Net Neutrality

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is

the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat
all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially
by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or
mode of communication.

coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003

Eg
intentionally slowed peer-to-peer communications
online games
free-to-telecom value-added services
OTT services

Methods
Discrimination by protocol
Discrimination by IP addressIn a practice called zero-rating, companies will reimburse data use from certain
addresses, favoring use of those services. Examples include Facebook Zero and
Google Free Zone
Favoring private networks
Peering discrimination

Arguments against net neutrality

1.Reduction in innovation and investments- Opponents say that net

neutrality would make it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs)
and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband
networks. Less investment means less innovation and reduction of
broadband networks.
You need to know how youre going to get a return on that investment. If
you have these pure net neutrality rules where you can never charge a
company like Netflix anything, youre not ever going to get a return on
continued network investment which means youll stop investing in the
network.
2.Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality- the Internet is already
not a level playing field: large companies achieve a performance advantage
over smaller competitors by replicating servers and buying highbandwidth services(CDN). Should prices drop for lower levels of access, or
access to only certain protocols, for instance, a change of this type would
make Internet usage more neutral, with respect to the needs of those
individuals and corporations specifically seeking differentiated tiers of
service.
3.Broadband infrastructure
4.Prevent overuse of bandwidth Eg P2P,Video streaming

Arguments for net neutrality

Proponents of net neutrality include consumer advocates, human rights
organizations such as Article 19, online companies and some technology
companies.Many major Internet application companies are advocates of
neutrality. Yahoo!, Vonage,[80] eBay, Amazon,IAC/InterActiveCorp. Microsoft,
Twitter, Tumblr, Etsy, Daily Kos, Greenpeace.
1.Control of data- Supporters of network neutrality want to designate cable
companies as common carriers, which would require them to allow Internet
service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines, the model used for dial-up
Internet

SaveTheInternet.com accuses cable and telecommunications companies of

wanting the role of gatekeepers, being able to control which websites load
quickly, load slowly, or don't load at all.
2.Digital rights and freedoms- net neutrality ensures that the Internet
remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication.
monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent
news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content
3.User intolerance for slow-loading sites-Users with faster Internet
connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than
users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile
4.Competition and innovation-Net neutrality advocates argue that
allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or
premium delivery would create an exploitative business model based on the
ISPs position as gatekeepers.[105] Advocates warn that by charging websites
for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and
services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay.[37] According to
Tim Wu, cable companies plan to reserve bandwidth for their own television
services, and charge companies a toll for priority service.

preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service, would put newer

online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online
services.Speedy and secure Internet use for such industries as health care,
finance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large fees charged by
these companies. They further explain that a majority of the great innovators
in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garages,
inspired by great ideas.
5.Preserving Internet standards
6.Preventing pseudo-services- it is unlikely that new investment will be
made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users
faster. Rather, he believes that non-net neutrality will involve leveraging
quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid
being slowed down.
7.End-to-end principle-Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb
network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support.

This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, "The Rise
of the Stupid Network".
==================================================
==============================

OTT - Over the top Services - Data services offering , instant messaging , VOIP
[voice calling using Internet] , and thus bypassing the telecom ,which investing in
infrastructure to widen the customer bass ultimately benefitting the Customers as
wells as OTT providers Viz Wechat , WhatsApp, Skype, Viber, etc
~ Such provides the Instant data transfer + Eliminating need of various email
services too
Challenges to
A. SECURITY
~ Data /chats and voice calls at international server
~ Cyber crime and incidence of identity theft , etc can be issue
~ Security of individual his location can be compromised , astray use GPS/GLONASS
services . Such was also seen as Weapon in Iraq war by America
~Government data can also be at risk
B Economy
~ No Motivation to telecom to widen Infrastructure , thus Greater rural -urban divide
~ Increased spectrum prices and diminishing return Post OTT revolution can Dent
balance sheets ,However data revenue is 20% and still voice revenues tops but
policy needs to be in place
~With low priced Smartphones , growing Internet penetration , Such revenue of OTT
are on rise .
~Cause to think telecom to increase data charges etc
Way ahead and Pragmatism
~ Situation is If they go forward there is biasses towards data thus against principle
of Net neutrality however if they don't it is posing threat to their Business model
~Revenue sharing Model in this scenario of can be viable option , provided
Consensus building exercise b/w TRAI,telecoms and OTT provider

Recently DOT released its report on net neutrality, which at large

advocates strong support and commitment to protect net neutrality
in interest of innovation and telecom infrastructure. It stresses that
government should identify international best practices in this field and apply
them selectively with suitable modifications in Indian Context. Net neutrality
is defined by different interest groups and governments in different ways
which suit their interest. Indian definition of Net Neutrality must be drawn in
contextual ambit that it is aspiring to turn itself into Digital India. So it
becomes imperative that quality, affordable and universal internet services are
aspired.
Despite strong advocacy for net neutrality, a few suggestions has irked
different interest groups. Most hotly contested suggestions are
1.

Regulate domestic VOIP calling.

Voice over Internet Protocol allows consumer to make calls using internet
data. Such services are being offered by applications such as Skype, Viber,
Hike etc. Telecom service providers claim that they are losing regular voice
call revenues due to growing popularity of VOIP calling. Few years back they
were getting just 5% of total revenues from data (internet) services, now it has
increased to 17%. In developed countries revenue for data services is as high as
95%. It will register stellar growth in future in case net neutrality is ensured.
DOT panel recommended that only domestic VOIP calling be regulated,
as it is beyond scope of Indian administration to regulate international data.
But experts claim that it is impossible to distinguish between two without
violating privacy laws. It can be done only by deep data packet inspection and
use of data sniffers. This will lead to surveillance of private data.

Rationale behind suggestion to regulate domestic VOIP calling is that regular

telecom calling is already regulated due to wide array of concerns, security
being one of them. Unregulated VOIP calling draws unfair advantage in such
scenario.
The report goes on to note that the current pace of VoIP has the potential of
disrupting existing domestic telecom revenue models and that this may
decelerate the pace of telecom infrastructure expansion. The report adds that
this would disrupt investment in telecom sector which is much needed in
order to increase broadband reach, speeds, bandwidth capacity, etc.
2. Treatment of zero-rating :Services should be open to all
users & content providers
Zero rating plans attempts to create such alliances between content providers
(like Facebook, flipkart etc) and telecom service providers, so that latter gives
preferential to content of former. This is being perceived as biggest assault on
Net Neutrality.
For instance, if Flipkart, Facebook and Wikipedia enter into an agreement
with Airtel (300 million subscriber base) under which former three will pay
some charges to Airtel and in return Airtel will allow its subscribers free access
to their content. Overtime, many people with limited use will stop
buying regular internet plans, relying on these three website. Given
that Airtels subscriber base is huge; this can seriously impact macro level
competition in adverse ways. Users can be forced to buy expensive products
from flipkart as they dont have access to amazon. By this, entry for
newcomers in market will be halted because of restrictions. Implications get
even more serious when there is a vision of Digital India under which internet
will be instrumental in providing all sorts of public services.

Above arguments are being hotly contested by telecom service providers by

claiming that such plans helps in extended reach of internet services to rural
and urban poor as they are available without any extra top up. Argument holds
weight, but it cant be denied that long term ill effects matter more than short
term benefits.
Consequently, DOT suggests that any such plan should be open for all content
providers and there should be same terms and conditions for all. This
arrangement is being named as gatekeeping role by service providers
and regulatory intervention is suggested to discourage it. They criticized
Airtels Zero rating plan for its violation of net neutrality.
3. Not to regulate over-the-top (OTT) messaging services
DOT suggests that messaging services provided by apps such as Viber,
Whatsapp etc. should be encouraged and there is no need to regulate them.
Regulators have to interfere in free markets in cases where there is market
failure and monopolies are being established. Regulator checks monopolistic
powers and ensures that there is space for other players to compete. There
may be a viable scenario that alliance between content providers may be
allowed if they give only limited preferential treatment to certain content.
This may be decided by regulator on case to case basis.
Recent report is just a part of big process. Report of Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India and A Parliamentary Committee on the subject is yet to
come.

DoPT suggested VoIP services must be regulated through exercise of licensing powers
available under section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act to ensure a level playing field.
Arguments for:
1. Licensing does not necessarily mean that these services will be charged

2. Level playing field: regular telecom calls are already under licensing. To provide level
playing field, VoIP should also be brought under licensing.
3. Decrease in revenue for telecom operator: Demands by the telecom operators as VoIP
services displace the level playing field in market there by distorting the revenue models.
4. Telecom investment in infrastructure: since revenues from regular calls are decresing for
telecom players, they will be reluctant to invest in expansion of telecom infra
5. Digital india: the Digital India programme which aims at providing many services online
banks upon internet will suffer if telecom players do not expand infrastructure
6. Security: reguar calls are regulated to ensure security of the Country. Same needs t be
done for VoIP
Arguments against:
1. Violation of privacy: DOT has said that domestic calls should be regulated becsue law does
not provide for regulating international calls. But differentiation with international calls can
be made only with data sniffe which will require surveillance of private data.
2. Revenue from VoIP services: telecom companies benefit from VoIP in the form of fee for
data usage by VoIP
3. Expensive for consumer: there is a good chance that if the suggestion is implemented the
consumer might be worse off for it
4. Regulations may hamper the progress in innovations as this market is in a growth phase
5. Increase in smart phones and net connectivity will help to bridge the communication gap
in an effective and less capital intensive manner
6. This is considered as the first step against net neutrality.
Hence, the argument that telecom operators will not invest in telecom infrastructure
because of losses is specious as they are getting revenues for data usage. Moreover,
consumer interest is better off by keeping VoIP out of licensing

Access at the cost of Net neutrality?

How is it managed in India?
There are no laws enforcing net neutrality in India. Although TRAI
guidelines for the Unified Access Service license promote net
neutrality, it does not enforce it. The Information Technology Act

2000 also does not prohibit companies from throttling their service
in accordance with their business interests.
TRAIs recent draft consultation paper:
Recently, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) released a
draft consultation paper seeking the publics views on whether the
Internet needed regulation. Much of its attention was focussed on
the supposedly pernicious impact of applications such as WhatsApp
and Viber, and very less on net neutrality.

TRAI says, In a multi-ethnic society there is a vital need to

ensure that the social equilibrium is not impacted adversely by
communications that inflame passions, disturb law and order and
lead to sectarian disputes.

The basic questions raised by the above view are:

Should at least some Internet applications be amenable to a

greater regulation?

Should they compensate the telecom service providers in

addition to the data charges that the consumers pay directly for
the use of mobile Internet?

What if the government answers these questions in the affirmative?

If the government eventually answers these questions in the
affirmative, the consequences could be drastic.

It could lead to a classification of Internet applications based

on arbitrary grounds, by bringing some of them, whom the
government views as harmful to society in some manner or
another, within its regulatory net.

Through such a move, the state, contrary to helping establish

principles of Net neutrality as a rule of law, would be actively
promoting an unequal Internet.

Why it is necessary to have a specific law mandating net neutrality?

In the absence of a specific law mandating a neutral Internet,

telecom companies enjoy a virtual carte blanche to discriminate
between different applications.

Though these companies have not yet completely exploited

this autonomy, they are certainly proceeding towards such an
exercise.

Also alarming is that mobile Internet service providers could, in

the future, plausibly also control the speeds at which different
applications are delivered to consumers. This kind of
discrimination tends to breed an unequal playing field, and, if
allowed to subsist, it could create a deep division in the online
world.

Airtel Zero case:

In April this year, Airtel announced Airtel Zero, an initiative that

would allow applications to purchase data from Airtel in
exchange for the telecom company offering them to consumers
free of cost.

Airtel Zero was widely perceived as a violation of net neutrality

which could potentially stifle innovation and startup growth.
There was also an allegation that it effectively tilts the balance in
favor of the bigger players.

By paying to be on Airtel Zero, companies could make sure

that their users get free access to their service, while smaller
players are at a disadvantage. However, Airtel has said that zero
rating does not violate net neutrality as it lowers the cost of
access and it is non-discriminatory.

To prevent such things, it appears necessary to have a specific

mandating a neutral internet.

Views of telecom companies:

Telecom companies that wish to discriminate between

applications argue that in the absence of an Internet that has
completely permeated all strata of society, an obligation to
maintain neutrality is not only unreasonable on the companies,
but also unfair on the consumer.

They argue that initiatives like internet.org and Airtel zero

bring, at least, some portions of the Internet to people who
otherwise have no means to access the web.

This gives rise to a clash of values: between access to the

Internet (in a limited form) and the maintenance of
neutrality in an atmosphere that is inherently unequal. This
makes tailoring a solution to the problem a particularly
arduous process.
What net neutrality proponents say?

Net neutrality proponents arent resistant to the idea of a

greater penetration of the Internet. But, their apprehensions lie
in companies resorting to what they believe is an unethical
means to achieving, at least in theory, a laudable end.

According to them, negating Net neutrality, in a bid to

purportedly achieve greater access to the Internet in the
immediate future, could prove profoundly injurious in the long
run.

Conclusion:
It is therefore, absolutely necessary that any debate that on the
issue ought to include the tension between the two apparently
conflicting values the importance of maintaining a neutral
Internet and the need to ensure a greater access to the web

across the country. Facebooks CEO Zuckerberg argues that these

two values are not fundamentally opposed to each other, but can
and must coexist. He is possibly correct at a theoretical level.