Internet Governance Main

Source: Krishna Kant: "Coronavirus shutdown puts Rs 15-trillion debt at risk, to impact finances", BS, March 30, 2020:

For the longer term, a fundamental reconsideration for allocating resources is needed through coherent, orchestrated policy planning and support. What the government can do as a primary responsibility, besides ensuring law and order and security, is to develop our inadequate and unreliable infrastructure, including facilities and services that enable efficient production clusters, their integrated functioning, and skilling. For instance, Apple’s recent decision against moving iPhone production from China to India was reportedly because similar large facilities (factories of 250,000) are not feasible here, and second, our logistics are inadequate. Such considerations should be factored into our planning, although Apple may well have to revisit the very sustainability of the concept of outsize facilities that require the sort of repressive conditions prevailing in China. However, we need not aim for building unsustainable mega-factories. Instead, a more practical approach may be to plan for building agglomerations of smaller, sustainable units, that can aggregate their activity and output effectively and efficiently. Such developments could form the basis of numerous viable clusters, and where possible, capitalise on existing incipient clusters of activities. Such infrastructure needs to be extended to the countryside for agriculture and allied activities as well, so that productivity increases with a change from rain-fed, extensive cultivation to intensive practices, with more controlled conditions.

The automotive industry, the largest employer in manufacturing, provides an example for other sectors. It was a success story like telecom until recently, but is now floundering, partly because of inappropriate policies, despite its systematic efforts at incorporating collaborative planning and working with the government. It has achieved the remarkable transformation of moving from BS-IV to BS-VI emission regulations in just three years, upgrading by two levels with an investment of Rs 70,000 crore, whereas European companies have taken five to six years to upgrade by one level. This has meant that there was no time for local sourcing, and therefore heavy reliance on global suppliers, including China. While the collaborative planning model adopted by the industry provides a model for other sectors, the question here is, what now. In a sense, it was not just the radical change in market demand with the advent of ridesharing and e-vehicles, but also the government’s approach to policies and taxation that aggravated its difficulties.

This post was first published in the Business Standard, on March 5, 2020.

The government apparently cannot resolve the problems in telecommunications. Why? Because the authorities are trying to balance the Supreme Court order on Adjusted Gross Revenue  (AGR), with keeping the telecom sector healthy, while safeguarding consumer interest. These irreconcilable differences have arisen because both the United Progressive Alliance and the National Democratic Alliance governments prosecuted unreasonable claims for 15 years, despite adverse rulings! This imagined “impossible trinity” is an entirely self-created conflation.
If only the authorities focused on what they can do for India’s real needs instead of tilting at windmills, we’d fare better. Now, we are close to a collapse in communications that would impede many sectors, compound the problem of non-performing assets (NPAs), demoralise bankers, increase unemployment, and reduce investment, adding to our economic and social problems.
Is resolving the telecom crisis central to the public interest? Yes, because people need good infrastructure to use time, money, material, and mindshare effectively and efficiently, with minimal degradation of their environment, whether for productive purposes or for leisure. Systems that deliver water, sanitation, energy, transport and communications support all these activities. Nothing matches the transformation brought about by communications in India from 2004 to 2011 in our complex socio-economic terrain and demography. Its potential is still vast, limited only by our imagination and capacity for convergent action. Yet, the government’s dysfunctional approach to communications is in stark contrast to the constructive approach to make rail operations viable for private operators.
India’s interests are best served if people get the services they need for productivity and wellbeing with ease, at reasonable prices. This is why it is important for government and people to understand and work towards establishing good infrastructure.

What the Government Can Do

An absolute prerequisite is for all branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial), the press and media, and society, to recognise that all of us must strive together to conceptualise and achieve good infrastructure. It is not “somebody else’s job”, and certainly not just the Department of Telecommunications’ (DoT’s). The latter cannot do it alone, or even take the lead, because the steps required far exceed its ambit.

Act Quickly

These actions are needed immediately:

First, annul the AGR demand using whatever legal means are available. For instance, the operators could file an appeal, and the government could settle out of court, renouncing the suit, accepting the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) ruling of 2015 on AGR.

Second, issue an appropriate ordinance that rescinds all extended claims. Follow up with the requisite legislation, working across political lines for consensus in the national interest.

Third, take action to organise and deliver communications services effectively and efficiently to as many people as possible. The following steps will help build and maintain more extensive networks with good services, reasonable prices, and more government revenues.

Enable Spectrum Usage on Feasible Terms

Wireless regulations

It is infeasible for fibre or cable to reach most people in India, compared with wireless alternatives. Realistically, the extension of connectivity beyond the nearest fibre termination point is through wireless middle-mile connections, and Wi-Fi for most last-mile links. The technology is available, and administrative decisions together with appropriate legislation can enable the use of spectrum immediately in 60GHz, 70-80GHz, and below 700MHz bands to be used by authorised operators for wireless connectivity. The first two bands are useful for high-capacity short and medium distance hops, while the third is for up to 10 km hops. The DoT can follow its own precedent set in October 2018 for 5GHz for Wi-Fi, i.e., use the US Federal Communications Commission regulations as a model.1 The one change needed is an adaptation to our circumstances that restricts their use to authorised operators for the middle-mile instead of open access, because of the spectrum payments made by operators. Policies in the public interest allowing spectrum use without auctions do not contravene Supreme Court orders.

Policies: Revenue sharing for spectrum

A second requirement is for all licensed spectrum to be paid for as a share of revenues based on usage as for licence fees, in lieu of auction payments. Legislation to this effect can ensure that spectrum for communications is either paid through revenue sharing for actual use, or is open access for all Wi-Fi bands. The restricted middle-mile use mentioned above can be charged at minimal administrative costs for management through geo-location databases to avoid interference. In the past, revenue-sharing has earned much more than up-front fees in India, and rejuvenated communications.2 There are two additional reasons for revenue sharing. One is the need to manufacture a significant proportion of equipment with Indian IPR or value-added, to not have to rely as much as we do on imports. This is critical for achieving a better balance-of-payments, and for strategic considerations. The second is to enable local talent to design and develop solutions for devices for local as well as global markets, which is denied because it is virtually impossible for them to access spectrum, no matter what the stated policies might claim.

Policies and Organisation for Infrastructure Sharing

Further, the government needs to actively facilitate shared infrastructure with policies and legislation. One way is through consortiums for network development and management, charging for usage by authorised operators. At least two consortiums that provide access for a fee, with government’s minority participation in both for security and the public interest, can ensure competition for quality and pricing. Authorised service providers could pay according to usage.
Press reports of a consortium approach to 5G where operators pay as before and the government “contributes” spectrum reflect seriously flawed thinking.3 Such extractive payments with no funds left for network development and service provision only support an illusion that genuine efforts are being made to the ill-informed, who simultaneously rejoice in the idea of free services while acclaiming high government charges (the two are obviously not compatible).
Instead of tilting at windmills that do not serve people’s needs while beggaring their prospects, commitment to our collective interests requires implementing what can be done with competence and integrity.

Shyam (no space) Ponappa at gmail dot com
1. https://dot.gov.in/sites/default/files/2018_10_29%20DCC.pdf
2. http://organizing-india.blogspot.in/2016/04/ breakthroughs- needed-for-digital-india.html
3. https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-considering-spv-with-5g-sweetener-as-solution-to-telecom-crisis-120012300302_1.html

In our fourth case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to examine the use of Digital ID in Kenya.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

In our third case-study, we use our Evaluation Framework for Digital ID to examine the use of Digital ID in the healthcare sector.

Read the case-study or download as PDF.

This is the first in a series of case studies, using our recently-published Evaluation Framework for Digital ID. It looks at the use of digital identity programmes for the purpose of verification, often using the process of deduplication.

As governments across the globe implement new and foundational digital identification systems (Digital ID), or modernize existing ID programs, there is an urgent need for more research and discussion about appropriate uses of Digital ID systems. This significant momentum for creating Digital ID has been accompanied with concerns about privacy, surveillance and exclusion harms of state-issued Digital IDs in several parts of the world, resulting in campaigns and litigations in countries, such as UK, India, Kenya, and Jamaica. Given the sweeping range of considerations required to evaluate Digital ID projects, it is necessary to formulate evaluation frameworks that can be used for this purpose.

This work began with the question of what the appropriate uses of Digital ID can be, but through the research process, it became clear that the question of use cannot be divorced from the fundamental attributes of Digital ID systems and their governance structures. This framework provides tests, which can be used to evaluate the governance of Digital ID across jurisdictions, as well as determine whether a particular use of Digital ID is legitimate. Through three kinds of checks — Rule of Law tests, Rights based tests, and Risks based tests — this scheme is a ready guide for evaluation of Digital ID.

View the framework or download as PDF.

Our note on the comparison of the Personal Data Protection Bill with the General Data Protection Regulation an the California Consumer Protection Act can be downloaded as a PDF here

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), replacing the 1995 EU Data Protection Directive came into effect in May 2018. It harmonises the data protection regulations across the European Union. In 2018, California passed the Consumer Protection Act (CCPA), to enhance the privacy protection of residents of California. The CCPA came into effect from January 1, 2020, however, the California Attorney General has not begun enforcing the law as yet. The Attorney General will be allowed to take action six months after the rules are finalised, or on July 1, 2020, whichever is earlier 

While the PDP Bill incorporates several concepts of the CCPA and the GDPR, there are also significant areas of divergence. We have prepared the following charts to compare the PDP Bill with the GDPR and the CCPA on the following points: (i) Jurisdiction and scope (ii) Rights of the Data Principal; (iii) Obligations of the Data Fiduciaries; (iv) Exemptions; (v) Data Protection Authority; and (vi) Breach of Personal Data. It is not a comprehensive list of all requirements under the three regulations.

The charts are based on the comparative charts prepared by the Future of Privacy Forum.

Our note on the divergence between the General Data Protection Regulation and the Personal Data Protection Bill can be downloaded as a PDF here.

The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), replacing the 1995 EU Data Protection Directive came into effect in May 2018. It harmonises the data protection regulations across the European Union. In India, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had constituted a Committee of Experts (chaired by Justice Srikrishna) to frame recommendations for a data protection framework in India. The Committee submitted its report and a draft Personal Data Protection Bill in July 2018 (2018 Bill). Public comments were sought on the bill till October 2018. The Central Government revised the Bill and introduced the revised version of the Personal Data Protection Bill (PDP Bill) on December 11, 2019 in the Lok Sabha.

The PDP Bill has incorporated certain aspects of the GDPR, such as requirements for notice to be given to the data principal, consent for processing of data, establishment of a data protection authority, etc. However, there are some differences and in this note we have highlighted the areas of divergence between the two. It only includes provisions which are common to the GDPR and the PDP Bill. It does not include the provisions on (i) Appellate Tribunal, (ii) Finance, Account and Audit; and (iii) Non- Personal Data.