What is Net Neutrality?

Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in

control of what content they view and what applications they use
on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this
neutrality principle since its earliest days. Indeed, it is this
neutrality that has allowed many companies to launch, grow, and
innovate. Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to
the Internet.
The view for people fighting for net neutrality is that the
broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market
power to discriminate against competing applications or content.
Broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market
power to control activity online. Today, the neutrality of the
Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers in the USA want
Congress's permission to determine what content gets through
first and fastest. Any reform occurred in the USA would ripple
through to the rest of the world. Put simply, this could
fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet.
The Network providers however argue that in order for the
Internet to remain an innovative and safer environment these
reforms are needed. Due to the emergence of video streaming
and online gaming throughout the last few years the network at
current is pushed to provide the bandwidth needed. These
reforms the Network providers say would create a faster
environment which will be easier to monitor thus making it safer.

Why should I bother or what will happen if there is

no net neutrality?
To put it out straight, if there is no net neutrality, the Internet
wont function as weve known it too. It will mean Internet Service
Providers (ISP) will be able to charge companies like YouTube or
Netflix as they consume more bandwidth, and eventually the load
of the extra sum will be pushed to the consumers. Similarly, ISPs
can then create slow as well as fast Internet lanes, which will

mean all websites cannot be accessed at the same speed and one
can do so only on paying an additional sum. For instance,
currently, you have a standard data package and access all the
content at the same speed, irrespective of whether its an
international website or desi. Similarly, ISPs can also charge extra
for the free calls you make using services like WhatsApp, Skype
and others, and eventually the load of additional payable sum by
the OTT players will be pushed onto consumers.
Net Neutrality is extremely important for small business owners,
startups and entrepreneurs, who can simply launch their
businesses online, advertise the products and sell them openly,
without any discrimination. It is essential for innovation and
creating job opportunities. Big companies like Google, Twitter and
several others are born out of net neutrality. With increasing
Internet penetration in India and given that we are becoming a
breeding ground for startups and entrepreneurs, the lack of net
neutrality should worry us greatly. Besides, it is very important for
freedom of speech, so that one can voice their opinion without the
fear of being blocked or banned.

How activists have been fighting for it in the west?

Net neutrality isnt something new and many activists have been
battling to achieve it in the west.
In 2010, FCC had passed an order to prevent broadband Internet
service providers from blocking or meddling with the traffic on the
Web. Known as the Open Internet Order, it ensured the Internet
remained a level playing field for all.
However, in 2014, the court said the FCC lacked the authority to
do so and enforce rules. This means, telecom companies who
were earlier forced to follow the rules pf net neutrality started
adopting unruly ways. This also paved way for ISPs to monitor
data on their networks and also allowing governments to ban or
block data. Besides banning or blocking data, we also jad the high
profile Netflix-Comcast tussle.

Recently, FCC has approved net neutrality rules that

prevent Internet providers such as Comcast and Verizon from
slowing or blocking Web traffic or from creating Internet fast lanes
that content providers such as Netflix must pay for. European
Union member states have also been striving for net neutrality.
No more a thing of the west Net neutrality in India
Taking the recent events into account, its time net neutrality is
imposed in India too.
Since the past couple of years, the instances of Internet
censorship in India have increased manifold. In 2011, India
adopted the new IT Rules 2011 that supplemented the IT Act
2000. These rules made it mandatory for Internet intermediaries
to remove objectionable content within 36 hours of receiving
complaint. But the terms included were vague and open to
interpretations. These rules received sharp criticism, but they
have prevailed. In 2011, government also drew flak as it asked
major sites like Google, Facebook and Yahoo to pre-screen
content and remove any objectionable, defamatory content from
going live.Government requests for banning content has also
been on rise over the past couple of years.
On the other hand, with the increasing popularity of instant
messaging apps like WhatsApp, Viber and others, telcos had
started making noise against the accelerated adoption of these
services. Throughout last year, theyve have been quite vocal
about their dislike for over-the-top (OTT) services, who have been
cannibalizing their main revenue streams calls and SMSes.
There was buzz around a fee being imposed on popular OTT
services, but the matter fizzled out soon after TRAI rejected
telcos proposal to do so. In a bid to make up for the losing
revenue, Airtel decided to play evil Santa on Christmas 2014 and
announced an extra charge on making VoIP calls. The Twitterati
had gone all out condeming Airtel for the act, and the service
provider had to soon retract its decision. Net neutrality got yet
another blow in India with the recent announcements from
Reliance and Airtel.

In India, Facebook has teamed up with Reliance Communications

in an effort to bring Internet.org to smartphone as well as feature
phone users. But at the Mobile World Congress, telecom service
providers such as Vodafone, Airtel and Telenor have made
their discomfort clear when it comes to offering free Internet
services over expensive telecom networks.
In order to compete with Reliance, Airtel announced Zero
marketing platform allowing customers to access apps of
participating app developers at zero data charges. Now, you may
be wondering what is wrong if someone wants to offer free
Internet? Free internet sounds tempting, but you need to be
aware that you are only getting free access to services/apps
which have struck a deal with the telcos. App developers and
services flush with funds will not find it an issue to pay telcos for
data charges. But this can leave app developers, specially start
ups, who cannot afford Airtel or Reliances data rates at a definite
disadvantage.
In India, the concept of net neutrality doesnt exist legally.
However, ISPs try to moderately not violate any laws. Theyve
approached Trai for the losing revenues and are awaiting Trais

decision on regulation IM app by OTT players. Most decisions here

are made by DoT and Trai. However, it would be a good move to
get things legally on paper, while Internet access in India is still at
its infancy.

Net Neutrality Gets Thumbs-Up From Indians, 81%

Vote Against Free Basics By Facebook In Survey:
It also showed that 78 percent of the participants wanted the
government to provide some kind of free conditional internet
access which covers essential citizen services, information, news,
emergency alerts, education, etc.
If the survey results are anything to go by, India may have won
the battle to keep the internet neutral.
However, TRAI which is the final authority on the matter is yet to
release the number of e-mails it received supporting or opposing
Free Basics. Thursday was the last day for the public to give their
feedback to the telecom regulator on whether to allow Free Basics
in India.
Facebook had been running an aggressive ad campaign across
platforms seeking support for its initiative, which it claims will
provide internet to millions of Indians.

Literature
Anderson, Steve. (2009). Net Neutrality: The View from Canada.
In Media Development, 56(1), 8-11. Retrieved November 27,

2010, from Communication & Mass Media Complete database.

Anderson presents net neutrality as a design to maintain a level
playing field for online innovation and communication. He
explains the past telecommunication policy rules called common
carriage, which provided the foundational basis for the current
principles of net neutrality. According to these common carriage
rules, telecommunication networks must provide access to
communication infrastructure on a neutral basis, and when
applied to the Internet, mandates that ISPs provide a neutral
network for people and organizations to communicate and publish
media. He discusses the current situation in which ISPs in North
America already have blocked or slowed access to websites and
content (Comcast), limited bandwidth for applications (Comcast),
and have raised the prospect of charging extra fees for access to
an exclusive Internet fast lane (AT&T). Anderson points out that
this battle for the Internet is between a handful of big
telecommunication companies and online innovation, free speech,
small business, independent media, artists, and civil society.

Bollman, Melissa. (2010). Net Neutrality, Google, and Internet

Ethics. In The Humanist, 70(6), 6-7. Retrieved November 13,
2010, from ProQuest. Bollman discusses the conditions of net
neutrality while considering the implications of a joint legal
framework released by Google and Verizon this past summer,
2010, intended for the consideration of those Internet policy
makers that would grant ISPs greater control over the way
consumers could access content in the digital world. She explains
that its obvious why Verizon, as an ISP, would support this
framework in opposition to net neutrality, but that Googles
participation comes as a surprise because up until this point they
have stood in support of an open Internet. Bollman argues that
this just goes to show that Google, for all its forward thinking

ideas and great work environment, is still just a corporation doing

what it can to get ahead.

Hudson, David L. Jr. (2009). Hate Speech Online. From the First
Amendment Center. He notes that currently hate speech receives
protection under the First Amendment until it crosses a subjective
line into one or both of two unprotected categories; incitement to
imminent lawless action, and/or true threats. Concerning the issue
of net neutrality, Hudson appears to be in its favor, arguing that
the First Amendment is what distinguishes the United States from
other countries, many of which criminalize hate speech.
Jordan, Scott. (2009). Implications of Internet Architecture upon
Net Neutrality. In the ACM Transactions on Internet Technology.
He develops a net neutrality policy founded on a segmentation of
Internet services into infrastructure services and application
services, based on the Internets layered architecture. This policy
restricts an ISPs ability to engage in anticompetitive behavior
while simultaneously ensuring that it can use desirable forms of
network management.

Karlekar, Karin Deutsch and Cook, Sarah G. (2009). Freedom on

the Net: A Global Assessment of Internet and Digital Media. Their
study evaluates the level of Internet and mobile-phone freedom
experienced by average users and activists in a sample of 15
countries across 6 regions, covering the calendar years 2007 and
2008.
No Author. (2010). Internet Censorship in China. In the New York
Times article discusses what censorship and regulation of the
Internet might look like if it ever came to the United States by
focusing on China where government censors began a campaign,
ostensibly against Internet pornography and other forms of

deviance that eventually resulted in the shutting down of more

than 1,900 Web sites and 250 blogs -- not only overtly
pornographic sites, but also online discussion forums, instantmessage groups and even cell phone text messages in which
political and other sensitive issues were broached.

Singer, Hal J. and Litan, Robert E. (2007). Unintended

Consequences of Net Neutrality Regulation. In the Journal on
Telecommunications and High Technology Law. Retrieved
November 14, 2010, from http://ssrn.com/abstract=942043. The
authors examine one particular aspect of the net neutrality
proposals: nondiscrimination requirements relating to the
provision of network quality of service (QoS) to content providers.

Smith, Aaron and Rainie, Lee. (2008). The Internet and the 2008
Election. In The Pew Internet and American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://pewInternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Internetand-the-2008-Election/01-Summary-of-Findings.aspx. The authors
discuss the new survey results which found that 63% of Internet
usersrepresenting 46% of all adultsare going online or using
email or text messaging to take part in the political conversation
and get news or information about the campaigns. Overall, they
concluded that people have mixed views about the Internets
influence on politics.