=====
#NETNEUTRALITY=====
There is a debate raging these days on social media on the net neutrality issue. Since a lot of details are well-known, just a instances of what happens when net neutrality gets violated:
1. The Airtel-Flipkart fracas – In brief, Airtel promoted its Airtel Zero Platform scheme, under which certain apps would not have cost users any data charge (which means apps not on the platform are automatically being disfavoured). Flipkart supported it, and as a response their ratings on Android and iOS app stores were flamed to holy hell.
2. Andhra Pradesh-based Bluwifi charged its users extra money for accessing P2P services – that is, our lifeline, the much-beloved torrents.
3. Airtel wanted to charge additional money around Christmas 2014 for OTT services such as Viber and WhatsApp.
There are many other examples, but I hope you got the flavour of the problem: telecom service providers and internet service providers want to make (more) money off their internet services. Let me quote Rajat Mukarji of Idea Cellular:
“Riding for free on our network puts a certain amount of strain on our network. They’re reaching out to my customer with a capability which I couldn’t provide. But, don’t take my cake away from me. I have to survive as well.”
So let’s spell out the telco argument: “Customers pay once for our internet package. Then we want to charge them again depending on the kind of content they access. That’s because we have not yet “monetized” that, and because the service we themselves offer are being ignored because of the services that content makers (such as social networks, Google, Wiki, YouTube and so on) provide.”
Do I hear you saying “RUBBISH! BOLLOCKS! BALDERDASH!”?
Truth be told, net neutrality is not a principle of law right now. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and the Department of Telecom have been indicating for years now that they have indeed been thinking about this issue. Unfortunately, they seem to be taking the side of the service providers and not the janta of the country. Let’s think of it this way: telecom operators have two very powerful lobbies, namely COAI (for GSM operators) and AUSPI (for CDMA). Additionally, internet providers have IAMAI. They have been lobbying with the TRAI for bending the rules in their favour.
“Hold on!” you say, “What about us, the consumers?”
Precisely: what about us? Who will ensure that we are not dealt a raw deal? And aren’t the regulators supposed to take OUR side, the benefit of consumers and not the benefit of service providers, if it can be said that consumer interests and corporate interests are mutually exclusive?
It’s time for a small detour to around February 2015: we wrote a post about a very dull regulatory announcement from a distant corner of the world. The American Federal Communications Commission had announced that internet service providers were henceforth to be classified as common carriers, and they had to ensure on pain of legal prosecution that there would be no:
1. No blocking: internet service providers cannot decide what I can access or not.
2. No throttling: my internet speed cannot be choked based on my consumption pattern
3. No paid prioritization: some websites cannot pay more money to get delivered faster to your device, or alternately, to choke down competitor websites.
(read our status update about that issue here –
https://www.facebook.com/TheFrustratedIn…/…/814585451910268…)
For a moment, let us do a little poorv paksh on the telco side of the argument (which is rubbish): “we make heavy investments in spectrum auctions, in towers and in equipment – why should we not be allowed to recover that through pricing mechanisms that are free of regulatory oversight?” To that, I will respond in a number of ways:
First, consumers ARE already paying service providers their due charges, and it is the TELCOS who are cheating us consumers by not providing the requisite quality of service (internet speed slower than advertised, call drops, weak and patchy networks right in the middle of the busiest parts of metros, plus the immensely irritating spam messages and calls that no TSP has been willing to cease).
Second, spectrum pricing cannot and must not be connected to net neutrality: those prices cannot depend on what they force consumers to pay later down the line – which is a bad financial projection practice anyway.
Third, price ceilings are ALREADY very much in place: just last week, TRAI announced maximum roaming charges and SMS charges that can be levied, and they are now lower than what they used to be by a significant margin.
So, in short, we hope our government uses the same logic as the FCC and strictly enforces a stringent form of net neutrality. This is in the larger interest of a developing nation where improved internet access will have a ripple effect on the larger knowledge and service economy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfY1NKrzqi0
watch this video
