
</p>
No publishersunilNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-04-16T13:33:03ZBlog EntryMobilizing Online Consensus: Net Neutrality and the India Subreddit
https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_mobilizing-online-consensus-net-neutrality-and-the-india-subreddit
<b>This essay by Sujeet George is part of the 'Studying Internet in India' series. The author offers a preliminary gesture towards understanding reddit’s usage and breadth in the Indian context. Through an analysis of the “India” subreddit and examining the manner and context in which information and ideas are shared, proposed, and debunked, the paper aspires to formulate a methodology for interrogating sites like reddit that offer the possibilities of social mediation, even as users maintain a limited amount of privacy. At the same time, to what extent can such news aggregator sites direct the ways in which opinions and news flows change course as a true marker of information generation responding to user inputs.</b>
<p> </p>
<h3><strong>Introduction</strong></h3>
<p>It is almost an Internet truism that the comments section on any website is the cesspool that festers the basest of human instincts. Insults and abuses abound, users ‘call out’ each other’s opinions, their choice of words and, on a <del>bad</del> regular day, even each other’s parentage. The spectre of online anonymity, it has been suggested, affords the possibility of channelling opinion without being accountable for it. This is the more cynical outlook on how online opinion forums function; a viewpoint which although credible is limited as it sidelines the more engaging aspects of these forums. Such an interface dynamic has historically offered two modes of checks and balances: the original content to which users commented on was determined (and often written) by the administrators of the website, and in many cases the comments were moderated by those who ran the website.</p>
<p>Social news websites in the age of Web 2.0 have radically altered the means of production of content. By handing over to web-users the keys to the content generation storehouse, news aggregator websites like 4chan and Reddit have supposedly democratized the volume and direction of news flow. Users create (and recycle) content on which other users comment and add more content through memes, sharing of links, pictures and videos. Somewhere along the line, the original post (op) may trigger more specific discussions.</p>
<p>The content generated on a news aggregating website like Reddit can thus, theoretically, range across a broad spectrum. From discussions on current technology and sharing of world news to more specific conversations on gardening or anime, the website brings together diverse interests under a singular platform. Topic-based posts and discussions are categorised into subreddits, subcommunities which converge around similar interests. Thus, a subreddit like /r/cricket may serve as a platform for cricket enthusiasts to share news and views on the game. These subreddits together constitute Reddit as a whole. Only registered users can post submissions or comment on other posts, although unregistered users can access the submissions without being able to comment on them. Registered users can upvote and downvote both the posts submitted and the comments posted by other users.</p>
<p>Any registered Reddit user can create a subreddit to initiate submissions and discussions on a particular area of interest. Reddit has a series of default subreddits, including /r/AskReddit, /r/books, /r/history among others. When an unregistered user accesses the website they are likely to see the current top-voted posts from a combination of the default subreddits. The voting system is inextricably linked to visibility: the more the upvotes a post receives, the more likely it is to be top of the list on the self-proclaimed front page of the internet. The posts are thus sorted as a combination of top-voted submissions from an assortment of default subreddits. Comments on specific posts also follow a similar voting logic whereby users can upvote/downvote a specific comment based on how useful or relevant they find it to the original post. Registered users can curate their own page by subscribing to subreddits of their own interest, and unsubscribing from the default ones.</p>
<p>Being a registered user entails choosing a username under which a user’s submissions and comments are collated. Every user comment receives an aggregate score which is the sum of the upvotes and downvotes the comment has received. The cumulative comment scores for every user, called karma, is visible to every other user, and is often an indicator of the level of (in)activity of a specific user. Karma scores are the veritable fiat currency of the reddit space, with prolific users being visible on multiple popular threads attempting to scale their karma aggregate through comments that employ a combination of wit, hyperbole, cliché and outrage.</p>
<p>Reddit with its two-way dynamism—the users are the creators of content and the very people who comment on it—seemingly throws open the spectrum for content to be self-generated and moderated. Every subreddit has a set of moderators who attempt to maintain a modicum of direction amidst the chaos. Moderators are often users who are active on that particular subreddit, or have volunteered (or have been chosen by the subreddit community) to take up the task of maintaining the decorum and coherence of the subreddit. Reddit’s voting system, where users upvote and downvote submitted content, purports to ensure that the cream can constantly float above the morass. The infrastructural logic of Reddit—an algorithm that ensures that posts do not stagnate on the front page and get regularly refreshed by newer content—seeks to instill a participatory ethos where content created/submitted by users gains traction based on the extent of discussion that it generates among other users <strong>[1]</strong>.</p>
<p>A characteristic of the reddit platform is the Ask Me Anything feature where notable individuals set a pre-determined time slot to answer questions raised by users of a subreddit community. The AMA format offers an interesting take on the possibilities of public engagement and publicity in the virtual domain. A unique feature of reddit, the popular AMAs are held on the default /r/IAMA subreddit. The earliest AMAs were coordinated by the founders as well as employees of the website; to an extent this is true even today although in recent times the public relations team of various celebrities have coordinated AMAs for their clients. It remains one of the most popular modes of user engagement, ironically functioning through external, mediated mechanisms. Most AMAs serve a dual purpose: celebrities offer to answer questions when they are ‘in the news’ or when they wish to publicize a new venture, which also serves as an endorsement of the popularity of the reddit platform in reaching out to a wide, primarily North American, audience. An early instance of an acknowledgement of the reach of the reddit platform was an AMA conducted by/for Barack Obama as he sought to be re-elected during the 2012 U.S. Presidential elections. Other notable ‘celebrity’ AMA sessions include those by Bill Gates, Madonna, and Edward Snowden. While celebrity AMAs remain a popular feature, the AMA format itself is utilised even by relatively less established personalities who have their own unique story to share. While /r/IAMA remains the default subreddit used to reach out to the reddit community, specific subreddits often conduct their own AMAs with personalities relevant to the group.</p>
<p>The India subreddit /r/India, the forum for content “directly about India and Indians,” has been a part of Reddit since 2008. At the time of writing this essay there are over 55000 registered Reddit users (including this writer) who subscribe to submissions posted on /r/India. Of course, there may be many more who ‘lurk’ around, a term for those who may not have subscribed but view submissions posted on the subreddit by visiting the subreddit page. /r/India typically draws in over 2 million page views every month. Over time the community has developed a vocabulary of its own, which is often self-referential and draws on submissions and comments that have been made at an earlier time. Many prolific users with characteristic usernames are recognized by fellow users, the sociality perhaps further strengthened through the annual city-based meet-ups that are planned as part of a larger Reddit tradition.</p>
<p>This essay looks at the mobilization of community opinion on /r/India on the issue of net neutrality, the efforts made by some of the users to raise awareness about it, and the ways in which the community responded and reacted to a wider online movement that sought to maintain a more egalitarian approach to Internet access and availability. Drawing on an analysis of a few posts submitted during a period that witnessed a flurry of activity in connection with the debates around net neutrality in India, the essay attempts to sketch out the contours of the debate around the axis of online activity and participation. It seeks to ponder on the extent to which a forum like the India subreddit offers the possibilities of a civic participation, of mobilizing public opinion and contributing to the decisions undertaken by policy makers. How do purportedly diverse online communities interact, draw consensus and stake a claim to the decision-making processes that involve multiple stakeholders often with conflicting interests?</p>
<h3><strong>The Social in the Virtual Rear-view Mirror</strong></h3>
<p>The form of any subreddit, with its defined purpose and rules of submission, ensures a certain coherence even amidst the cornucopia of memes, images and other web links that may be shared and commented upon. The governing logic of a particular subreddit accords it a certain hue, which most users attempt to conform to or occasionally subvert. The specificity of any subreddit, thus, is a mutually constitutive process where the original tech-interface guidelines are negotiated by the content submitted by users of the subreddit.</p>
<img src="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/img/cis-raw_blog_sujeet-george_01.jpeg" alt="Tragedy of India" />
<h6>Source: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/</a>.</h6>
<p>User behaviour on new media platforms can be understood as a virtual manifestation of traits that are exhibited in the domain of the social in real life. Consider the discussion sparked off by a post that was submitted about 4 weeks back, and which has catapulted to the top of the all time top voted submissions on the subreddit <strong>[2]</strong>. It contrasts the shoddy construction by the Maharashtra government in 2013 of a section of a fort staircase, with the more stable lasting section built by Shivaji in the 17th century. The user who posted the image commented on the dubious nature of infrastructural work in the present day, blaming corruption for the disparity in the quality of work. Juxtaposing historical nostalgia with an apathy about the present state-of-affairs, the comments and discussions around the post veered from questions of the feasibility of implementing older construction methods, to the widespread nepotism and corruption prevalent in public work contracts in the present day. One user remarked, “I'm guessing Shivaji didn't hand out the contracts for building his forts to the lowest bidder.” Another chimed in that “[no] tender is clean. It's often created, mapped, prepared and executed by the company and middleman willing to shell out the most to the bureaucrats and politicians.”</p>
<p>A popular motif on many submissions on /r/India is a lamentation on the tangled mess between the bureaucracy and legislature. It extends the generic urban middle class antipathy towards governance and its deep suspicion of the probity of the administrative processes of the Indian State. One user-comment tried to explain the popularity of the submitted post—a common indicator of content popularity on Reddit is the number of upvotes it receives and the extent of user participation through comments—to the highly ‘relatable’ nature of the submission.</p>
<p>The character of an online forum, while being shaped by diverse user behaviour, is invariably crystallized by the more dominant modes of representation. The anonymity afforded by the online medium and the potential infinitude of the range of submissions should theoretically stretch the spectrum of representations. Yet user behaviour often conforms in a bid to confirm its own shared identity within the group. What is then understood as relatable is not necessarily a universal, but merely an accommodation of difference through consensus. In the following sections I attempt to make sense of the processes through which such a consensus is drawn by considering the trajectory of discussions on posts pertaining to debates on net neutrality <strong>[3]</strong>.</p>
<h3><strong>The Anatomy of an Online Mobilization</strong></h3>
<p>The discussions around questions of net neutrality, Facebook’s Free Basics, differential data pricing, and restricted access to OTT services have captured the Indian public imagination in the last 18-odd months. Multiple consultation papers shared by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) have served as a rallying point for domain experts, media policy analysts and the general public. The series of consultation papers and the questions that have arisen over specific practices of telecom companies are imagined through the essay as a single event punctuated by temporal fissures. It has its own prehistory, a call to arms, and the eventual (fleeting) redemption. The differing discourse around the issue is contextually singular even if separated by chronology.</p>
<p>On February 8 this year, an /r/India user shared a news report about TRAI declaring zero-rated products as illegal <strong>[4]</strong>. Months of collaboration among faceless internet users had managed a key victory in what was repeatedly termed a battle to save the Internet. User comments highlighted the scale of the task accomplished as “a bunch of folks on the Internet [stopped] a $300 billion market cap corporation [Facebook] and a bunch of telecoms with strong lobbying capabilities.” Some users could not see past the irony of the Internet itself serving as a means for the public to halt rapacious tech companies in their stride. The David v/s Goliath analogy seemed apt. The task, though, had just begun, as one user presciently noted: “Mobilizing people is hard. Mobilizing people against a better funded lobby, and on a dry technical topic ? really hard. We are probably going to need a dedicated NGO, mailing lists, donations and members for this and similar issues.”</p>
<p>The debates surrounding net neutrality have sparked a diverse range of questions related to Internet access, differential pricing, restraints on technology, impediments to freedom of expression and questions of consumer choice. The range of issues and stakeholders encompassed within the policy regulation has simultaneously atomised and collectivised the problematic of Internet. As an increasingly everyday technology for many urban Indians, Internet usage has carried the possibility of innovative and easy access to a range of services and information while circumventing hitherto static structures of the administrative machinery. Internet usage in the Indian context can be regarded as both a symbol of egalitarianism and privilege; a conflation of the larger ideal of enterprise espoused by the technological boom and a reluctantly understated reflection of the very technology being of limited wider accessibility. The debates on Internet usage through the very medium thus contains some of the tensions that were echoed in the responses to the questions on net neutrality that were raised on the Indian subreddit.</p>
<p>These debates, circulating across news mediums both print and digital, found their way into the /r/India cosmos through efforts to raise awareness about the issue and to bring about a greater collective bargaining momentum to the efforts in the digital space. A post on December 25, 2014 announced the efforts being undertaken by various media practitioners through the creation of the website <a href="http://netneutrality.in/">http://netneutrality.in/</a> which later became <a href="http://www.savetheinternet.in/">http://www.savetheinternet.in/</a> <strong>[5]</strong>. As a submission in the early life of the net neutrality event the post garnered enough attention to find its way into the vocabulary of the subreddit.</p>
<p>It was, however, not until three months later that perhaps the most comprehensive early exhortation came through a post titled Let's fight for Net Neutrality before it becomes necessary. E-Mail the TRAI now <strong>[6]</strong>. submitted on March 28, 2015 by one of the subreddit moderators. The post called for users to mail the TRAI and join in the efforts to influence upon policy makers on the need for a neutral Internet. User comments ranged from a creating email templates to a brief primer on the meaning and scope of net neutrality. That the public counter fight was still in the planning stage is evident in the numerous user comments volunteering to craft an email template to be sent.</p>
<p>The possibilities of a collaborative enterprise were much more evident in another mod-post, submitted on April 8, 2015 titled <em>Fight for Net Neutrality: The way forward</em> <strong>[7]</strong>. The post assembled the increasing momentum that the net neutrality movement had garnered in the Indian virtual space. Varying email templates to be shared among peer groups were presented, enterprising users created memes and infographics, while more sinister minds listed out companies that openly flouted net neutrality rules. The aim was not just to organise, but to also synchronize the efforts of a purportedly disparate group of users.</p>
<p>Even as user efforts were directed towards raising awareness about net neutrality among a wider audience, the sheer scale of the task and improbable hurdles on the road where highlighted by some. One post speculated on the connection between the timing of TRAI’s consultation paper and the fact that the Director of TRAI was due to retire in May 2015 <strong>[8]</strong>. The user feared that “the decision on TRAI proposal has already been made. The public is asked to comment on the OTT proposal because it is required by norm (not sure about law). They are waiting for Mr Khullar to retire, so they can blame him for the colossal backlash that will happen when the proposal is ratified.”</p>
<p>In the next few months the momentum of the movement ebbed and flowed, with diligent users posting regular updates on the progress. Even as the Internet rights discourse on the forum sought to be balanced with the logic of the market, there emerged a series of reactionary submissions that seemed to combine a distrust of large telecoms with the emancipatory spirit of a virtual civil disobedience.</p>
<h3><strong>Zero Rating the Zero-Rated Apps</strong></h3>
<p>Concurrent with the efforts at the level of governance, /r/India users employed creative means to show their displeasure towards companies who seemed to oppose the tenets of net neutrality. One such instance was when a user galvanised forum opinion to down-rate the Flipkart and Airtel apps on their phones. Flipkart CEO Sachin Bansal’s justification for zero-rated apps as sound business practice was turned inside-out as users gave a zero rating to the Flipkart app on their phones. The impact was ostensibly evident as the daily average ratings for the app saw a sharp fall <strong>[9]</strong>.</p>
<p>Diatribes against telecom companies and their profit-driven enterprise have now become a regular feature on the forum. The mobile network Airtel, which has been at the forefront of the anti-net neutrality lobby, has faced its share of the community ire. Branded Chortel—an (un)imaginative coinage characterizing the supposed thieving policies of the company—the company along with Flipkart has been subject to a series of memes that invoke ridicule and hint at the sense of disconnect between consumers and the products on offer. The image shown above contrasts a popular biscuit brand Parle-G with the recently launched Airtel 4G Internet <strong>[10]</strong>. It employs Parle’s long unblemished reputation as a brand of reliability; its iconicity a signifier of a purported business of ethics that feels anachronistic in comparison to the business practices of the telecom companies.</p>
<img src="https://github.com/cis-india/website/raw/master/img/cis-raw_blog_sujeet-george_02.jpeg" alt="Chortel Four-G" />
<h6>Source: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/</a>.</h6>
<p>The movement to generate awareness about Internet policy also sought to initiate dialogues with administrators who are in a position to ensure that the community’s voices are heard. Thus Independent Rajya Sabha member Rajeev Chandrasekhar did an AMA at the height of the net neutrality discussions <strong>[11]</strong>. Since the person doing the AMA can choose to answer or ignore from the range of questions posed by the community, the supposed mutuality of participation is often minimal. Nevertheless, Chandrasekhar’s AMA not just points to the interactive (propagandist) possibilities of reddit or any other social media platform but it also asserts the relevance of the medium as a significant domain where policy regulation impacts people whose voices need to be acknowledged. As an entrepreneur who has previously worked in the technology sector, Chandrasekhar symbolizes /r/India’s imagined ideal scenario of a ‘rule of experts’ in matters of governance. That a sitting MP would seek a dialogue with an online forum also hints at the relevance of such mobilizations, where enterprising tech-savvy politicians understand the potential to stir public action through the domain of the virtual.</p>
<h3><strong>Consensus in/and New Media</strong></h3>
<p>At one level, it could be suggested that the discussions which emerged on the India subreddit around the debates on net neutrality hint at the potentials of virtual mobilization of the public. Social media, the Internet and social networking forums like Reddit could potentially widen the level of information access and dissemination where the early groundwork has been laid by the RTI Act. But at stake in the whole discussion is not merely the extent to which an online community can modify the direction of a policy discourse. Even as the development of a ‘networked public sphere’ has transformed the means of consensus building, the elements of its discontent are difficult to ignore. The formation of a public sphere in a virtual environment presents the possibilities of conformity as much as of consensus.</p>
<p>The discourse around net neutrality on /r/India forum is notable for the wide-ranging consensus that it managed to appropriate from the community. Such a consensus could be interpreted in at least two ways. The form of any subreddit as a forum for all things related to a specific context—be it a common activity, nationality, gender identity—contains within itself the language of adequate acceptance and rebuttal. At the same time, the algorithmic technique of determining the visibility of a post through upvotes and downvotes renders real the possibility of consensus through conformity.</p>
<p>It is more interesting to look beyond the veneer of consensus and question the supposed diversity of the group and its implications, rather than infer collective action as a signifier of the rightness of the action. One could suggest that the terms of the debate, of limiting the control that mega-telecos wield over internet policy in India, offered an easy medium to galvanise opinion on the subreddit. Any nuanced stance will however need to read collective action in relation to the (im)possibility of individual opinion-making in a structured environment of an online forum.</p>
<p>An online platform with a voting system linked to visibility offers a peculiar type of consensus. A majority of the top-voted submissions and comments pertaining to the net neutrality debate on /r/India fall within a broad overlap of consensus linked to a participatory, egalitarian technological ethos which is characteristic of the post-liberalization Indian milieu. The possibility of dissent, or even voicing differing viewpoints, is structured in a limited spectrum since what will be shared/read is inextricably linked to what users understand as acceptable within the forum. Such an understanding can inadvertently suggest a consensus, or worse offer a monochromatic presentation of an issue. This is not to discount the possibility of informed discussion, or exaggerate the ‘hive mind’ of reddit. But the link between visibility and popularity of content often ensures that the nuances of a debate get sidelined and unidimensional. Thus, even though aspects of differential pricing may be understood as a means to wider access, or as a way to open Internet services to the vagaries of the market rather than State whims, such viewpoints find less credibility when articulated within a forum like /r/India <strong>[12]</strong>. While discussions may emerge which consider the issue beyond the limited rhetoric of free speech and consumer choice, they often get presented in the ‘anti net neutrality’ garb or as afterthoughts to a debate the terms of which have ostensibly been settled <strong>[13]</strong>.</p>
<p>Communicative technologies, as Lisa Gitelman notes, often converge around an overlapping mental landscape that seeks to make sense of an act/event through synchronized ontologies of representation. Consensus in such an instance is not to be seen as a final validation of the community’s stance on an issue. It should prompt us to be wary of the pitfalls of online mobilization that could be travelling in an echo chamber. The task then would not be to debunk actions drawn on consensus, but to be aware of the limits of inclusivity of such online forums <strong>[14]</strong>.
Further research has to consider ways in which individual users negotiate the possibility of presenting an individual stance to the community within interface-induced limitations to the possibility of such an enunciation. This would involve interviews with a pool of /r/India users, examine the types of news outlets and viewpoints that gain credence within the community, look at voting patterns, and perhaps undertake a more thorough examination of a wider range of concerns relevant to the community. This essay has attempted a preliminary gesture towards such an endeavour by picking a particular event and the community’s response to it. Reddit, in contrast to Facebook for instance, offers the possibility of peering into an online space where anonymity commingles with community enterprise and the meaning of accountability is extended beyond individual motive of mere sociality or recognition. As such, it could potentially offer an understanding of online behaviour beyond the limits of the individual-liberal paradigm of action orientation and widen the debate on the functioning of social news websites by being acutely aware of the thin line between the individual and the social.</p>
<h3><strong>Disclaimer</strong></h3>
<p>The writer has been a frequent lurker on Reddit, and the India subreddit since 2011. Beyond voraciously consuming the submissions on /r/India he does not claim to have contributed in any meaningful manner to the online discussions referred to in the essay.</p>
<h3><strong>Endnotes</strong></h3>
<p><strong>[1]</strong> The literature on reddit is a fast growing domain, with innovative research looking at Reddit’s voting patterns, user behaviour, and news outlets linked to glean an understanding of the news aggregating website. For an examination of questions of identity and anonymity on Reddit see, Shelton, M., Lo, K., Nardi, B. (2015). Online Media Forums as Separate Social Lives: A Qualitative Study of Disclosure Within and Beyond Reddit. In iConference 2015 Proceedings. For an engagement with questions on what motivates Reddit user to contribute see, Bogers, T., & Nordenhoff Wernersen, R. (2014). How 'Social' are Social News Sites? Exploring the Motivations for Using Reddit.com. In Proceedings of the iConference 2014. (pp. 329-344). IDEALS: iSchools.</p>
<p><strong>[2]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/4s5bpn/tragedy_of_india/</a>. Last accessed on August 2, 2016. Unless stated otherwise, all links posted hereafter have also been accessed on the same day.</p>
<p><strong>[3]</strong> My understanding of social media and the social dimension of new media has been shaped from my reading of Dijck, José Van. <em>The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. For an examination of social media practices see, Ellison, N. B. & boyd, d. (2013). Sociality through Social Network Sites. In Dutton, W. H. (Ed.), <em>The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies</em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–172.</p>
<p><strong>[4]</strong> See: <a>https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/44qddb/trai_to_make_zero_rated_products_illegal/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[5]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/2qcvhp/i_created_a_site_to_educate_people_about_airtel/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/2qcvhp/i_created_a_site_to_educate_people_about_airtel/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[6]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/30lz1p/lets_fight_for_net_neutrality_before_it_becomes/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/30lz1p/lets_fight_for_net_neutrality_before_it_becomes/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[7]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31vvf2/fight_for_net_neutrality_the_way_forward/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31vvf2/fight_for_net_neutrality_the_way_forward/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[8]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/322iv8/trai_asking_for_feedback_on_their_proposal_is_a/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/322iv8/trai_asking_for_feedback_on_their_proposal_is_a/</a>. For Kullar’s own views on the issue, see: <a href="http://thewire.in/1624/lets-be-practical-about-net-neutrality/">http://thewire.in/1624/lets-be-practical-about-net-neutrality/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[9]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31ykxj/flipkart_and_airtel_are_fucking_with_your/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31ykxj/flipkart_and_airtel_are_fucking_with_your/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[10]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/3r25gr/chortel_four_g/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[11]</strong> See: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/387req/hi_rindia_i_am_rajeev_chandrasekhar_member_of/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/387req/hi_rindia_i_am_rajeev_chandrasekhar_member_of/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[12]</strong> CIS’s note on its position on net neutrality points to the multilayered nature of the policy: <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality'>http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-position-on-net-neutrality</a>. Last accessed on September 9, 2016. For a contrarian voice, see: <a href=">http://www.hindustantimes.com/columns/net-neutrality-war-is-not-just-facebook-versus-internet-mullahs/story-s9eZpZnomaaiz4De8fYfaK.html</a>. Last accessed on September 9, 2016.</p>
<p><strong>[13]</strong> Consider the discussions that emerged in two separate posts: <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31peb4/lets_respond_to_this_anti_net_neutrality_piece/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/31peb4/lets_respond_to_this_anti_net_neutrality_piece/</a> and <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/336u8f/woke_up_to_this_pro_internetorg_article_in/">https://www.reddit.com/r/india/comments/336u8f/woke_up_to_this_pro_internetorg_article_in/</a>.</p>
<p><strong>[14]</strong> Gitelman, Lisa. <em>Always Already New: Media, History and the Data of Culture</em>. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. Especially chapter 3.</p>
<h3><strong>Author Profile</strong></h3>
<p>Sujeet George has an M.Phil from the Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta. His research interests are in histories of science and commodities, and new media and digital humanities. He has previously worked with the Mumbai City Museum and The Southasia Trust.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_mobilizing-online-consensus-net-neutrality-and-the-india-subreddit'>https://cis-india.org/raw/blog_mobilizing-online-consensus-net-neutrality-and-the-india-subreddit</a>
</p>
No publisherSujeet GeorgeRedditInternet StudiesRAW BlogNet NeutralityResearchers at Work2016-09-27T04:52:35ZBlog EntryMeeting on Net Neutrality and Related Issues
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/meeting-on-net-neutrality-and-related-issues
<b>A meeting was convened by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India on July 15, 2016 in New Delhi to discuss Net Neutrality and related issues. Sunil Abraham attended this meeting. </b>
<p>Click to <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/files/trai-invitation-letter-to-discuss-net-neturality">view the Invitation Letter</a> sent by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/meeting-on-net-neutrality-and-related-issues'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/meeting-on-net-neutrality-and-related-issues</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2016-08-02T15:56:10ZNews ItemMarco Civil da Internet: Brazil’s ‘Internet Constitution’
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet
<b>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.</b>
<h3><em><strong>Introduction:</strong></em></h3>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">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, “<em>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.</em>” Brazil, she said, would “<em>redouble its efforts to adopt legislation, technologies and mechanisms to protect us from the illegal interception of communications and data.</em>”</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div>Some may say that Brazil has lived up to its word. Later this month, Brazil will be host to <em>NETmundial</em>, 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 <em>de facto</em> control over the Internet, which it wields through its contracts to manage the domain name system and the root zone.</div>
<div></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>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 <a class="external-link" href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/mar/12/online-magna-carta-berners-lee-web">called for</a> 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 “<em>good democracy, healthcare, connected communities and diversity of culture</em>”. Some countries agree. The Philippines envisaged a <em>Magna Carta</em> for Internet Freedom, though the Bill is pending in the Philippine parliament.</div>
<div></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<h3><strong><em>Marco Civil da Internet:</em></strong></h3>
<div>Last week, on March 25, 2014, the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of parliament) passed the <em>Marco Civil da Internet</em>, bill 2126/2011, a charter of Internet rights. The <em>Marco Civi</em>l is considered by the global Internet community as a one-of-a-kind bill, with Sir Tim Berners-Lee <a class="external-link" href="http://www.webfoundation.org/2014/03/marco-civil-statement-of-support-from-sir-tim-berners-lee/?utm_source=hootsuite&utm_campaign=hootsuite">hailing</a> the “<em>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</em>”.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>The <em>Marco Civil</em>’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 <a class="external-link" href="http://observatoriodainternet.br/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Internet-Policy-Report-Brazil-2011.pdf">involved</a> 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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>An official English translation of the <em>Marco Civil</em> is as yet unavailable. But an <a class="external-link" href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kJYQx-l_BVa9-3FZX23Vk9IfibH9x6E9uQfFT4e4V9I/pub">unofficial translation</a> (please note that the file is uploaded on Google Drive), triangulated against <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/32527">online</a> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/brazil-passes-groundbreaking-internet-governance-bill-7000027740http://www.zdnet.com/brazil-passes-groundbreaking-internet-governance-bill-7000027740/">commentary</a> on <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/all-you-need-to-know-about-brazils-internet-constitution-7000022726/">the bill</a>, reveals that the following issues were of primary importance:</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<h3><strong><em>The fundamentals:</em></strong></h3>
<div>The fundamental principles of the <em>Marco Civil</em> 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 “<em>to information, knowledge and participation in cultural life and public affairs</em>”. It aims to promote innovation and open technology standards, while ensuring interoperability.</div>
<div></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>The <em>Marco Civil</em> expands on its commitment to human rights and accessibility by laying down a “<em>discipline of Internet use in Brazil</em>”. 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 “<em>technical measures consistent with international standards and by encouraging the implementation of best practices</em>”.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>These principles, however, are buttressed by rights assured to Internet users and responsibilities of and exceptions provided to service providers.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<h3><strong><em>Rights and responsibilities of users and service providers:</em></strong></h3>
<div><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Net neutrality:</span></strong></div>
<div>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 <em>Marco Civil</em> requires all Internet providers to “<em>to treat any data package with isonomy, regardless of content, origin and destination, service, terminal or application</em>”. 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 <em>only</em> 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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Data retention, privacy and data protection:</span></strong></div>
<div>The <em>Marco Civil</em> 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 “<em>the conservation of intimacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved</em>” (Art. 10). Specifically, access to identifying information and contents of personal communication may be obtained <em>only</em> upon judicial authorization.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>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 (<a class="external-link" href="http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21599781-brazils-magna-carta-web-net-closes?frsc=dg%7Ca&fsrc=scn/tw_app_ipad">with penal consequences</a>) 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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>While data retention remained a point of contention (Brazil initially sought to ensure a 5-year data retention period), under the <em>Marco Civil</em><span>, 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.</span></div>
<div><span><br /></span></div>
<div><span> </span></div>
<div>Though initially excluded from the <em>Marco Civil</em>, 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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>These requirements must be understood in light of the rights that the <em>Marco Civil</em> guarantees to users. Art. 7, which enumerates these user-rights, does not however set forth their <em>content</em>; 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 “<em>inviolability of intimacy and privacy</em>”, including the confidentiality of all Internet communications, along with “<em>compensation for material or moral damages resulting from violation</em>”. 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 “<em>clear and complete information on the collection, use, storage, treatment and protection of their personal data</em>”. 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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>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 <em>Marco Civil prima facie</em> set down robust protections for private and personal data and communications.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>An initial draft of the <em>Marco Civil</em> <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/companies-brace-for-brazil-local-data-storage-requirements-7000027092/">sought to mandate</a> 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 <a class="external-link" href="http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf">statement</a> to the United Nations, declared that Brazil sought to protect itself from “<em>illegal interception of communications and data</em>”. However, the implications of this local storage requirement was the creation of a <a class="external-link" href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/brazil-looks-break-us-centric-internet">geographically isolated</a> Brazilian Internet, with repercussions for the Internet’s openness and interoperability that the <em>Marco Civil</em> itself sought to protect. Moreover, there are <a class="external-link" href="http://www.gp-digital.org/gpd-update/data-retention-provisions-in-the-marco-civil/">implications</a> 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 <a class="external-link" href="http://www.zdnet.com/brazil-gives-up-on-local-data-storage-demands-net-neutrality-7000027493/">withdrawn</a> which, some say, propelled the quick passage of the bill in the Chamber of Deputies.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">
<div><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Intermediary liability:</span></strong></div>
<div>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 <em>Marco Civil</em> 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 <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/31993">copyright reforms bill</a> seeks to address.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>At first instance, the <em>Marco Civil</em> exempts service providers from civil liability for third party content (Art. 18). Moreover, intermediaries are liable for damages arising out of third party content <em>only</em> 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, “<em>without consent of its participants, of photos, videos or other materials containing nudity or sexual acts of private character</em>”. 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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<h3><strong><em>Conclusion:</em></strong></h3>
<div>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: “<em>If Marco Civil is passed, without further delay or amendment, this would be the best possible birthday gift for Brazilian and global Web users.</em>”</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>Of course, the <em>Marco Civil</em> is not without its failings. Authors <a class="external-link" href="http://infojustice.org/archives/32527">say</a> 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.</div>
<div></div>
<div></div>
<div>On the whole, though, the <em>Marco Civil</em> 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 <em>Marco Civil</em> 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.</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/marco-civil-da-internet</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaPrivacyFreedom of Speech and ExpressionData ProtectionNet NeutralityInternet Governance2014-06-19T10:38:10ZBlog EntryMapping Web Censorship & Net Neutrality Violations
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations
<b></b>
<p> </p>
<p>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. <strong>To take this study further, and map net neutrality violations by ISPs, we need your help.</strong>
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 (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/qxKoDnnG4cR8mPZaiOr8immlHKFilRoRSYOvX_26BcZRtiN_hoo5VrFfQHbDqaES1OV6jUM0RbWCZs1ODSHr_Pf9yeJFesRxxQvyUrZm4Tlcvdjmh232QQV3fOkmrj9wiVh5LQiW1LQAprvYWmHp_s-TW5ZdNXZY07QvlFR01dKzIxnv7TorEfkyazo" target="_blank">link</a>), <strong>download CensorWatch</strong> (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/F9Wsq5zbx6VJKZxrsjYFy3Q5-jSkk0-3nr5hBfuyQiDUEKyEm_fLY6kh4W9MB7GOLoPZbowqsXDT17DEmFgMoFY4IIOEjxq0rNCtFeEc7b-0GSnRPeLDi9VmYX5WE1vGlwMvM7BPtyfmXD6lNdIWzAdjq_MpSqWRACk3JJNPhzqieJXoEoOnY8WH1rxR4HnJwDjyJHSkHgMTmWcm0POB_kDOtt2fk_GnXkkjv5LK7MxRZe8f" target="_blank">link</a>), and help determine if ISPs are complying with India’s net neutrality regulations.</p>
<div>
<p> </p>
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.censorwatch.netprobesapp"><img src="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/censorwatch/" alt="null" width="75%" /></a></p>
<p> </p>
<div>
<div>
<div>Learn more about website blocking in India, through our recent work on the issue —</div>
<ol><li>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 <strong>largest study of web blocking</strong>
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 (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/mgmW9wuVo0QjRGqm9DnDQiVT4lYy3lgY5maOgjAk05baH_NWtRSfznWooMtcTgQ2a059mWk91p_lMZqJAqaRHXZOLSEQQOAMeM5RowiyfY3giKQm3aDJoYnWw7VhAHeBjdkObBFF0PYWjoC1NJi21fSZyifOWm_CvlC3gq7nxbHtejEy" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Gurshabad Grover and Kushagra Singh
collaborated with Simone Basso of the Open Observatory of Network
Interference (OONI) to study <strong>HTTPS traffic blocking in India</strong> by running experiments on the networks of three popular Indian ISPs: ACT Fibernet, Bharti Airtel, and Reliance Jio (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/oP_eOysGeBOsgRW-5k8V-ReWU_DMUhykR2wN9ZAqndgHev3bxY1c8kSSviR3jjOMqzOJhP05AfK2CtHAH8-Zv21mU7uAW2ainkl5tmS-uZx3LG15MjZXbRQyE71871AouDuXY0hLTVEVG3ovaEvb8BSFOhJz7NpnTZdsY5vIOeBqSsaB31HJdMT8bNELQJ8VjhUoNw" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>For <em>The Leaflet</em>, Torsha Sarkar and Gurshabad Grover wrote about the <strong>legal framework of blocking in India</strong>
— 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 (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/WggQUDysA9mWPEzvGTRc43aPpKNmNjDcdEzj1ALhrbXgQWqnZRY9L9J45XXbJ3yCnX9-XIuYyRTQ588cBiYNQIs2KsfB0Dydz2QY4Z5VdMTdJ-RMr2M5uDqJ8Amr5gT3APy01bg8gNTyoEvdIcKryjrWnUFlTdxFAtohQ_AwVRjTbzC5FcAFhO9DdHOQV0Xp9X65At3tR17epGvo" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>In the <em>Hindustan Times</em>, Gurshabad Grover critically analysed <strong>the confidentiality requirement embedded within Section 69A of the IT Act</strong> and argued how this leads to internet users in India experiencing arbitrary censorship (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/j75HVdd7j4huKQd0kP9lusNpz1ZL0CxXMEWeySOhsQZbcKECrEKfaq52LlB-QjnT1TIB1mjqhB0TyweA7rLCq41Rd_6uyBUo8-Uc4iHiHSXYxC06rhW7o7ZFtCt7bKdNldDWkoMhSD7x0daAhzcSdLSPbNBRSy1HkGEGZ7Z_11tovlleodez9gm60zyvkGNM1YMQSLZ4NZ0k8RD2zncGPoWXjsytI4YwnQyy_QZNSKOSdY2_X6GoVSugRZhmyWwWCpHpk-yDM7XJ0OF4GZlTUSgfhcfftJEGBlQlkQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Torsha Sarkar, along with Sarvjeet Singh of the Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), spoke to <em>Medianama</em> delineating the <strong>procedural aspects of section 69A of the IT Act </strong>(<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/QAWrguo8Vx6X1PsmbTvCTYQ6U6nycGdSRg9gfDYFTRxUAa82nB6gYpuPyEE3VztSJzG2888ua224upBlg-k9Tu29TZdhl3ET71WwsKUfKxdyUPkLiY1A4jSD1p59sH0KXlQBqU10H38gDFHZ5WVsMCwZXLTISv9SvXIRx7Vu59U4HBV-hhB3BSpe_SApQnHQgPN0BIl0g852jSINvTI6Bh5HGNTWZ3nQWRn5H1vShoG4Q3VcZBWfewbc" target="_blank">link</a>).</li><li>Arindrajit Basu spoke to the <em>Times of India</em> about the <strong>geopolitical and regulatory implications</strong> of the Indian government’s move to ban fifty-nine Chinese applications from India (<a href="https://4jok2.r.ag.d.sendibm3.com/mk/cl/f/lICwdbQnezwqQKZHQ_Xso6Qp7735jleiJJJI88DgKZx348ewlSRWU1uFyEbtMwZOoJRS5MjHbX9KgklFrlc-jKTXKL2S4K5aCXEU2isCuFhwORAz_DnnBai7nr2pyiK0HmM0Eb3AD_JyTUwWtg9O6c0jV0Nf8cbTuT3FD7WypVO_NWUJ_GZVo7er10LMUXE_1EP_d2nh2uziuXXmM1JV-9NN6klSATsLa_tprf0bDNbNa_U4DHMm6oQvXFfVHj74jRhq3nKDkCzQeQZ_SRMxNNqIUIN5aMLGbQfBAziZ_E3hIYp-ptOQ7Y2cqF_4eiYdY20tBm5ltySmFBQQi5_nFQ" target="_blank">link</a>).</li></ol>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/mapping-web-censorship-net-neutrality-violations</a>
</p>
No publisherpranavFreedom of Speech and ExpressionNet NeutralityInternet Governanceinternet governanceCensorship2020-10-05T07:59:47ZBlog EntryInternet Freedom
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-february-14-2016-sunil-abraham-vidushi-marda-internet-freedom
<b>The modern medium of the web is an open-sourced, democratic world in which equality is an ideal, which is why what is most important is Internet freedom. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Sunil Abraham and Vidushi Marda was published by <a class="external-link" href="http://www.asianage.com/editorial/internet-freedom-555">Asian Age</a> on February 14, 2016.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What would have gone wrong if India’s telecom regulator Trai had decided to support programmes like Facebook’s Free Basics and Airtel’s Zero Rating instead of issuing the regulation that prohibits discriminatory tariffs? Here are possible scenarios to look at in case the discriminatory tarrifs were allowed as they are in some countries.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Possible impact on elections</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Facebook would have continued to amass its product — eyeballs. Indian eyeballs would be more valuable than others for three reasons 1. Facebook would have an additional layer of surveillance thanks to the Free Basics proxy server which stores the time, the site url and data transferred for all the other destinations featured in the walled garden 2. As part of Digital India, most government entities will set up Facebook pages and a majority of the interaction with citizens would happen on the social media rather than the websites of government entities and, consequently, Facebook would know what is and what is not working in governance 3. Given the financial disincentive to leave the walled garden, the surveillance would be total.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">What would this mean for democracies? Eight years ago, Facebook began to engineer the News Feed to show more posts of a user’s friends voting in order to influence voting behavior. It introduced the “I’m Voting” button into 61 million users’ feeds during the 2010 US presidential elections to increase voter turnout and found that this kind of social pressure caused people to vote. Facebook has also admitted to populating feeds with posts from friends with similar political views. During the 2012 Presidential elections, Facebook was able to increase voter turnout by altering 1.9 million news feeds.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Indian eyeballs may not be that lucrative in terms of advertising. But these users are extremely valuable to political parties and others interested in influencing elections. Facebook’s notifications to users when their friends signed on to the “Support Free Basics” campaign was configured so that you were informed more often than with other campaigns. In other words, Facebook is not just another player on their platform. Given that margins are often slim, would Facebook be tempted to try and install a government of its choice in India during the 2019 general elections?</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">In times of disasters</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Most people defending Free Basics and defending forbearance as the regulatory response in 2015/16 make the argument that “95 per cent of Internet users in developing countries spend 95 per cent of their time on Facebook”.<br /><br />This is not too far from the truth as LirneAsia demonstrated in 2012 with most people using Facebook in Indonesia not even knowing they were using the internet. In other words, they argue that regulators should ignore the fringe user and fringe usage and only focus on the mainstream. The cognitive bias they are appealing to is smaller numbers are less important.<br /><br />Since all the sublime analogies in the Net Neutrality debate have been taken, forgive us for using the scatological. That is the same as arguing that since we spend only 5% of our day in toilets, only 5% of our home’s real estate should be devoted to them.<br /><br />Everyone agrees that it is far easier to live in a house without a bedroom than a house without a toilet. Even extremely low probabilities or ‘Black Swan’ events can be terribly important! Imagine you are an Indian at the bottom of the pyramid. You cannot afford to pay for data on your phone and, as a result, you rarely and nervously stray out of the walled garden of Free Basics.<br /><br />During a natural disaster you are able to use the Facebook Safety Check feature to mark yourself safe but the volunteers who are organising both offline and online rescue efforts are using a wider variety of platforms, tools and technologies.<br /><br />Since you are unfamiliar with the rest of the Internet, you are ill equipped when you try to organise a rescue for you and your loved ones.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Content and carriage converge</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some people argue that TRAI should have stayed off the issue since the Competition Commission of India (CCI) is sufficient to tackle Net Neutrality harms. However it is unclear if predatory pricing by Reliance, which has only 9% market share, will cross the competition law threshold for market dominance? Interestingly, just before the Trai notification, the Ambani brothers signed a spectrum sharing pact and they have been sharing optic fibre since 2013.<br /><br />Will a content sharing pact follow these carriage pacts? As media diversity researcher, Alam Srinivas, notes “If their plans succeed, their media empires will span across genres such as print, broadcasting, radio and digital. They will own the distribution chains such as cable, direct-to-home (DTH), optic fibre (terrestrial and undersea), telecom towers and multiplexes.”<br /><br />What does this convergence vision of the Ambani brothers mean for media diversity in India? In the absence of net neutrality regulation could they use their dominance in broadcast media to reduce choice on the Internet? Could they use a non-neutral provisioning of the Internet to increase their dominance in broadcast media? When a single wire or the very same radio spectrum delivers radio, TV, games and Internet to your home — what under competition law will be considered a substitutable product? What would be the relevant market? At the Centre for Internet and Society (CI S), we argue that competition law principles with lower threshold should be applied to networked infrastructure through infrastructure specific non-discrimination regulations like the one that Trai just notified to protect digital media diversity.<br /><br />Was an absolute prohibition the best response for TRAI? With only two possible exemptions — i.e. closed communication network and emergencies - the regulation is very clear and brief. However, as our colleague Pranesh Prakash has said, TRAI has over regulated and used a sledgehammer where a scalpel would have sufficed. In CIS’ official submission, we had recommended a series of tests in order to determine whether a particular type of zero rating should be allowed or forbidden. That test may be legally sophisticated; but as TRAI argues it is clear and simple rules that result in regulatory equity. A possible alternative to a complicated multi-part legal test is the leaky walled garden proposal. Remember, it is only in the case of very dangerous technologies where the harms are large scale and irreversible and an absolute prohibition based on the precautionary principle is merited.<br /><br />However, as far as network neutrality harms go, it may be sufficient to insist that for every MB that is consumed within Free Basics, Reliance be mandated to provide a data top up of 3MB.<br /><br />This would have three advantages. One, it would be easy to articulate in a brief regulation and therefore reduce the possibility of litigation. Two, it is easy for the consumer who is harmed to monitor the mitigation measure and last, based on empirical data, the regulator could increase or decrease the proportion of the mitigation measure.<br /><br />This is an example of what Prof Christopher T. Marsden calls positive, forward-looking network neutrality regulation. Positive in the sense that instead of prohibitions and punitive measures, the emphasis is on obligations and forward-looking in the sense that no new technology and business model should be prohibited.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">What is Net neutrality?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to this principle, all service providers and governments should not discriminate between various data on the internet and consider all as one. They cannot give preference to one set of apps/ websites while restricting others.</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>2006</b>: TRAI invites opinions regarding the regulation of net neutrality from various telecom industry bodies and stakeholders<b>Feb. 2012</b>: Sunil Bharti Mittal, CEO of Bharti Airtel, suggests services like YouTube should pay an interconnect charge to network operators, saying that if telecom operators are building highways for data then there should be a tax on the highway</li>
<li><b>July 2012</b>: Bharti Airtel’s Jagbir Singh suggests large Internet companies like Facebook and Google should share revenues with telecom companies.</li>
<li><b>August 2012</b>: Data from M-Lab said You Broadband, Airtel, BSNL were throttling traffic of P2P services like BitTorrent</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2013</b>: Killi Kiruparani, Minister for state for communications and technology says government will look into legality of VoIP services like Skype</li>
<li><b>June 2013</b>: Airtel starts offering select Google services to cellular broadband users for free, fixing a ceiling of 1GB on the data</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2014</b>: Airtel operations CEO Gopal Vittal says companies offering free messaging apps like Skype and WhatsApp should be regulated</li>
<li><b>August 2014</b>: TRAI rejects proposal from telecom companies to make messaging application firms share part of their revenue with the carriers/government</li>
<li><b>Nov. 2014</b>: Trai begins investigation on Airtel implementing preferential access with special packs for WhatsApp and Facebook at rates lower than standard data rates</li>
<li><b>Dec. 2014</b>: Airtel launches 2G, 3G data packs with VoIP data excluded in the pack, later launches VoIP pack.</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2015</b>: Facebook launches Internet.org with Reliance communications, aiming to provide free access to 38 websites through single app</li>
<li><b>March 2015</b>: Trai publishes consultation paper on regulatory framework for over the top services, explaining what net neutrality in India will mean and its impact, invited public feedback</li>
<li><b>April 2015</b>: Airtel launches Airtel Zero, a scheme where apps sign up with airtle to get their content displayed free across the network. Flipkart, which was in talks for the scheme, had to pull out after users started giving it poor rating after hearing about the news</li>
<li><b>April 2015</b>: Ravi Shankar Prasad, Communication and information technology minister announces formation of a committee to study net neutrality issues in the country</li>
<li><b>23 April 2015</b>: Many organisations under Free Software Movement of India protested in various parts of the country. In a counter measure, Cellular Operators Association of India launches campaign , saying its aim is to connect the unconnected citizens, demanding VoIP apps be treated as cellular operators</li>
<li><b>27 April 2015</b>: Trai releases names and email addresses of users who responded to the consultation paper in millions. Anonymous India group, take down Trai’s website in retaliation, which the government could not confirm</li>
<li><b>Sept. 2015</b>: Facebook rebrands Internet.org as Free Basics, launches in the country with massive ads across major newspapers in the country. Faces huge backlash from public</li>
<li><b>Feb. 2016:</b> Trai rules in favour of net neutrality, barring telecom operators from charging different rates for data services.</li>
</ul>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The writers work at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. CIS receives about $200,000 a year from WMF, the organisation behind Wikipedia, a site featured in Free Basics and zero-rated by many access providers across the world</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-february-14-2016-sunil-abraham-vidushi-marda-internet-freedom'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/asian-age-february-14-2016-sunil-abraham-vidushi-marda-internet-freedom</a>
</p>
No publisherSunil Abraham and Vidushi MardaSocial MediaFree BasicsTRAINet NeutralityFreedom of Speech and ExpressionInternet Governance2016-02-15T02:51:10ZBlog EntryIndians Plead for #NetNeutrality as Airtel Raises Data Charges
https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges
<b></b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click to read the article <a class="external-link" href="http://globalvoicesonline.org/2014/12/30/indians-plead-for-netneutrality-as-airtel-raises-data-charges/">published in the Global Voices</a> on December 30, 2014.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">After Indian mobile data service provider Airtel <a href="http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/airtel-unveils-voip-calling-pack-for-prepaid-customers-postpaid-plans-coming-soon-640220" target="_blank">announced</a> plans to introduce data charges for VoIP usage, it received a rash of criticism from customers and open web advocates alike.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With 192.22 million users (as of August 2013), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharti_Airtel" target="_blank">Airtel </a>is India's largest mobile telephony provider and Asia-Pacific's second largest mobile operator. Although plans are now on hold due to regulatory restrictions, advocates worry that the company may yet find a way impose the fee increase.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On December 26, company proposed to raise costs for mobile phone users who rely on services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber to communicate with their contacts, requiring them to pay Rs.0.04/10KB (0.063 USD, based on current conversion rate) for 3G and Rs. 0.10/10KB (0.158 USD) for 2G service where a local or national call will cost one third of this amount or less.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you pay a fixed amount for internet data pack, Airtel will charge you extra for internet calls on Skype, Viber or any free calling app. How much? 4 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 3G and 10 paise for every 10 Kilo Bytes on 2G.</p>
<p>- <a href="http://netneutrality.in/" target="_blank">Netneutrality.in</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The new plan to charge Rs. 75 for 75 MB of data usage over VoIP calls was heavily criticized on social media:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>So let me get this straight. Airtel is worried about people using a mere 75 MB out of their data allowance? WTF? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottAirtel?src=hash">#BoycottAirtel</a></p>
<p>— Madhu Menon (@madmanweb) <a href="https://twitter.com/madmanweb/status/548472041901260800">December 26, 2014</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Messages against Airtel on Twitter and Facebook included hashtags such as <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/BoycottAirtel?src=hash" target="_blank">#BoycottAirtel</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/NetNeutrality?src=hash" target="_blank">#NetNeutrality</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In protest of Airtel India's violation of net neutrality principles, I disabled all data packs in my mobile number .</p>
<p>I am not using skype or viber usually . My usual video requirements are<a href="http://chatb.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">chatb.org</a> and Google hangout. But a carrier breaking net neutrality is a very serious development . Raise your voice against this .</p>
<p>Read More about Airtel Breaking Net Neutrality here <a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnetneutrality.in%2F&h=5AQEupp_4&enc=AZODIt9843Zfg0KTigPc37NtkWll4o_jnCF5xk0p-rwPCJ6BGVPyr7nrt427PIw8sBdvQXe8FqbbLynwJCYwCQoel_zl5wgOfqAYMZMCnrqMP9VRFIct2P_5YCx9sRsnskHUTeoGK5GHimPYVlvtDhXpbbcaTPoWROlULIgdbRfG2w&s=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://netneutrality.in/</a></p>
<p>I would like to port to some other services without gate keeping after a few weeks If airtel continues same path.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/netneutrality?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#netneutrality</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/india?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#india</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/airtel?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#airtel</a> <a href="https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/fail?source=feed_text&story_id=1531344597115231">#fail</a></p>
<p>- Anivar Joshina (on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/anivar.aravind.a/posts/1531344597115231" target="_blank">Facebook</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In an op-ed, Indian online news portal Niti Central's CEO <a href="https://twitter.com/shashidigital" target="_blank">Shashi Shekhar</a> said the move could put Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi's “Digital India” initiative in jeopardy.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.niticentral.com/2014/09/22/narendra-modis-digital-india-taking-shape-239067.html" target="_blank">Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of a Digital India</a> will be in jeopardy unless the larger mess in Telecom is fixed urgently on priority and “Net Neutrality” does not make that priority list.</p>
<p>- <a href="https://twitter.com/shashidigital" target="_blank">Shashi Shekhar</a>, CEO, Niti Central</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Airtel has not released any further response on the issue of net neutrality since their initial announcement, which read as follows:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All Internet/data packs or plans (through which customer can avail discounted rate) shall only be valid for internet browsing and will exclude VoIP (Both incoming/ Outgoing). VoIP over data connectivity would be charged at standard data rates of 4p / 10 KB (3G service) and 10p / 10 KB (2G service).</p>
<p>- Published on <a href="http://telecomtalk.info/airtel-starts-charging-for-voip-data-viber-skype-charges/128118/" target="_blank">Telecomtalk.info </a></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/airtel.png" alt="Airtel" class="image-inline" title="Airtel" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Reacting to the public outcry against Airtel, India's Union Minister of Communications <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravi_Shankar_Prasad" target="_blank">Ravi Shankar Prasad</a> <a href="http://gadgets.ndtv.com/telecom/news/government-to-look-into-airtels-plan-to-charge-for-internet-calls-ravi-shankar-prasad-639713">pledged to look into matter</a>. According to news portal <a href="http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/airtel-to-charge-extra-for-voip-calls-is-it-time-to-bid-goodbye-to-free-messaging-services-247004.html" target="_blank">First Post</a>, telecom operators voiced opposition to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content">“over-the-top”</a> VoIP services like WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber for some time, but the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecom_Regulatory_Authority_of_India" target="_blank">Telecom Regulatory Authority of India</a> (TRAI) has thus far stood in the way of a price increase.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Airtel has started on plans to charge OTT users particularly using VOIP services like viber and skype. TRAI had earlier this year rejected such demands from Indian operators. Even after this Airtel has gone ahead and kickstarted this practice.</p>
<p>- Sandip Pillai (on <a href="https://www.change.org/p/telecom-regulatory-authority-of-india-request-trai-to-stop-airtel-from-charging-voip-users-and-protect-net-neutrality-at-par-with-other-nations" target="_blank">Change.org</a>)</p>
</blockquote>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Airtel has pushed for a policy level change to legitimize exceptional data charges and many other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-top_content">over-the-top</a> services. But these were <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/12/29/bharti-airtel-rates-idINKBN0K70A920141229" target="_blank">declined </a>by TRAI who contended that Airtel's plans were “illegal and violation of net neutrality,” forcing Airtel to drop the plan — for now.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In view of the news reports that a consultation paper will be issued shortly by TRAI on issues relating to services offered by OTT players including VOIP, we have decided not to implement our proposed launch of VoIP packs.</p>
<p>We have no doubt that as a result of the consultation process a balanced outcome would emerge that would not only protect the interests of all stakeholders and viability of this important sector but would also encourage much needed investments in spectrum and roll out of data networks to fulfill the objective of digital India.</p>
<p>- Reported on <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-airtel-withdraws-voip-charges-for-now-after-forcing-trais-hand-on-net-neutrality-consultation/" target="_blank">MediaNama</a> by Nikhil Pahwa</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges'>https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/global-voices-december-30-2014-indians-plead-for-net-neutrality-as-aitel-raises-data-charges</a>
</p>
No publishersubhaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-02-11T15:10:44ZBlog EntryIndian activists slam FCC decision to ditch net neutrality
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality
<b>Indian net neutrality activists are assured the ongoing net neutrality tussle in the US will have no impact on India.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Kul Bhushan was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality/story-PR7PxLNeqyGiDqSbgTLHWK.html">Hindustan Times</a> on November 23, 2017.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Net neutrality is in the news again. This time it is because the US’ Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to formally scrap existing protections that are meant to keep access to internet equitable.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India had its own tryst with the idea of net neutrality after it <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/trai-s-says-no-to-content-based-differential-tariff-offers-supports-net-neutrality/story-1pOAI14aHvXYRu3AQNzMjP.html">blocked</a> the zero-rating programmes by social networking giant Facebook — which proposed to rollout the Internet.org or Free Basics project in February last year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A powerful social media campaign made Facebook back down and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to announce that ‘<a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/tech/trai-s-says-no-to-content-based-differential-tariff-offers-supports-net-neutrality/story-1pOAI14aHvXYRu3AQNzMjP.html">differential pricing</a>’ — a practice where some services or sites are priced in a special manner — will no longer be allowed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some people who were at the forefront of the net neutrality campaign in here almost three years ago have expressed their displeasure over the FCC’s move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I think the approach the FCC is taking is flawed. Spectrum is a public resource and it needs to be spent on maximisation of public good. That public good, and the utility of the Internet is based on the freedom that people have to create new apps and services, without needing permission from ISPs, or the fear that ISPs might discriminate against them or favour their competitors. This is what net neutrality enables,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of publication Medianama and one of the activists.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“By going against Net Neutrality, FCC chairman Ajit Pai is attacking the core of what makes the Internet tick. We didn’t let that happen in India, and instead, focused on increasing competition between ISPs and telecom operators, because of which we’ve see broadband prices drop, quality of service improve, a tremendous growth in Internet users in India. For this, we owe a great debt to all those who supported Net Neutrality, especially the TRAI,” he added.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Apar Gupta, who is closely associated with the ‘Save the Internet’ initiative and is the co-founder of Internet Freedom Foundation, said, “FCC’s move to take back the internet order is a huge setback to the global campaign to ensure open internet because it undermines the net neutrality.”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“I don’t think the development should impact the regulatory process in India considering TRAI’s strong support for net neutrality. I hope that TRAI comes out with a comprehensive network neutrality regulation in the future,” he responded when asked about the possible impact on India of the FCC move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Sunil Abraham, executive director of Bangalore-based research organisation Centre for Internet and Society, said there should be no impact on India from the FCC move.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He also slammed FCC chief Pai’s attempt to change the existing net neutrality rules. “What Ajit Pai is trying to do he’s not saying he will not regulate. He is saying when companies violate net neutrality principles they should be transparent about it. He hopes the magic of market competition will help resolve the problem,” he said</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">“Pai’s approach to the net neutrality might work in a market where there is a lot of competition. In the US, there is no competition and that in case damage will be immediate,” he added.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/hindustan-times-kul-bhushan-november-23-2017-indian-activists-slam-fcc-decision-to-ditch-net-neutrality</a>
</p>
No publisherAdminNet NeutralityInternet Governance2017-12-18T15:27:04ZNews ItemIndia’s net neutrality debate is unique and complex
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india2019s-net-neutrality-debate-is-unique-and-complex
<b>Connectivity to millions in India is main issue </b>
<div id="stcpDiv" style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Pratap Vikram Singh was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.governancenow.com/gov-next/egov/indias-net-neutrality-debate-unique-complex">published in Governance Now</a> on December 14, 2015.</div>
<hr />
<div style="text-align: justify; "></div>
<div style="text-align: justify; ">The net neutrality debate has perplexed layman and policy experts alike. For a developing country like India, where a majority of the population doesn’t have access to internet, whether government should stick to the core principles or should it allow flexibility in network management practices to operators is still not clear yet. Whether India should go for an overarching, prophylactic regulation (ex ante), prohibiting any kind of zero rating, or should it adopt evidence-based, contextual regulation (ex post facto)? Whether zero rating should be allowed and if allowed then on what conditions? This is what experts from telecom industry and civil society deliberated in a round table on network neutrality jointly organised by Observer Research Foundation and Centre for Internet and Society on Saturday.<br /> <br /> Neutrality refers to open and non-discriminatory nature of internet; information (or say data packets) has always flown freely on the network. Facebook, Google and many other internet businesses have emerged as a result of free and non discriminatory nature of internet.<br /> <br /> Warning against taking a 'doctrinaire' approach to net neutrality, a telecom industry expert said that regulators must have flexibility to respond to market demand in the telecom industry. Adding that Indian market is unique with more than seven-ten telecom operators providing internet facility, the expert said that net neutrality will play differently in developing countries.<br /> <br /> He said if implemented properly, the zero-rating approach or sponsored content followed by TSPs, “can be one of the ways to scale up internet access” to the unconnected regions.<br /> <br /> Another industry expert said that the regulations on network neutrality has to be contextualized in terms of geography. He criticized the ‘savetheinternet’ movement, which galvanised support of one million internet users in favour of strict neutrality, for preventing one billion people from accessing ‘free’ internet. He said that telecom operators’ revenue from zero rating plans is less than one percent.<br /> <br /> He was also against bringing net neutrality under the purview of competition commission of India. He said that there are already several laws related to consumer protection, information technology and monopoly to deal with situations arising out of neutrality issue.<br /> <br /> An internet freedom activist said that zero rating can be allowed under stringent conditions of transparency, non-exclusivity and reasonability. He said that one way of setting the neutrality debate would be to allow zero rating with an amount of equal rating. This means that telecom players can offer toll free access to certain websites but they would also have to provide free 100 Mb or 200 Mb data connectivity within which a user can access any website or app for free.<br /> <br /> “Countries like the US can afford to debate on net neutrality as almost 90 percent of their population are connected to internet. Here (in India) we should first worry about providing internet access to our people,” an ORF researcher said, speaking on the sidelines of the roundtable discussion. <br /> <br /> The neutrality debate is getting momentum again with TRAI’s consultation paper being released on December 9. In its second paper, TRAI suggested, “that TSPs could provide initial data consumption for free, without limiting it to any particular content. Current examples of this approach include allowing free browsing or discounted tariffs for specified time windows, or giving away a certain amount of data for free.”<br /> <br /> The regulator also called for regulation that “must seek a balance between ensuring wider access to the internet,” and in the manner that does not allow discrimination in charging tariffs from the users consuming varied content. The regulator has asked all stakeholders in telecom industry to come up with alternative methods in order to provide free access of internet to the consumers, and keep competition and innovation in the market intact.</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india2019s-net-neutrality-debate-is-unique-and-complex'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/india2019s-net-neutrality-debate-is-unique-and-complex</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaSocial MediaNet NeutralityInternet Governance2015-12-30T16:38:45ZNews Item