India’s Telecom Regulator has begun a combined consultation on two topics: licensing for Internet apps and content, and Net Neutrality.
The have recently released a paper and Nikhil Pahwa of Medianama has answered some questions for the general public in this document.
Tampa BSides - Chef's Tour of Microsoft Security Adoption Framework (SAF)
Internet licensing And Net Neutrality FAQs
1. FAQs: Internet Licensing and Net Neutrality
● India’s Telecom Regulator has begun a combined consultation on two topics: licensing
for Internet apps and content, and Net Neutrality.
● An abridged version of the TRAI Consultation Paper is here
● On the basis of that paper, please ask questions in the comments here, and we’ll
respond by adding the question and the answer.
● Add questions at the top
Question: What is the rationale for not letting telcos use their pipes to maximize their
business goals. If Levers can sell the same shampoo for different prices in different
markets; or if Medianama can have different rates for different advertisers. (Alok Mittal
on Facebook)
Answer(@nixxin):
1. Public utilities are regulated differently: Telecom operators license a public
resource: spectrum. In the same way that we regulate how coal mines draw coal, or
how toll booths charge cars that go through them, we have to regulate how telecom
companies charge users. Levers and MediaNama are private companies, their
resources and products are not public property. Differential charging is fine: heavy
users (like Heavy Traffic Vehicles) are charged on the basis of their usage. That’s why
you have expensive data plans and cheaper data plans. You don’t stop each car, ask
where they’re going, and charge accordingly. You don’t stop each vehicle, find out the
value of the goods they’re carrying, and charge accordingly. I’m all for businesses
getting the freedom to do what they want, but spectrum, and hence Internet access, is
licensed public property, not the private property of telecom operators.
Structurally, there is also significant market concentration (a point made below).
Broadband and Internet access is monopolistic in nature, and telecom operators work
like cartels. That’s why Mobile Number Portability is great, because it gives you the
freedom. However, not all networks are equal, not all spectrum availability is equal. To
protect consumer rights, and indeed (a point made below), the freedom to do business
online, regulation has to protect neutrality online, not allow the platform to discriminate
and play kingmaker. (thanks to this tweet for reminding me about this point)
A point made here: Levers doesn’t price shampoo differently based on whether you’re
shampooing the hair or the beard.
2. Impact on the Internet ecosystem: For the growth of the Internet (the Digital India
goal), you need a stable platform, and for access to be open. Startups need the
stability of the knowledge that just because they launch a service, it will not be slowed
down, blocked, sliced into a separate package that a user will have to buy from a
telecom operator, and a big competitor like Facebook or Google will not pay off a
telecom operator to make their own service free, while a startup can’t afford to make
5. harm, from restricting what users do with their internet connection, while giving the operator
general freedom to manage bandwidth consumption and other matters of local concern.”
Question: Which countries have a good model to deal with this?
Answer
@aparatbar: At present there are several countries which are models of network neutrality legislation.
These are segregated on the basis of strong, moderate and proposals.
Country Legislation Key features
Brazil
(strong)
Marco Civil da
Internet
adopted on
April 23, 2014.
(link)
Art. 9 of the Act guarantees network neutrality in Brazil. It
states that the party responsible for the transmission,
switching or routing has the duty to process, on an isonomic
basis, any data packages, regardless of content, origin and
destination, service, terminal or application. The aim of this
provision is to prevent operators from charging higher rates
for accessing content that uses greater bandwidth, like video
streaming or voice communication services.
Chile
Ecuador
(moderate
)
The
Telecommunic
ations Act
December 17,
2014
(link)
Clause 18 of Art. 22 dictates that subscribers, customers
and users of telecommunications services shall be entitled
to, “[...] access any application or authorized service
available on the internet network. Providers may not block,
interfere, discriminate, hinder or restrict the right of its users
or subscribers to use, send, receive or offer any content,
application, development or legal service through Internet or
networks in general or other forms of information and
communication technologies, nor may they limit the right of a
user or subscriber to incorporate or use any class of
instruments, devices or gadgets on the network, provided
they are legal”. However, this has been recently limited by
an amendment in Article 64 which permits the establishment
of Tariff Plans (link).
Mexico
(strong)
The Federal
Telecommunic
ations and
Radio
Broadcasting
Act Adopted
on July 14,
2014
The law adopts the following principles, (i) free election; (ii)
nondiscrimination; (iii) privacy; (iv) transparency; (v) traffic
management; (vi) quality; and (vii) sustained infrastructure
development [link].
6. [link]
Netherlan
ds
(strong)
Network
Neutrality
provisions
adopted on
June 14, 2011
[link]
The Network Neutrality provisions are contained in Article
7.4a of the Telecommunications Act which mandated that,
“Providers of public electronic communication networks
which deliver internet access services and providers of
internet access services do not hinder or slow down
applications and services on the internet...”. (link)
Question: Government maximises revenues when it auctions spectrum, what’s wrong
in telecom companies trying to do the same? Internet is not a public utility, American
courts have in the past struck down FCC regulation on Internet companies saying the
same.
Answer
@nixxin: I would argue that the Internet is a public utility. Spectrum is a public resource,
leased to telecom operators for a certain period of time (20 years). That doesn’t necessarily
give them the right to control whether we can access some services and not others, pay more
for accessing some services, not others, have some services accessed at a higher speed
than others. We pay for access to certain MB or KB, and that has been the norm. Look at how
it has benefited us: is there any space as open, collaborative, competitive and vibrant as the
Internet? Businesses and companies are free to operate whatever services they want,
reimagine consumer experiences. Features become full businesses. That freedom will get
constrained by this approach to maximise revenues by restricting. Telecom operators should
be seeking to maximise revenues by making us use more of the Internet. They’re slicing the
pie instead of growing the pie.
Most core services communications, commerce run on digital infrastructure, and it brings in
competitiveness and efficiency. The moment you find that you can’t do some things, the
Internet will break. For example: if there is a license for a messaging app in India, would you
be able to chat with merchants on a Quikr or Paytm app to negotiate rates? If there is a
separate license for video, and you don’t have one, you might download a health app that has
both a trainer and exercise videos. You might not be able to interact with the trainer, or watch
videos, unless you have a separate license for apps, a separate license for video and one for
messaging. This will break the Internet into data packs. Don’t believe me? Read what Airtel
said: “We are trying to change the vocabulary away from megabytes and gigabytes in to
songs and videos” (source) and what Uninor did: here.
@aparatbar: Past arguments in the United States are based on legal technicalities than the
ordinary dictionary definition of, “public utility”. This question to a certain degree is moot given
the reclassification of Internet and Broadband utilities have been classified as services under