Telecom companies, as any profit making entities are interested in unfair advantages at the cost of customer interest. They will spend enough money and lobbying power to make sure the playing field is tilted to their side. An individual or even a group of individuals in this country can never be a match to money/lobbying powers of such companies with deep pockets.
The LOADED QUESTIONS in TRAI questionnaire is a shock, an ordinary citizen will think those questions are prepared by the telecom companies themselves. The questions have some serious pre-suppositions like there aren't any rules regarding internet usage.
And, there are FLAWED ASSUMPTIONS that telecom companies face revenue loss due to VOIP and internet based messaging services. By the looks of it, TRAI's public consultation is hogwash.
The use of technical terms like OTT (Over the Top) Services, OSP (Other Service Provider), et cetera are there to mislead common people, meant to extract favorable responses.
The first question reads:
Question 1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for Internet/OTT services, since internet penetration is still evolving, access speeds are generally low and there is limited coverage of high-speed broadband in the country? Or, should some beginning be made now with a regulatory framework that could be adapted to changes in the future? Please comment with justifications.
This is a loaded question. YES and NO – both are wrong answers here. 'Is there a need to establish a regulatory framework for VOIP and SMS services' would have been a lot better. And the answer is NO. There shall not be any special regulation for such services – now or in future.
The rest of the question is silver tongue of telecom companies.
The Second Question Proves the Consultation is Tilted in Favor of Telecom Companies
Question 2: Should the Internet/OTT players offering communication services (voice, messaging and video call services through applications (resident either in the country or outside) be brought under the licensing regime? Please comment with justifications.
Answer. No. Companies and individuals using internet are already covered by the rules of the land and there isn't any new need to regulate or license internet based messaging or calling services.
Telecom Companies want an UNFAIR Share of the Pie - as seen in the third question.
Question 3: Is the growth of Internet/OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of Telecom operators/Telecom operators? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the Telecom Operators sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with reasons.
This two part question pleads a YES for the first and NO for the second part. The truth is, people use mobile services for data usage, which is additional revenue for telecom operators. They shall be taxed for this additional revenue. They lie they face revenue losses. If TRAI stands for the general public and the future of India, they will rule the data revenues of Telecom Operators are sufficient and they don't need to be compensated for (untrue) projections of revenue loss.
Here comes the real blow to Net Neutrality – read the fourth question.
Question 4: Should the Internet/OTT players pay for use of the Telecom Operators network over and above data charges paid by consumers? If yes, what pricing options can be adopted? Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption? Can prices be used as a means of product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.
Consumers have the choice of using whatever apps or websites they are pleased to use. If the Internet/OTT players start paying the Telecom Operators, it will be the end of internet as we know it. This is a total disaster.
The apps that pay the Telecom Companies will get unfair treatment in the form of faster access. The companies that don't pay the Telecom Companies will have limited access like slower access or no access at all. It essentially will kill the start-ups and companies on a limited budget before they are born. Meanwhile, companies with deep pockets will have all the broadband highway reserved for them. Don't kill netneutrality, please.
Today, small scale farmers like Manoj K can find customers for homegrown vegetables and rice through his tiny website at http://agri.manojkmohan.com/, where he uses tools like Google Docs. Anyone who wants to buy from him can access his website just like any other website – of Times of India, or eBay or Amazon.
If there comes a time Manoj has to pay the Telecom Companies, he is effectively taken out of the internet. The customers don't have access to the website and they can't buy the produce – simply because the Telecom Companies can throttle the website.
Internet is meant to be a level playing field for all. Not only for the big companies that can spend truckloads of money and tons of lobbying power.
Question 5 has some pre-assumptions too.
Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of Internet/OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to Internet/OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.
Answer to the first part: No. There aren't any imbalances existing in the regulatory environment.
There need not be any additional framework, and there aren't any issues at all. The existing rules like the Information Technology Act 2000 and the provisions of Indian Penal Code have all the rules and regulations applicable to Internet/OTT players. They do no operate in a virtual world. They operate from a physical location and make the services available in the internet.
The Telecom Operators need to provide only data access without benevolence to some and malevolence to others. Telecom Operators don't provide the services that are offered by internet platforms/OTT players. Their services are different. Telecom Operators are not held responsible for the action of OTT players as per existing rules.
Taking Everything to New Levels
Question 6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to OTT players providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data records, logs etc. need to be mandated for such OTT players? And, how can compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such OTT players reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.
An ordinary citizen is not meant to answer such questions – at least that is what I thought till now. However, I believe there are provisions in the law that allows governments to block any website if there is a situation of national security or public order. Indian Government can, when needed, can access data from such platforms under existing rules of the land.
User Safety
Question 7: How should the OTT players offering app services ensure security, safety and privacy of the consumer? How should they ensure protection of consumer interest? Please comment with justifications.
Indian Penal Code already has procedure for trying Criminal acts – including the ones committed by persons with the help of such platforms. Regulating such platforms doesn't guarantee any additional protection to the consumer. It also leads to serious privacy breaches, which is also against consumer interests.
Question 8:
In what manner can the proposals for a regulatory framework for OTTs in India draw from those of ETNO, referred to in para 4.23 or the best practices summarised in para 4.29? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.
NO ANSWER
Question 9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the various principles discussed in para 5.47 be dealt with? Please comment with justifications.
No discrimination of internet traffic. That is what a consumer wants. Don't allow telecom operators to dictate what content people access. Internet is a very democratic, level playing field. Don't tilt it towards the big and the powerful.
Small players also need access to the same resources. If the big companies are allowed to strike a deal with telecom operators, it will effectively push the smaller players out of the field.
If you compare the internet/broadband to a highway, the big league players will have the fast lanes and profitable spots reserved for them, while the small players are forced into the side lanes.
Another Loaded Question:
Question 10: What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach? What should or can be permitted? Please comment with justifications.
No form of discrimination or traffic management practice needed. Just scrap the idea. Ensure free and non-discriminatory access and traffic to every player in the field – big or small.
Question 11: Should the TSPs be mandated to publish various traffic management techniques used for different OTT applications? Is this a sufficient condition to ensure transparency and a fair regulatory regime?
Yes. And punish any Telecom Operator that uses such practices.
Question 12: How should a conducive and balanced environment be created such that TSPs are able to invest in network infrastructure and CAPs are able to innovate and grow? Who should bear the network upgradation costs? Please comment with justifications
There is no need to a conductive and balanced environment. Let the telecom companies invest in upgrading their networks and make available fast internet connections to one billion plus consumers in the country. Since they benefit from additional number of customers and additional revenues from existing customers, the cost of network upgrading should be borne by TSPs.
Question 13: Should TSPs be allowed to implement non-price based discrimination of services? If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? What restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are not abused? What measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers? Please comment with justifications.
No. No discrimination shall be allowed under whatever circumstances. Restrictions don't make internet better. TRAI must mandate TSPs to furnish any details of such restrictions or discrimination and publish it in TRAI website. And, punish any telecom company that engages in such discrimination.
Question 14: Is there a justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services? If so, what changes need to be brought about in the present tariff and regulatory framework for telecommunication services in the country? Please comment with justifications.
No.
Question 15: Should OTT communication service players be treated as Bulk User of Telecom Services (BuTS)? How should the framework be structured to prevent any discrimination and protect stakeholder interest? Please comment with justification.
No. There shall not be any framework in this regard.
Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
There shall not be any additional regulation – leave it a level playing ground for all.
Strong net-neutrality laws need to be enacted – so that small players are not pushed out of the scene.
Question 17: If the OTT communication service players are to be licensed, should they be categorised as ASP or CSP? If so, what should be the framework? Please comment with justifications.
No. The OTT communication service players need not be licensed. If they are not to be licensed, there is no question of categorizing them. There shall not be any framework. Too much regulation can only prevent innovations and denial of services to consumers.
Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.
No. The market will decide a fair price. Throttling some companies and services can lead to predatory pricing by companies that can pay the telecom companies big money. In the India scenario, the subscription charges to such services remain very low. The charges remain low because of the competition fostered by a free market. Remaining so is good for the consumer.
Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.
None! Government need not regulate whether they are communication or non-communication OTT players.
Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?
Yes! Enact net-neutrality laws in India and make sure every small and big player has a level playing field. Any efforts to tilt the playing field towards the big and the powerful shall be severely punished.
Stop the Telecom companies offering free or reduced rate access to specific websites or services – it is a serious violation of net neutrality.
Don't ever allow websites, internet platforms or OTT players to pay any subscription fee to Telecom companies – other than for data access charges. Any such payment shall be treated as bribe.